DCIT, New Delhi V. Shri Vikrant Puri, New Delhi

ITA 608/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6725 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT MOHAN GOVIL
• Assessee Lawyers: V K AGARWAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Deemed dividend; Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 12AA; 147; 148; 56; 263; 154

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 142 & 5789/DEL/2013 A.Y. : 2008-09 SH. VIKRANT PURI, A-1/36, PANCHSEEL ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI 110 017 (PAN: AFYPP9110K) VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13 NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND ITA NO. 608/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13 ROOM NO. 332, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI VS. SH. VIKRANT PURI, A-1/36, PANCHSEEL ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI 110 017 (PAN: AFYPP9110K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. V.K. AGARWAL, AR DEPARTMENT BY : SH. AMIT MOHAN GOVIL, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 18-02-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 04-03-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM ASSESSEE HAS FILED TWO APPEALS AND REVENUE HAS FIL ED ONE APPEAL AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, NEW DELHI DATED 26.11.2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEA LS ARE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL, HENCE, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETH ER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 2 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL NO. 142/DEL/2013 (AY 2008-09) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED, ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,87,33,29/- OF THE LOAN FROM M/S ARLINGTON IMPEX PVT. LTD. AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT S IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND WITHOUT PROVING/ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING ON THIS ISSUE TH OUGH THE WHOLE OF THE LOAN HAS BEEN TREATED AS EXPLAINED. 2. A) THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 59.21,600/- OUT OF LOAN FROM SHRI D . K. GUPTA AND HIS AOP U/S 56(2)(VI) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE I 'AND WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING ON THIS ISSUE THOUGH THE WHOLE OF THE LOAN HAS BEEN-TREATED AS EXPLAINED. B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN CONSIDERING THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE AT THE END OF THE YEAR IN THE NAME OF SHRI D. K. GUPTA AND HIS AOP AT RS. 59,21,600/- AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL BALANCE OF RS. 15,00,000/- ONLY. 3. A) THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AS WEL L AS IN LAW CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,30,00,000/- OUT OF LOAN FROM SHRI PANKAJ KAPUR U/S 56(2)(VI) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS IN PROPER PERSPECTIV E AND WITHOUT / PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING ON THIS ISSUE THOUGH THE WHO LE OF THE LOAN/ HAS BEEN TREATED AS EXPLAINED. B) THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN CONSIDERING THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE AT THE END OF THE YEAR IN THE N AME OF SHRI PANKAJ KAPUR AT RS. 3,30,00,000/- AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL BALANCE BEING N IL. 4. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACT S AS WELL AS IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,00,000/- BEING LOAN FROM MS. TANISHA MOHA N U7S 56(2)(VI) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND WI THOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING ON THIS ISSUE THOUGH THE WHOLE OF THE LOAN HAS BEEN TREATED AS EXPLAINED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY AND WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ASSESSEES APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 142/DEL/2013(AY 200 8-09) 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,44,19,770/- ON 31.12.2008 WHICH WAS PROCESSED BY THE AO U/S. 142(1) OF THE I.T. ACT , 1961 (HEREAFTER REFERRED AS ACT). THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP F OR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 3 U/S. 143(2) DATED 12.1.2009 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED O N THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO ISS UED ON 25.8.2010. A DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED ON 13.9.2010. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FILED NECESSARY D OCUMENTS WHICH WAS EXAMINED BY THE AO AND LASTLY THE AO MADE THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 22,82,98,179/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN FROM FOLLOWING PERSONS:- M/S ARLINGTON IMPEX PVT. LTD. RS. 5,92,01,579/- SH. DK GUPTA RS. 9,12,96,600/- SH. PANKAJ KAPOOR RS. 7,30,00,000/- SH. TANISH MOHAN RS. 48,00,000/- TOTAL RS. 22,82,98,179/- 3.1 AO HAS ALSO MADE ADDITION ON A/C HOUSE HOLD EXP ENSES OF RS. 3 LACS. THEREAFTER, ASSESSED THE TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME AT RS . 24,30,17,952/- AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 21.12.201 0 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY DECLARED AS PER RETURN RS. 1,23,66,113/- INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED AS PER RETURN RS. 1,14,708/- INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES DECLARED AS PER RETURN RS. 20,49,914/- ADD: AS PER PARA-9 ABOVE RS. 22,82,98,179/- ADD: HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES RS. 3,00,000/- RS. 23,06,48,093/- ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 4 DISALLOWED GROSS TOTAL INCOME RS. 24,31,28,914/ - LESS: DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A RS. 1,10,962/- TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME RS. 24,30,17,952/- 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, A SSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDE R DATED 26.11.2012 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGAINST THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER ASSESSEE AND REV ENUE BOTH ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE A SSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION U/R 46A ON 28.4.2011 BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IN THE SAID APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PRODUCE SOME EVIDENCES FOR SUBSTANTIATING T HE CLAIM OF THE ASESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN A HURRY MANNER WHIC H IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED SOME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BY STATING THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE, BUT ONLY CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) H AS MENTIONED IN PARA 4 TO 6 AT PAGE NO. 4 TO 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. LD. CI T(A) HAS ASKED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO WHO VIDE REMAND REPORT DA TED 20.7.2011 SUBMITTED THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE HEARING ON 24.11.2010, 1.12.2010, 20.12.2010 AND 21.12.2010 AND FILED CERT AIN DETAILS ON THIS ASPECT ALSO ON WHICH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE I.E. S OURCE OF LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. HENCE, TO SAY THAT N O SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSE ON THE ISSUE ON WHICH SUBS EQUENTLY ADDITION WAS ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 5 MADE IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IN THE REJOINDER BY T HE ASSESSEE DATED 22.11.2011 TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE AVERMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE MADE IN THE APPLICATION U/R 46 OF THE I.T. RULES DATED 28.4.20 11, BECAUSE THE AO WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AND DID NOT REQUIRE ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH T HE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS. 7. IN PARA 3.6, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED THAT A SSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY THE REQUEST OF ADMITTIN G ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED AND THE ASSES SEE VIDE REPLY DATED 07.11.2012, FILED COPY OF APPEAL ORDER DATED 06.04 .2011 FOR AY 2006-07 AND 2007-08 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-II, DELHI WHE REIN APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46 A HAS BEEN ALLOWED. LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND ADJUDICATED THE GROUND RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,82,98,179/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOANS GIVEN TO 4 PERSONS ME NTIONED IN PARA NO. 4 AT PAGE 11 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. LD. CIT(A) HAS DIS CUSSED ALL THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE UNEXPLAINED LOANS AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND FINALLY PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 26.11.2012 AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSSSEE BY CONFIRM ING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS :- I) RS. 3,87,33,295/- OUT OF THE LOAN FROM M/S ARLIN GTON IMPEX PVT. LTD. AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22)(E). ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 6 II) RS. 59,21,600/- OUT OF LOAN FROM SH. DK GUPTA AND HIS AOP U/S. 56(2)(VI). III) RS. 3,30,00,000/- OUT OF LOAN FROM SH. PANKAJ KAPUR U/S. 56(2)(VI). IV) RS. 48,00,000/- BEING LOAN FROM MS. TANISH MOHA N U/S. 56(2)(VI). 8. SH. V.K. AGARWAL, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS MADE THE ADDITIONS IN DI SPUTE U/S. 2(22)(E) AND 56(2)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, INSPITE OF T HE FACT THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED ANY ISSUE PERTAINING TO THESE TWO SECTIO NS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON MERITS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A, ON THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO, BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONG FULLY MADE THE ADDITION ON A DIFFERENT HEADS OF INCOME WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN MADE BY THE AO. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE OBJECT ED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT HAVE ANY JURI SDICTION TO MAKE SUCH ADDITIONS ON THE ISSUES WHICH WERE NEVER CONSIDERED BY THE AO. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THOUGH THE POWERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE CO-TERMINUS WITH THE POWERS OF AO YET HE HAS JURISDICTION ONLY ON THOSE ITEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETH ER THE ISSUE IS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL OR NOT. ACCORDING TO HIM LD. CIT(A ) HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER THOSE ISSUES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO MAY BE SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION U/S. 263 OR REASSESSMENT U/S. 14 7 OF THE ACT. HE STATED THAT IF LD. CIT(A) TRIES TO EXAMINE THOSE ISSUE WHI CH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO, SECTION 147 AS WELL AS SECTI ON 263 OF THE ACT WILL BECOME REDUNDANT AND THE CONDITIONS FOR THEIR OPERA TION WILL BE NULLIFIED. ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 7 HE REQUESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BE CANCELLED AND THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS, HE CITED THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- A) CIT VS. UNION TYRES 250 ITR 556 (DEL. ) B) CIT VS. SARDARI LAL & CO. 251 ITR 864 (DEL.) ( FB) C) CIT VS. RAI BAHADUR HARDUTROY MOTILAL CHAMARIA, (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) D) HOLCIM (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 2013 TIOL 903 ITAT- DEL. 8.1 LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REIT ERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND STATED THAT THE SAME MAY BE RESTORED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE L D. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF THE APEX COURT A S WELL AS HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. WE WOULD LIKE TO REPROD UCE THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE WHICH ARE A S UNDER:- (I) WITH REGARD GROUND NO. 1 RELATING TO CONFIRMIN G THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,87,33,295 OUT OF THE LOAN FROM M/S ARLINGTON IMPE X PVT. LTD. AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22)(E), THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN HI S FINDING VIDE PARA NO. 5.4 & 5.5 AT PAGES 16 & 17 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 5.4 IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT M/S ARLINGTON IMPEX PVT. LTD. IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED ON 12.3.1990 UNDER THE COMPANI ES ACT,1956. THE COMPANY HAS BEEN REGULARLY FILING INC OME TAX ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 8 RETURNS AND MEETING OTHER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. D URING THE PREVIOUS YEAR (FY 2007-08) THE CO. HAD INCOME FROM RENT AND INTEREST ON FDRS. IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR (AY 2006- 07), IT HAD SOME CONTRACT INCOME ALSO. THE FUND AVA ILABILITY WITH THE COMPANY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR O N 1.4.2007 WAS RS.7.81 CRORE, CONSISTING OF SHARE CAPITAL OF R S.1,00,000/- RESERVES AND SURPLUS OF RS.2,16,194/- AND UNSECURED LOANS FROM DIRECTORS / SHARE HOLDERS / CORPORATE OF RS. 7,78,1 7,727/-. THESE FUNDS WERE INVESTED IN FIXED ASSETS OF RS.I,29,60,0 00/--, CASH IN BANK BALANCES OF RS.5,32,72,409/- AND LOANS AND ADV ANCES OF RS.L,43,22,034/-. TO THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR I .E. ON 31.3.2008, THE FUND AVAILABLE REDUCED TO RS.6.24 CR ORE MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF REDUCTION ON LOANS FROM DIRECTORS / SHAR E HOLDERS FROM RS.3.53 CRORE TO RS.1.50 CRORE. THESE FUNDS WERE IN VESTED IN FIXED ASSETS, CASH AND BANK BALANCES AND LOAN & ADVANCES . THE CASH AND BANK BALANCE DECREASED TO RS.3,21,785/- WHILE THE LOAN AND ADVANCE INCREASED TO RS.5,45,32,091/-. THE DETA ILS OF LOANS AND ADVANCES FILED INDICATES THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,87,33,295/- IS DUE FROM THE APPELLANT AS 'ADVANCE S RECOVERABLE'. THUS THE COMPANY HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO ADVANCE MONEY TO THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED THAT THE TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE BETWEEN DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE C OMPANY AND THE APPELLANT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE STAND TAKE N BY THE REVENUE THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE COMPANY IS UNEXPLAINED CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 5.5 HOWEVER IT IS SEEN FROM THE DETAIL' FILED THAT NO INTEREST IS CHARGED BY THE COMPANY OR PAID BY THE APPELLANT. 0 INCOME FROM BUSINESS HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT. THERE FORE, THESE AMOUNTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS TRADING ADVANCES. M OST OF THE BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN INVESTED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PROPERTIES AND OTHER INVESTMENTS. 0 PROVISION FOR I NTEREST HAS ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 9 BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT ON SUCH BORROWED FUNDS. IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT THE APPELLANT IS A SHAREH OLDER AND DIRECTOR OF MIS ARLINGTON IMPEX PVT. LTD. TOGETHER WITH HIS FATHER SH VINAY PURI, THE APPELLANT CONTROLS 99% SHARE OF THE COMPANY. SECTION 2(22)(E) PROVIDES THAT 'DIVIDEND' INCLUDES ANY PAYMENT BY A COMPANY, COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANT IALLY INTERESTED, MADE AFTER 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 1987 BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN TO A SHAREHOLDER, BEING A PERSON WHO IS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES HOLDING NOT LESS THAN 10% OF THE VO TING POWER, OR TO ANY CONCERN IN WHICH SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBE R OR A PARTNER AND IN WHICH HE HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. S ECTION 2(14)(II) DEFINES INCOME TO INCLUDE DIVIDEND. THEREFORE, THE SUMS PAID BY M/S ARLINGTON LMPEX PVT LIMITED TO THE APPELLANT SH VIKRANT PURI, WHO IS SHAREHOLDER AND DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY, AND HAVING CONTROLLING REST WITH HIS FATHER SH. VINAY PURI, IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S 2(22)(E) READ WITH 2(24)(II). AS THE AMOUNT OUT STANDING AT THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WAS RS.3,87,33,295/- THE B ALANCE OF RS. 2,04,68,314/- HAVING BEEN RETURNED BY THE APPELLA NT TO THE COMPANY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, ONLY THIS AMOUNT IS CHARGEABLE. ACCORDINGLY, OUT OF THE UNEXPLAINED LO AN FROM M/S ARLINGTON IMPEX PVT. LTD., ADDITION OF RS. 3,87,33, 295/- IS SUSTAINED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS. 2,04,68,314/- (I.E. 5,92,01,579/ - MINUS RS. 3,87,33,295/-). (II) WITH REGARD GROUND NO. 2 RELATING TO CONFIR MING THE ADDITION OF RS. 59,21,600/- OUT OF LOAN FROM SHRI D. K. GUPTA A ND HIS AOP U/S 56(2)(VI), THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING VIDE PARA NO. 6.5 & 6.5 AT PAGES 22 & 23 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 6.5 HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT FREQUENT A ND HIGH VALUE FUND TRANSFERS WITHOUT PROVISION FOR CORRESPONDING INTEREST AMONG UNRELATED ENTITIES ARE NOT NORMAL BUSINESS TRANSACT IONS. I DO NOT ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 10 FIND ANYTHING IN THE SUBMISSIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT THAT ESTABLISHES COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY OF THESE TRA NSACTIONS. SECTION 56 PROVIDES THAT: 56. (1) INCOME OF EVERY KIND WHICH IS NOT TO BE EXCLUD ED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER TH E HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, IF IT IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UND ER ANY OF THE HEADS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 14 , ITEMS A TO E. (2) IN PARTICULAR, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GEN ERALITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (1), THE FOLLOWING INCOMES, SHALL BE CHARGE ABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, NAMELY : .. [(VI) WHERE ANY SUM OF MONEY, THE AGGREGATE VALUE O F WHICH EXCEEDS FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, IS RECEIVED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION, BY AN IN DIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR FROM ANY PERSON OR PER SONS ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2006 6 [BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009], THE WHOL E OF THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF SUCH SUM: PROVIDED THAT THIS CLAUSE SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY SUM OF MON EY RECEIVED (A) FROM ANY RELATIVE; OR (B) ON THE OCCASION OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE INDIVIDU AL; OR (C) UNDER A WILL OR BY WAY OF INHERITANCE; OR (D) IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH OF THE PAYER; OR (E) FROM ANY LOCAL AUTHORITY AS DEFINED IN THE EXPL ANATION TO CLAUSE (20) OF SECTION 10; OR (F) FROM ANY FUND OR FOUNDATION OR UNIVERSITY OR OT HER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION OR ANY TRU ST OR INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (23C) OF SECTION 10 ; OR (G) FROM ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTION REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA . EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, RELA TIVE MEANS (II) BROTHER OR SISTER OF THE INDIVIDUAL; (III) BROTHER OR SISTER OF THE SPOUSE OF THE INDIVI DUAL; (IV) BROTHER OR SISTER OF EITHER OF THE PARENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL; (V) ANY LINEAL ASCENDANT OR DESCENDANT OF THE INDIV IDUAL; (VI) ANY LINEAL ASCENDANT OR DESCENDANT OF THE SPOU SE OF THE INDIVIDUAL; (VII) SPOUSE OF THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN CLAUSES ( II) TO (VI);].. 6.6 THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE IS NOT RELAT ED TO SH. DK GUPTA. THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED WITHOUT CONSI DERATION. THERE IS NO PROVISION OF INTEREST FOR THE AMOUNTS R ECEIVED. THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY OF THESE TRANSACTIONS HAS NOT BEEN ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 11 EXPLAINED OR ESTABLISHED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VI) AS NARRATED ABOVE WOULD BE APPLIC ABLE. ACCORDINGLY, I HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 59,21,60 0/- , BEING THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE AT THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN THE NAME OF SH. DK GUPTA AND HIS AOP, TO BE AMOUNT RECEIVED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S. 56(2)(VI) OF T HE I.T. ACT, 1961. THUS, OUT OF RS. 9,12,96,600/- MADE BY THE AO AS UN EXPLAINED LOAN FROM SH. DK GUPTA AND HIS AOP, THE SUM OF RS. 59,21,600/- IS SUSTAINED AS INCOME BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED WITHOU T CONSIDERATION AS ABOVE. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 8,53,75,000/- IS DELETED AS THIS AMOUNT WAS RETURNE D BY THE APPELLANT TO SH. DK GUPTA DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR ITSELF. (III) WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 3 RELATING TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,30,00,000/- OUT OF LOAN FROM SHRI PANKAJ KAPUR U /S 56(2)(VI), THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING VIDE PARA NO. 7.4 AT P AGE 27 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 7.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER. IN THE GIVEN FA CTS OF THE CASE, PARTICULARLY THAT THE CREDITOR IS A NON-RESIDENT IN DIAN AND A TRADE LICENCE HOLDER (NO. 1130) FROM AJMAN FREE ZONE AUTH ORITY, GOVERNMENT OF AJMAN (UAE) HAVING HIS OWN SOURCE OF INCOME AND TRANSACTIONS HAVING TAKEN PLACE THROUGH THE BANKIN G CHANNEL, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE APP ELLANT FROM SH. PANKAJ KAPUR IS UNEXPLAINED. HOWEVER, FOR THE REASONS DETAILED IN PARA 6.5 & 6.6 ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,30,00,000/-, BEING THE OUTSTANDING LOAN IN THE NAME OF SH. PANKAJ KAPUR, TO BE AMOUNT RECEIVED WITHOUT CONSIDE RATION CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S. 56(2)(VI) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1 961. THUS, OUT OF RS. 7,30,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED LOA N FROM SH. PANKAJ KAPUR, THE SUM OF RS. 3,30,00,000/- IS SUST AINED AS INCOME BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION AS ABOVE. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,00,00,000/- IS DELETED AS THIS ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 12 AMOUNT WAS RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT TO SH. PANKAJ KAPUR DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR ITSELF. (IV) WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 4 RELATING TO CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,00,000/- BEING LOAN FROM MS. TANISHA MOHAN U/S 5 6(2)(VI), THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING VIDE PARA NO. 8.4 & 8. 5 AT PAGES 29 & 30 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 8.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER. THE INCOME OF SM T. TANISHA MOHAN FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS RS. 1,28,09,976/- DUR ING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND WAS CLUBBED WITH THE INCOME OF H ER HUSBAND SH. RAJESH MOHAN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY S H. RAJESH MOHAN. THEREFORE, SMT. MOHAN APPEARS TO HAVE SUFFIC IENT RESOURCES OF HER OWN TO ADVANCE THE SUM OF RS. 48,0 0,000/- TO THE APPELLANT. IT IS, HOWEVER, SEEN THAT TWO PAYM ENTS WERE MADE TO THE APPELLANT FROM BANK ACCOUNTS OF MINOR D AUGHTERS ALIA MOHAN AND AMANI MOHAN WITH CITI BANK, SOUTH EX TENSION, NEW DELHI OF RS. 3,00,000/- VIDE CHEQUE NO. 139126 AND RS. 5,00,000/- VIDE CHEQUE NO. 139177 ON 8.1.2008. I FI ND THAT IN THE COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND COMPUTATION OF SH. RAJESH MOHAN, NO INCOME OF THE TWO MINOR DAUGHTERS HAS BEE N CLUBBED. IF THE TWO MINORS ARE HAVING SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNTS , THEY WOULD HAVE SOME INCOME WHICH WOULD BE TAXABLE. THERE IS NO SUCH INDICATION FROM THE DOCUMENTS FILED. THE AO IS DIRE CTED TO INFORM THE AO OF SH. RAJESH MOHAN REGARDING THIS MATTER. 8.5 FURTHER, FOR THE REASONS DETAILED IN PARA 6.5 A ND 6.6. ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 48,00,000/-, B EING THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE AT THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN THE NAME OF SMT. TANISHA MOHAN, TO BE AMOUNT RECEIVED WITHOU T CONSIDERATION CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S. 56(2)(VI) OF T HE I.T. ACT, 1961. THUS, ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINE D LOAN FROM ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 13 SMT. TANISHA MOHAN IS SUSTAINED AS INCOME BEING AMO UNT RECEIVED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION AS ABOVE. 9.1 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WE LL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ADDITIONS IN DISPUTE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE STAND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE COMPANY IS UNEXPLAINED CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IS A CORRECT ONE AND THEREFORE, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS FINDING, B UT LATER LD. CIT(A) HAS DIVERTED HIS VIEW AND WRONGLY APPLIED THE PROVISION S OF SECTIONS 2(22)(E) READ WITH SECTION 2(24)(II) AND SECTION 56(2)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WHICH IS NOT IN HIS JURISDICTION AND ALSO NOT SUS TAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 9.2 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A O AS MENTIONED IN VIDE PARA 3 & 3.1 AT PAGES 2&3 OF THIS ORDER AS WEL L AS FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE RAISED IN THE G ROUNDS OF APPEALS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ALONGWITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT AND HONBLE HIGH COURT DECISION CITED BY THE LD. COUNS EL OF THE ASSESSEE, AS AFORESAID. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. C IT(A) HAVE MADE THESE ADDITION U/S 2(22)(E) AND 56(2)(VI) OF THE I.T. AC T, 1961 UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED / ADJUDICATED BY THE A O IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED ANY OF THESE ISSUES PERTAINING TO THESE SECTIONS. I N OUR VIEW LD. CIT(A) DID NOT HAVE ANY JURISDICTION TO MAKE ANY SUCH ADDITION S ON THE ISSUES WHICH WERE NEVER CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ALTHOUGH THE POWERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE CO-TERMINUS W ITH THE POWERS OF THE AO, YET THE LD. CIT(A) HAS JURISDICTION ONLY ON THO SE ISSUES WHICH HAVE ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 14 BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT WHETHER THE ISSUE IS SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL OR NOT. THE LD. CIT( A) DOES NOT HAVE ANY JURISDICTION OVER THOSE ISSUES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO. THIS MAY BE SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION U/S. 263 OF THE I.T. ACT OR REASSESSMENT U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. IF THE LD. CIT(A) TRIES TO EXAMINE THOSE ISSUES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 AS WELL AS SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. A CT WILL BECOME REDUNDANT AND THE CONDITION FOR THEIR OPERATION WILL BE NULLI FIED. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS PASSED BY THE APEX COURT AS WELL AS HONBLE HIGH COURT. A) CIT VS. UNION TYRES 250 ITR 556 (DEL. ) B) CIT VS. SARDARI LAL & CO. 251 ITR 864 (DEL.) ( FB) C) CIT VS. RAI BAHADUR HARDUTROY MOTILAL CHAMARIA, (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC) D) HOLCIM (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 2013 TIOL 903 ITAT- DEL. 9.3 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS HONBLE HIGH COURT, WE HO LD THAT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT HAVE ANY JURISDICTION TO MAKE SUCH ADDITIONS ON THE ISSUES WHICH WERE NEVER CONSIDERED BY THE AO AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE ISSUES INVOLVE D IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IS NOT SUSTAINA BLE IN THE EYES OF LAW, HENCE, WE CANCEL THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.11.201 2 BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION BY ACCEPTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 15 ASSESSEES APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 5789/DEL/2013 (AY 2008-09) 10. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL NO . 5789/DEL/2013 (AY 2008-09) READ AS UNDER:- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED U/S 250 / 154 BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL BEING AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS THE APPLICATION U/ S 154 WAS REJECTED WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 2. UNDER THE FACTS A, ID CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED U/S 250 / 154 BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL AS THE LD. CIT (A) HAS REVIEWED HIS OWN ORDER U/S 250 UNDER THE GARB OF RE CTIFICATION U/S 154. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AS WE LL AS IN LAW IN NOT REPLACING THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE AT THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN THE NAME OF SHRI D.K. GUPTA AND HIS AOP BY THE ACTUAL FIGURE OF RS. 15,00,000/- AS AGAINST THE FIGURE OF RS. 59,21,600/ - TAKEN IN THE ORIGINAL APPELLATE ORDER. 4. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AS WE LL AS IN LAW IN NOT REPLACING THE OUTSTANDING LOAN AT THE END OF THE PR EVIOUS YEAR IN THE NAME OF SHRI PANKAJ KAPUR BY THE ACTUAL NIL FIGURE AS AGAINST THE FIGURE OF RS. 3,30,00,000/- TAKEN IN THE ORIGINAL APPELLATE ORDER. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY AND WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS. 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAIN ST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.1.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) STATING T HEREIN THAT APPELLATE ORDER PASSED U/S 250 / 154 BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS IL LEGAL BEING AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHA LLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE AVERMENTS MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 12. SINCE WE HAVE CANCELLED THE MAIN ORDER DATED 26 .11.2012 PASSED U/S. 250 BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN DECIDING THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IN ITA NO. 142/DEL/21013, AS AFORESAID, BEING WITHOUT JURISDI CTION ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED IN DETAIL, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE APEX COURT DECISION AS WELL AS HONBLE HIGH COURT DECISIONS, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 16 ASSESSEES APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 5789/DEL/2013 FILED AGAINST THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 22.1.2013 PASSED U/S. 154 R.W. S. 250 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND DISMISSED AS SUCH . REVENUES APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 608/DEL/2013 (AY 200 8-09) 13. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL NO. 608/DEL/2013 (AY 2008-09) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN L AW AND FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,04,68,314/-, RS. 8,53,75,000/- AND RS. 4,00,00,000/- MADE ON A/C OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN / CAS H CREDIT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- MADE BY AO ON A/C OF INSUFFICIENT WITHDRAWALS FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND ANY / A LL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF TH E APPEAL. 14. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 26.11.2012 RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 008-09. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 2,04 ,68,314/-, RS.8,53,75,000/- AND RS.4,00,00,000/- MADE ON A/C O F UNEXPLAINED LOAN / CASH CREDIT RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 2 AND ALSO CHALL ENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- MADE BY AO ON A/C OF INS UFFICIENT WITHDRAWALS FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 3. 15. WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL ABOUT THESE DELETIO N OF ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL NO. 142/DEL/2013, AS ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 17 AFORESAID. KEEPING IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING, THE REVE NUES APPEAL HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS ON THE ISSUE NO. 2, BECAUSE WE HAVE AL READY CANCELLED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION, AS DISCU SSED IN DETAIL IN OUR AFORESAID FINDING GIVEN IN PARA NO. 9 TO 9.3 OF THI S ORDER. 15.1 AS REGARDS THE GROUND NO. 2 RELATING TO DELETI ON OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- MADE BY AO ON A/C OF INSUFFICIENT WI THDRAWALS FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IS CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT A O HAS MADE THIS ADDITION IN DISPUTE ON ESTIMATE BASIS. LD. CIT(A) IN THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION VIDE PARA NO. 10.4 AT PAGE NO. 31 & 32 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 10.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER. NO DOUBT THE APPELLANT IS LIVING JOINTLY WITH HIS PARENTS AND, T HEREFORE, WITHDRAWAL OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY LIVING TOGETHER HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE ESTIMATING HOUSE HOLD EXPENDITURE. IN FAIRNESS, I ALSO NOTICE THAT IN TH E CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AS ON 31.3.2008 DRAWINGS O F RS. 2,92,77,983/- HAVE BEEN SHOWN. THIS FACT HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE AO AND ALSO NOT HIGHLIGHTED IN THE SUBMISSION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. WITH S UCH LARGE DRAWINGS, THE QUESTION OF ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES DOES NOT ARISE. THIS GROUND OF THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS. APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS. 3, 00,000/-. 15.2 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE AFORESAID FINDING GIV EN BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 LACS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE ITA NOS. 142, 5789, & 608/DEL/2013 18 IS CALLED FOR IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THE GR OUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL. IN THE RESULT, THIS AP PEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL NO. 142/DE L/2013 (AY 2008-09) IS ALLOWED AND ITA NO. 5789/DEL/2013 (AY 2008-09) STAN D DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS AND THE REVENUES APPEAL NO. 608/DEL/20 13 (AY 2008-09) ALSO STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/03/2016. SD/- SD/- [O.P. KANT] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 04/03/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES