M/s Munshi Ram Walaiti Ram, Manimajra V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 556/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8278 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Peak credit; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 133A; 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACOCUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 556 & 557 /CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S MUNSHI RAM WALAITI RAM, VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, SCO 854, NAC,MANIMAJRA CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AAFFM7631J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. NEERAJ JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 15.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.03.2017 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM THE ABOVE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-3, GURGAON, DATED 22.2.20 16, CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. IT WAS COMMON GROUND BETWEEN BOTH THE PARTIES T HAT THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE CASES WAS COMMON AND ID ENTICAL, THEREFORE BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF A COMMON ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE SHALL BE DEALING WIT H THE FACTS IN ITA NO.556/CHD/2016. ITA NO.556/CHD/2016 A.Y 2007-08 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS RAISED F OLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 2 1 THAT THE LD. CIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVIDED PROPER OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING WHICH IS AGAINST THE NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) BE QUASHED. 2 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY UNDER EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) O F THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 18,39,180/-. 4. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT A SEAR CH U/S 132(1) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED ON 16.01.2009 AT THE RE SIDENCE AND OFFICE PREMISES OF THE INDIVIDUALS AND GROUP CONCERNS OF M/S A.P. S HRESTH (KANGAN) GROUP OF CASES BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, CHANDIGARH. A SURV EY OPERATION U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. KANGAN JEWELLERY SHOP, SCO 852, NAC, MANIMAJRA, CHANDIGARH . DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI SANDEEP BANSAL, PAR TNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM DOCUMENT A-3 WAS SEIZED. THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS A LO OSE BUNCH OF PAPERS CONTAINING DETAILS OF PURCHASES, SALES AND OTHER EX PENSES / RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DIFFERENT PERIODS. SIMILARLY, DOCUMENT S A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8 & A-9, SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI SANDEEP BANS AL CONTAINED DETAILS OF PURCHASES / SALES AND OTHER EXPENDITURE / RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DIFFERENT PERIODS. IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH, SHRI SANDEEP BANSAL ATTRIBUTED THE SAID DOCUMENTS AS BELONGING T O THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND STATED THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE RECONCILABLE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RECO NCILE THE ENTRIES IN THE SAID DOCUMENTS WITH THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, ON AC COUNT OF WHICH THE PEAK CREDIT OF THESE ENTRIES, WHICH WORKED OUT AT RS. 54 ,63,982/-, WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THUS, AS SESSMENT U/S 153A(1)(B) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 29.12.2010, AFTER MAKING T HE AFORESAID ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE ALSO INITIATED. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS I SSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. DURING 3 THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE REQ UESTED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BE KEPT IN ABEYANCE TILL THE DISPOSAL O F THE QUANTUM APPEAL BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE QUANTUM APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY TH E CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 12.12.2012 WHEREIN THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 O F THE ACT WAS REDUCED TO RS. 29,34,872/-. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BUT THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO FILE ANY SPECIFIC REPLIES ON THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER LEVI ED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION 5A OF THE ACT THERETO AND CALCULAT ED THE SAME AS FOLLOWS:- 5. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS GIVEN ABOVE AND THE JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED ABOVE, I AM SATISFIED THAT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION 5A THER ETO OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IS LEVIABLE ON THIS ISS UE. THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY TO BE LEVIED IN THIS CASE IS CALCULATED BELOW:- CONCEALED INCOME RS. 29,34,872/- TAX ON CONCEALED INCOME RS. 9,87,878/- TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED RS. 9,87,878/- PENALTY IMPOSED RS. 9,87,872/- THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO PAY A SUM FOR R S. 18,39,180/- BY WAY OF PENALTY IN TERMS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION 5A THEREOF THE I.T. ACT 1961, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO 100 PER CENT OF TAX SO UGHT TO BE EVADED. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY BUT RESTRICTED THE QUANT UM OF PENALTY LEVIED TO RS.9,87,872/-. AGGRIEVED BY SAME THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW COME UP IN A PPEAL BEFORE US. 4 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION MADE AND UP HELD IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS BY THE LD.CIT(A) AMOUNTING TO RS. 29,34,872/- U/S 6 8 OF THE ACT, ON WHICH PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) HAD BEEN LEVIED, HAD BEEN RES TORED TO THE AO FOR DECIDING AFRESH ,BY THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 43/CH D/2013 AND ITA NO. 222/CHD/2013 DATED 29.4.2016. COPY OF THE ORDER WAS PLACED ON RECORD. LD. COUNSEL, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT SINCE THE BASIS OF LEVY OF PENALTY NO LONGER EXISTED, THE PENALTY LEVIED OUGHT TO THE DELETED. 6. THE LD. DR CONCEDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE HAD B EEN RESTORED TO THE AO, BY THE ITAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE ITAT PASSED IN QUANTU M PROCEEDINGS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IN ITA NO. 43/CHD/2013 AND IN ITA NO. 222/CHD/2013. THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 43/CHD/2013, I S THE ASSESSEES APPEAL PERTAINING TO A.Y 2007-08 I.E THE IMPUGNED A.Y,WHER EIN THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 25,29,110/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK CR EDIT, WHILE THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 222/CHD/2013 IS THE REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST TH E RESTRICTION OF ADDITION OF RS. 54,63,982/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 TO RS. 25,29,110/-. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID STATED AP PEALS, WE FIND THAT THE ITAT HAS SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ON THE IMP UGNED ISSUE REMANDING IT TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAM E AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE ITAT AT PARA 27 O F THE ORDER ARE AS UNDER:- 27. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND H AVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 54,6 3,982/- ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS A-3 TO A-9 (DIARIES) SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BY CALCULATING THE PEAK CREDIT OF EACH. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ALL THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS OF SUCH DOCUMENTS ARE RECONCI LABLE. 5 ALTERNATIVELY SHRI NEERAJ JAIN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF, THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS ARE TO BE TREATED OUT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IN SUCH CASE, THE ADDITION OF ONLY NET INCOME CAN BE MADE I.E. WHATEVER AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED IS TO BE REDUCED BY THE TOTAL AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN PAID / INCURRED WHICH AS PER DOCUMENTS A-3 TO A-09. SHRI NEERAJ JAIN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POIN TED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE SEPARATE ADDITI ONS BY CALCULATING THE PEAK CREDIT FOR DIFFERENT BLOCK PER IOD FOR SINGLE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. ACCORDING TO LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, EVEN THEN IF ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK IS TO BE MADE IN SUCH CASE, ONLY ONE PEAK IS TO BE CAL CULATED FOR WHOLE OF THE PERIOD MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENTS WHIC H STARTED FORM 25.5.2006 AND ENDS ON 31.3.2007 I.E. PERIOD RE LEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHICH STARTS FROM THE FIRST DATE I.E. 25.5.2006 AND END ON THE DATE TILL WHICH SUCH DOCUM ENT HAS BEEN PREPARED I.E. 31.3.2007. ACCORDING TO LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE SEQUENCE WISE PERIODICITY OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IS AS UNDER:- ANNEXURE PERIOD ADDITION MADE (IN RS. ) A: 7 25.05.2006 03.06.2006 TO 4,14,332/ - A: 6 04.06.2006 14.07.2006 TO 15,66,11 0/- A: 3 /P-II 14.07.2006 31.08.2006 TO 5,26,000/ - A: 5 01.09.2006 21.10.2006 TO 5,97,300/ - A:3/P:III 21.10.2006 30.11. 2006 TO 6,22,000/ - A: 8 01.12.2006 20.01.2007 TO 3,85,200/ - A:3 / P:IV 20.01.2007 TO 31.01.2007 3,41,000/ - A;$ 01.02.2007 TO 31.03.2007 2,73,250/ - 6 ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ABOV E PERIOD MAY BE TAKEN AS ONE PERIOD AND SHOULD NOT BE BROKEN INTO MONTHS / QUARTERS / YEARS OR ANY OTHER PERIOD. ACC ORDING TO HIM, THE ABOVE PERIOD IS IN CONTINUITY AND, THEREFO RE, PERIOD IN THE CONSIDERATION SHOULD NOT BE BROKEN INTO MONT HS / QUARTERS ETC. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF SHRI NEERAJ JAIN, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS O F THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SA ME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. SHRI NE ERAJ JAIN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIO N OF RS. 5,37,900/- HAS BEEN MADE U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK CREDIT OF ANNEXURE-3 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THE BENEFIT OF THE SAID ADDITION MAY BE GIVEN IN THIS YEAR. WE REMAND THIS ISSUE ALSO TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR RECONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGL Y, GROUND NO.4 OF THE ITA NO. 43/CHD/2013 AND GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 222/CHD/2013 ARE ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. SINCE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, THE ADDITION NO LONGER REMAINS IN EXISTENCE AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO CAUSE OR BASIS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. THE PENALTY LEVIED IS THEREFORE, DELETED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLO WED. ITA NO. 557/CHD/2016 9. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT APPEA L ARE SIMILAR TO THAT IN ITA NO. 556/CHD/2016, DEALT WITH ABOVE BY US. PENA LTY IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS LEVIED ON ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF RS. 7,38,700/- BE ING THE PEAK CREDIT RELATING TO UNEXPLAINED AND UN-RECONCILED ENTRIES MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING SEARCH OPERATION AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI SA NDEEP BANSAL, PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, AND ON THE ADDITION MADE U/S 69C AMO UNTING TO RS. 1,20,000/- ON 7 ACCOUNT OF UN-RECONCILED AND UNEXPLAINED ENTRIES IN THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM DURING SEARCH. BOTH THE ISSUES, WE FIND, TRAVELLED UP TO THE ITAT, WHO VIDE THEIR ORDER IN ITA NO. 44/CHD/2013 DATED 29.4.2016 RESTORED THE MATTER REL ATING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 7,38,700/- BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION WHILE THE ADDITION MADE U/S 69C OF RS. 1,20,000/- W AS DELETED. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE ITAT AT PARA 33 TO 37 OF THE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED HEREWITH:- 33. GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 7,38,700/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK OF ANNEXURE A-9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI SANDEEP B ANSAL, PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM A DOCUMENT ANNEXURE A- 9 WAS SEIZED. THIS IS A NOTE PAD WHICH CONTAINED DETAILS OF PURCHASES, SALES AND OTHER EXPENSES / RECEIPTS OF T HE ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE JEWELLERY W.E.F. 1.4.2007 TO 14.7.2 007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REPRODUCED THE CONTENTS OF THESE DOCUMENTS IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. DESPITE PROVIDI NG SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO RECONCILE THESE ENTRIES WITH REGULAR BOOKS. THEREFO RE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY PEAK CREDIT OF THESE ENTRIES SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY E XPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THESE TRANSACTIONS WE RE TREATED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE PEAK CREDIT OF TH ESE ENTRIES HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS. 7,38,700/- BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND THE SAME WAS ADDED U/S 68 OF THE ACT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 34. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION FO R THE REASONS STATED IN PARA 6.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, W HICH READS AS UNDER:- 6.1 I FIND THAT THE CONTENT OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO WORK OUT THE PEAK CREDIT IT IS THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE TRANSACTION DATES ARE CONTINUOUS FROM 12.02.200 6 AND THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED PERTAINING TO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEAR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR 8 WORKING OUT ONE SINGLE PEAK CREDIT THIS CONTENTION WAS FOUND IN ACCURATE AND CONSEQUENTLY WHERE EVER THERE WAS A BREAK IN THE TRANSACTION DATES AND WHERE THE OPENING AND DOSING BALANCES DID NOT TALLY, PEAK CRE DITS HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT SEPARATELY AS EVIDENT FROM THE APPELLATE ORDERS FOR AY 2007-08 AND 2006- 07. THOUG H IT IS ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT ANNEXURE A-9 IS LI NKED TO ANNEXURE A-4 THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT A S THE OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCES DIFFER. THEREFORE THIS DOCUMENT IS TAKEN TO BE AN INDEPENDENT TRANSACTION. ACCORDINGLY THE PEAK CREDIT WORKED OUT IN RESPECT O F THIS DOCUMENT WHICH IS FROM 01.04.2007 TO 14.07.200 7 OF RS. 7,38,700/- WHICH WAS ADDED BACK BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS GROUND. 35. AFTER HEARING THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. AT THIS STAGE ALSO, THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. THE ENTRIES IN QUESTION HAVE NOT BEEN RECONCILED WITH BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AT THIS STAGE ALSO. IN OUR OPINION, THE CIT(A) WAS JUS TIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, HENCE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AND R EJECT THE SAME. BEFORE PARTING WITH THIS CASE, IT MAY BE REL EVANT TO OBSERVE HERE THAT SHRI NEAERAJ JAIN, LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE BENEFIT OF ADDITION MADE O N ACCOUNT OF PEAK CREDIT U/S 68 IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YE AR MAY BE GIVEN. WE HAVE RESTORED A SIMILAR ISSUE TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFO RDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. IN THE ABOVE TERMS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF. 36. GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION O F RS. 1,20,000/- U/S 69C ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPEND ITURE. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AT THE BUSINE SS PREMISES OF SHRI SANDEEP BANSAL, PARTNER OF THE FIR M, A DOCUMENT ANNEXURE A-2 WAS IMPOUNDED. PAGE 33 OF THE 9 ANNEXURE A-2 CONTAINED THE ACCOUNT OF SAKSHI JEWEL LERS OF DATED 15/2. HOWEVER, THE YEAR IS NOT MENTIONED. 37. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SHRI NEERA J JAIN LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION, PARTICULA RLY WHEN YEAR IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT MARKED ANNEXU RE A-2. HE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT PE RTAIN TO SEARCH PERIOD. IT IS STATED THAT THE DOCUMENT IS VE RY OLD AND WAS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT RELATING THE P ERIOD PRIOR TO PERIOD 2003 AND NO COGNIZANCE OF THE SAID DOCUMENT SHOULD BE TAKEN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS A FORCE IN THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF SHRI NE ERAJ JAIN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE DOCUMENT IN QUEST ION DOES NOT CONTAIN THE SPECIFIC DATE PARTICULARLY THE YEAR . THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 OR THE SEARCH P ERIOD. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO POINT OUT HERE THAT ASSESSING O FFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED ANY AUTHORIZED PERSON OF SAKSHI JEWELL ERS IN ORDER TO BRING THE TRUTH. IN OUR OPINION, THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) I S UNWARRANTED AND, ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 1,20,000/- MADE U/S 69C OF THE ACT. 10. SINCE THE ISSUES HAVE EITHER BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION OR DELETED, THE ADDITIO NS NO LONGER REMAINS IN EXISTENCE AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO CAUSE OR BASIS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. THE PENALTY LEVIED IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO THE DELET ED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 2 ND MARCH, 2017 RKK 10 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR