ITO, New Delhi V. Mr. Rahul Shokeen, New Delhi

ITA 5317/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65953 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRISILLA SINGCIT
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI F BENC H BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI , JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM ITA NO.5317/D/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 26(3),ROOM NO.314- D, VIKAS BHAWAN NEW DELHI V/S . MR. RAHUL SHOKEEN, 13, CHOUDHARY BANWARI LAL MARKET, SAINIK ENCLAVE II NEW DELHI [PAN/GIR : BBIPS 9796 M] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY MS. PRISILLA SINGCIT, DR DATE OF HEARING 01-11-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07-12-2012 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THIS APPEAL FILED ON 29.11.2011 BY THE REVENUE AGA INST AN ORDER DATED 16.09.2011 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XXIV, NEW DELHI, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1.ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` ` 24,81,000/- BEING UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961. 2.ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE C IT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS NOT CORRO BORATED OR EXAMINED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE, VIZ DETAILS OF WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK ACCO UNT, ADMITTED BY HIM AS PER PROVISIONS U/S 46A(3) OF THE I.T. ITA NO.5317/DEL./2011 2 RULES NOR ASKING FOR ANY CASH FLOW STATEMENTS AND COMMENTS ON THE SAME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4.SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REEXAMINE FRESH EV IDENCE IN A HOLISTIC MANNER. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THAT RIGHT TO ADD, DELETE, ALT ER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. AT THE OUTSET, NONE APPEARED BEFORE US ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE NOR SUBMITTED ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF ISSUE & FINDING S OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE BENCH PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING TH E LD. DR. 3. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF ` ` 1,29,400/- FILED ON 01.11.2007 BY THE ASSESSEE, ENG AGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RETAILING HEALTH EQUIPMENTS, AFTER BEING PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), W AS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, ISSUED O N 21.07.2008. NONE RESPOND TO THIS NOTICE. IN RESPONSE TO A SUBSEQUENT NOTICE DA TED 22.09.2008 ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ,MR. PAWAN KUMAR, CA AND AR ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ON 6.10.2008 AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT TO 6.1 .2009. NONE APPEARED ON THIS ADJOURNED DATE NOR SUBMITTED ANY APPLICATION F OR ADJOURNMENT . SUBSEQUENT NOTICE DATED 3.8.2009 & 12.10.2009 ISSUED U/S 143(2 ) OF THE ACT ALSO WENT UNRESPONDED. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 143(2)/142(1) OF THE ACT ALONGWITH A QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 9.11.09 WAS SERVED THROUGH AFF IXTURE BY THE INSPECTOR AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 26.11.2009 . NONE RESPONDED TO THIS NOTICE ALSO. IN THESE CIRCU MSTANCES, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND ADDED AN AMOU NT OF ` ` 24,95,431/- [24,81,000+14,431]ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN H DFC BANK LTD. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.5317/DEL./2011 3 4.. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER ADMITTING ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 AN D HAVING A REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, DELETED THE ADDITION AS UNDER:- 4.2 AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF ` `24,95,431/- BEING CASH DEPOSITED IN HDFC BANK, THE APPELLANT FI LED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962, SUBMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, WHICH HE COULD NOT PRODUCE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF TWO DEATHS IN HIS FAMILY, INCLUDING THAT OF HIS FATHER. DEATH CE RTIFICATES HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, REMAND REPORT WAS C ALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 1.3.2011, I N WHICH DIRECTIONS WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 250(4) TO C ARRY OUT ENQUIRIES REGARDING PURCHASE AND SALE OF HEALTH EQU IPMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT FROM AND TO THE PERSONS WHOSE NAME S AND ADDRESSES HAD BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT. ENQU IRIES WERE ALSO ORDERED TO BE CARRIED OUT FROM THE HDFC BANK W HERE CASH WAS DEPOSITED AND MONEY WAS WITHDRAWN. THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IS ADMITTED IN VIEW OF T HE CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED ABOVE. 4.3 THE REMAND REPORT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESS ING OFFICER VIDE LETTER 18.03.2011 IN WHICH THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT LARGE NUMBER OF PERSONS AS PER THE L IST GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT HAD ADMITTED FOR RECEIPT OF NOTICES U/S 1 33(6) OF THE ACT THAT THEY HAD PURCHASED OR SOLD HEALTH EQUIPMENT FR OM OR TO THE APPELLANT. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENT IONED IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT THE APPELLANT FILED HIS ITR FOR ` ` 1,29,400/- ON 1.11.2007 WHEREIN HE HAS MENTIONED THE NATURE OF HI S BUSINESS AS RETAILING OF HEALTH EQUIPMENTS. THE APPELLANT HA D SHOWN TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS OF ` ` 25,67,500/-, ON WHICH NET PROFIT OF ` ` 2,05,400/- WAS DISCLOSED AND AVAILABLE CASH BALANCE AS ON 31.3 .2007 WAS SHOWN AT ` ` 45,450/-. AS REGARDS THE VERIFICATION OF THE WITHD RAWALS MADE BY .THE APPELLANT THROUGH CHEQUES, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT LETTER DATED 4.3.2011 WAS SENT TO HD FC BANK SEEKING THE NATURE AND MODE OF WITHDRAWALS AND THAT THE DESIRED INFORMATION WAS AWAITED. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HI MSELF VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 9.3.2011 SUBMITTED A CERTIFICATE FROM HDFC BANK, THANA ROAD, NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI REGARDING CASH WIT HDRAWAL TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT FROM HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO.04381000020686 SINCE 1.12.2005 GIVING DE TAILS OF DATE-WISE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.5317/DEL./2011 4 4.4. IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND THE REM AND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS PROVED BEYON D DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN HEALTH EQUIPMENT AS CLAIMED BY HIM IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME . THE CASH DEPOSITED BY HIM IN HIS HDFC BANK ACCOUNT MENTIONED ABOVE, WAS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF SUCH SECOND HAND HEALTH EQU IPMENT. THEREFORE, THERE REMAINS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY A DDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. AC CORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ` `25,95,431/- IS HEREBY DELETED. THE APPELLANT AS PER HIS OWN ADMITTANCE H AS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME U/S 44AF OF THE ACT, WHICH HE IS ENTITLED TO DO AS PER LAW. 5. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO WHILE CONTENDING THAT THE LD. CIT(A) VIOLATED THE PROVIS IONS OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES,1962 WHILE CONSIDERING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY & AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN HEALTH EQUIPMENT AS CLAI MED BY HIM IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER ADMITTING ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE, DIRECTED THE AO TO UNDERTAKE ENQUIRIES REGARDING PURCHASE AND S ALE OF HEALTH EQUIPMENT AS ALSO FROM HDFC BANK, THE AO INFORMED THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 4.3.2011 THAT THE DESIRED INFORMATION FROM HDFC BA NK WAS STILL AWAITED. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE STRENGTH OF INFORMAT ION OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HDFC BANK, AS MENTIONED IN THEIR LETTER DATED 9.3.2011, DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT CASH DEPOSITED BY HIM I N HIS HDFC BANK ACCOUNT , WAS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF SUCH SECOND HAND HEALTH EQUIPMENT ,WITHOUT ALLOWING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO VERIFY THE SA ID INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE C LAIMED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ONLY AN AMOUNT OF ` 19,81,000/- WAS OUT OF RECEIPTS GENERATED ON SALE O F HEALTH EQUIPMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING TH E BREAK UP OF AMOUNT OF CASH OF ` 24,95,431/- DEPOSITED IN HDFC BANK OR AS TO HOW THE SAID AMOUNT WAS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF HEALTH EQUIPMENT, DELETED THE ENTI RE ADDITION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ITA NO.5317/DEL./2011 5 REVENUE HAVE NOW IN THEIR GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 IN THE APPEAL ,RAISED THE ISSUE OF VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A(3) OF THE IT R ULES ,1962. THE LD. CIT(A),DESPITE BEING AWARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN T HIS CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT, DID NOT ASSIGN ANY REASONS AS TO WH Y INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN LETTER DATED 9.3.2011 WAS NOT CONFR ONTED TO THE AO EVEN WHEN HE DIRECTED THE AO TO MAKE ENQUIRIES FROM HDFC BANK . IN NUTSHELL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE P ROCEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES,1962 . HERE WE MAY HAVE A LOOK AT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES 1962, WHICH READ AS UNDER: (1) THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER TH AN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY:-- (A) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFUSED TO ADMI T EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; OR (B) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER; OR (C) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVAN T TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL; OR (D) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO A DDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. (2) NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED UNDER SUB-RULE (1 ) UNLESS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE C OMMISSIONER (APPEALS) RECORDS IN WRITING THE REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION. (3)THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) OR, AS THE CA SE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HA S BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY (A) TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, OR (B) TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY WITN ESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT ITA NO.5317/DEL./2011 6 (4) NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS RULE SHALL AFFECT THE POWER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT, OR THE EXAMI NATION OF ANY WITNESS, TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL, OR FOR ANY OTH ER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE INCLUDING THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY (WHETH ER ON HIS OWN MOTION OR ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER) UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 251 OR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271..' 6.1 IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-R. (1)(B) & (C) OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962 IF THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFF ICIENT CAUSE . IN HAJI LAL MOHD. BIRI WORKS' CASE [2005] 275 ITR 496 (ALL), BY MAKING AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION ON RULE 46A OF THE RULES IN PARAGRAPH 10 AT PAGE 500 AND 501, IT WAS HELD THAT UNDER RULE 46A THE AUTHORITY IS NOT PERMI TTED TO ACT WHIMSICALLY WHILE EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION UNDER IT .IN THE CASE U NDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A),CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE AND ADMITTEDLY, THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. THE POW ERS OF THE CIT(A) IN TERMS OF RULE 46A TO ADMIT FRESH EVIDENCE, ENTAIL AN ELE MENT OF DISCRETION WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE EXERCISED IN A JUDICIOUS MANNER. THE POWERS OF THE CIT(A) TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ARE NOT ONLY IN SITUATION S WHERE THE EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES OWING TO LACK OF ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY BUT ALSO IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FRESH EVIDENCE WOULD E NABLE THE CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE. OF COURSE, THE POWER IS TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIOUSLY AND FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDE D. HERE WE MAY POINT OUT THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MANISH BUILD WELL (P.) LTD.,16 TAXMANN.COM27(DELHI) HELD THAT THAT THE CON DITIONS PRESCRIBED IN RULE 46A MUST BE SHOWN TO EXIST BEFORE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE IS ADMITTED AND EVERY PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT MENTIONED IN THE RULE HAS TO BE STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH SO THAT THE RULE IS MEANINGFULLY EXERCISED . ONCE THE ASSESSEE INVOKES RULE 46A AND PRAYS FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFO RE THE CIT (A), THEN THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN THE SAID RULE HAS TO BE SCR UPULOUSLY FOLLOWED. A DISTINCTION SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AND MAINTAINED BET WEEN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE INVOKES RULE 46A TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND A CASE WHERE THE CIT (A), WITHOUT BEING PROMPTE D BY THE ASSESSEE, WHILE ITA NO.5317/DEL./2011 7 DEALING WITH THE APPEAL, CONSIDERS IT FIT TO CAUSE OR MAKE A FURTHER ENQUIRY BY VIRTUE OF THE POWERS VESTED IN HIM UNDER SUB-SECTIO N (4) OF SECTION 250. IT IS ONLY WHEN HE EXERCISES HIS STATUTORY POWER SUO MOTU UN DER THE ABOVE SUB-SECTION THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 46A NEED NOT BE FOLLO WED. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHENEVER THE ASSESSEE WHO IS IN APPEAL BEFORE HIM I NVOKES RULE 46A, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE CIT (A) TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUI REMENTS OF THE RULE STRICTLY SO THAT THE RULE IS MEANINGFULLY EXERCISED AND NOT EXERCISED IN A ROUTINE OR CURSORY MANNER . THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT SUB-RULE (3) OF RU LE 46A INTERDICTS THE CIT (A) FROM TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE HIM UNLESS THE AO HAS HAD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE AND REBUT THE SAME. IN THE INSTANT CAS E, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) TO SHOW THAT TH E LD. CIT(A) UNDERTOOK INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES NOR CONFRONTED THE INFORMATIO N SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM IN LETTER DATED 9.3.2011 TO THE AO. THUS , THE END RESULT HAS BEEN THAT THE SAID INFORMATION WAS ADMITTED AND ACCEPTED AS G ENUINE WITHOUT THE AO FURNISHING HIS COMMENTS AND WITHOUT VERIFICATION. S INCE IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FOLLOW THE PR OCEDURE LAID DOWN IN RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES,1962 & PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTI CE , WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. DR AND THEREFORE, IN THE INT EREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, VACATE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE T HE ISSUES RAISED IN VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US TO HIS FILE, WITH THE D IRECTIONS TO FOLLOW THE MANDATE IN TERMS OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962 AS ALSO PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREAFTER, DISPOSE OF THE MATTER IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES, BRINGIN G OUT CLEARLY THE NEXUS BETWEEN CASH OF ` 24,95,431/- DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS HDFC B ANK ACCOUNT AND SALE PROCEEDS OF HEALTH EQUIPMENT. WITH THESE DIR ECTIONS, GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4 IN THE APPEAL ARE DISPOSED OF, AS INDICATED HEREINBEFO RE. AS A COROLLARY, GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THE APPEAL DOES NOT SURVIVE FOR OU R ADJUDICATION AT THIS STAGE. 7. NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED IN TERM OF RESIDUARY GROUND IN THE APPEAL, ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS A LSO DISMISSED. ITA NO.5317/DEL./2011 8 8. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE US. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED AS INDICATE D ABOVE BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . SD/- SD/- (U.B.S. BEDI) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. ASSESSEE 2. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD 26(3),ROOM NO.314-D, VIK AS BHAWAN NEW DELHI 3. CIT CONCERNED. 4. CIT(A)-XXIV, NEW DELHI 5. DR, ITAT, F BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT