Satish Kumar, Ambala Cantt. V. DCIT, Ambala

ITA 660/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6141 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Salary income; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 69C; 133A; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 660/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 SATISH KUMAR VS. D.C.I.T.AMBALA PROP. M/S KUMAR METALS 10-NAGAR PALIKA MARKET AMBALA CANTT ADSPK 5127 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI MANJIT S INGH DATE OF HEARING 20.5.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09.06.2014 O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD, A.M THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2 .4.2012 OF THE LD CIT(A), PANCHKULA. 2 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS: 1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), PANCHKULA WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 15 LAKHS MADE ON EXCESS STOCK AS WELL AS UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES WH ICH WAS EXCESSIVELY GOT DECLARED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133A A ND AMOUNTED TO DOUBLE DECLARATION OF THE SAME DISCREPANCY. 2 THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING TH E ENHANCEMENT IN SALES BY RS. 1216709/- ON FLIMSY COMPARISONS. 3 THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION OF RS. 121671/- WHICH WAS MADE BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 10% PARTICULARLY WHEN THE APPELLANT HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME O N PRESUMPTIVE PROFIT U/S 44AF OF THE ACT BY DECLARING NET PROFIT @ 5% ON TOT AL SALESA OF RS. 3672308.42. 4 THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING N O ORDER ON DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6373/- OUT OF EXPENSES DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 3 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT SURVE Y WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 13.9.2007. DURI NG THE COURSE OF 2 SURVEY CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTED IN THE BOOK S OF THE ASSESSEE. EXCESS CASH OF RS. 297271/- WAS FOUND. FURTHER EXCE SS STOCK OF RS.1065788/- WAS ALSO FOUND. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED INVESTMENTS MADE IN PURCHASES MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. IN THIS BACKGROUND THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE ABOVE DIS CREPANCIES AND SURRENDERED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 35 LAKHS. HOW EVER, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE OFFERED ONLY A SUM OF RS. 20 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CASH, EXCESS STOCK AND MISC. INCOME. WHE N THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED THAT WHY THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED HAS NOT B EEN INCLUDED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SINCE E XCESS STOCK HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED THE SAME WOULD INCLUDE UNRECO RDED PURCHASES AND THEREFORE NO SEPARATE INCOME WAS OFFERED ON ACC OUNT OF INVESTMENTS IN SUCH PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SURRENDER ON THE BASIS OF EXC ESS CASH, EXCESS STOCK AND OTHER DISCREPANCIES VOLUNTARILY. HE ALSO NOTED THAT EXCESS STOCK AND INVESTMENTS IN UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES ARE TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS AND THEREFORE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT THIS S TAGE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCE PTED DURING SURVEY THAT DOCUMENTS FOUND RELATED TO UNRECORDED PURCHASE S. IN THIS BACKGROUND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED A SUM OF RS. 15 LAKHS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 ON APPEAL THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WERE REITERATED AND RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON CER TAIN CASE LAWS. 5 THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE SUBMISSIONS DI D NOT AGREE WITH THE SAME AND DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 3.4 & 3.5 WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 3 THE APPELLANT HAS DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 35 LAKHS AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ON 13.9.2007 VOLUNTARILY. THE ADDITIONAL IN COME DECLARED IN NOT HIS REGULAR BUSINESS INCOME FROM DISCLOSED SOURCES. THE REFORE IT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY ASSESSED AS DEEMED INCOME U/S 69, 69A AND 6 9C OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE SAME REPRESENTS HIS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN S TOCK AND CASH. THE RATIO OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF FAKIR MOHD. HAJI HASAN, 247 ITR 290 (GUJ) APPLIES DIRECTLY TO THE FA CTS OF THE CASE WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C ARE DEE MING PROVISIONS AND NO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIONS IS PERMITTED. THE CLASSIF ICATION OF HEADS OF INCOME FALLS U/S 14 OF THE ACT. THE INCOME U/S 69, 69A, 69B & 69C IS TO BE TREATED SEPARATELY AS DEEMED INCOME WHICH IS NEIT HER INCOME FROM SALARY NOR HOUSE PROPERTY NOT PROFIT OR GAIN OF BUSINESS O R PROFESSION OR CAPITAL GAINS OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THEREFORE NO D EDUCTION ON SET OFF IS AVAILABLE AGAINST SUCH INCOME. 3.5 AS A RESULT NO SET OFF IS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST TH E INCOME ASSESSED U/S 69, 69A, 69B & 69C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THIS GROU ND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6 BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITE RATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE EMPHASIZED THAT UNRELATED PURCHASE WOULD ULTIMATELY TURN INTO UNAC COUNTED STOCK AND ONCE SURRENDER HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUN TED STOCK THEN THERE WAS NO REASON FOR DECLARING SEPARATE AMOUNT O N ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN UNRECORDED PURCHASES. HE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SURVEY HAS NO EVIDENTIAR Y VALUE AND THEREFORE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SUCH STATEMENT, IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN THIS REGARD HE STRONGLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. S KHADER KHAN 352 ITR 480 (S.C). 7 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE S TRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLATE ORDER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WHICH WAS NEVER RETRACTED B Y THE ASSESSEE. 8 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY. NO DOUBT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS CLEARLY HELD IN CASE OF CIT VS. KHADER KHAN (SUPRA) THAT ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF STATEMEN T RECORDED DURING SURVEY IS NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE SUCH STATEMENT HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. BUT THIS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE 4 ASSESSEE BECAUSE ADDITION HAS NOT BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT ONLY. IN FACT DURING SURVEY MANY INCRIMI NATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND. EXCESS CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS. 297271/ - WAS FOUND. SIMILARLY EXCESS STOCK OF RS. 1065788/- WAS ALSO FO UND. SOME OTHER DISCREPANCIES WERE ALSO FOUND, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RE CORDED DURING SURVEY. 9 THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER RETRACTED FROM SURRENDER M ADE DURING SURVEY AND HAS SIMPLY REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF INCOME OFFERED IN THE RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY NOTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RECONCILE THAT EXCESS STOCK HAS COME FROM SOME ITEMS OF PURCHASES AGAINST WHICH AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT FOR SU CH PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1846000/- WAS SURRENDERED. THE DE TAILS OF SURRENDERED AMOUNT DURING SURVEY READS AS UNDER: I EXCESS CASH 297271/- II EXCESS STOCK 1065788/- III INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED PURCHAE AND ELEMENT OF PROFIT THEREON 1846000/- IV MISC INCOME TO COVER OTHER DISCREPANCIES IN BOOKS 290941/- 3500000/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIO NS WHICH SHOWS REASONS FOR THE ADDITION: 3.2 THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTAB LE. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE DISCREPANCY REGARDING UNRECORDED PUR CHASES AS WELL AS EXCESS STOCK WERE FOUND AND THE SAME WERE CONFRONTE D TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE BASIS OF THESE DISCREPANCIES THE ASSESSEE HAD VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT ANY PRESSURE ACCEPTED THAT BOTH THESE DISCREPANCIES WERE SEPARATE AND PERTAINED TO DIFFERENT TRANSACTIONS. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SEPARATE DECLARATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON BOTH HEADS. THEREFORE AT THIS STAGE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BOTH THE DISCREPANCIES PERTAINED TO THE SAME TRANSACTION AND HENCE DECLARATION IN ON E SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE TELESCOPED IN THE OTHER CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED. FU RTHER THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO UN RECORDED PURCHASES FOUND CONTAINED C LEAR DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ITEMS AS WELL AS AMOUNTS INVOLVED. IF THESE WERE T HE SAME AS THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND THEN THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO MA TCH THE ITEMS IN THE 5 PAPERS WITH THE STOCK PRESENT AT THE TIME OF SURVE Y. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO CORELATE THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE WITH RE FERENCE TO THE INVENTORY OF S TOCKS PREPARED PHYSICALLY AT THE TIME OF SURVE Y. 3.3 MOREOVER THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AT THE TIME OF SU RVEY ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS FOUND RELATED TO UNRECORDED PURC HASES. HENCE AT THIS STAGE NO FURTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN. 3.4 IN THIS CASE AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 350000 0/- WAS DECLARED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ON 13.9.2007 AND THIS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 3500000/- EARNED BY ASSESSEE IS NOT ITS REGULAR BUSINESS INCO ME FROM THE DISCLOSED SOURCES AND IS, THEREFORE ASSESSABLE AS DEEMED INCO ME U/SS 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C OF THE ACT AS THE SAME REPRESENTS THE ASSES SEES UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT (STOCK) AND EXPLAINED CASH RESPECTIVELY. IT HAS BEEN EXPLICITLY HELD BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FAKIR MOHD. HAJI HASARN (SUPRA) THAT SECTIONS 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C A RE DEEMING PROVISIONS AND NO DEDUCTION UNDER THE OTHER SECTIONS IS PERMIT TED. THE CLASSIFICATION OF HEAD OF INCOME IS GOVERNED BY SECTION 14 OF THE ACT THE INCOME DETERMINED U/S 69, 69A,69B AND 69C ARE TO BE TREATE D SEPARATELY AS DEEMED INCOME AND SUCH DEEMED INCOME IS NEITHER I NCOME FROM SALARY NOR HOUSE PROPERTY NOR PROFIT OR GAIN OF BUSINESS OR PR OFESSION OR CAPITAL GAIN AND NOR IT IS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, BUT IS THE CASE OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69, 69A, 69B & 69C. HAVING R EGARD TO THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION, NO FURTHER DEDUCTION OR SET OFF O F ANY KIND IS APPLICABLE TO SUCH INCOMES ASSESSED / ASSESSABLE U/S 69, 69A, 69B & 69C OF THE ACT. 3.5 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, INCOME HAS BEEN SU RRENDERED ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED STOCK OF RS. 1065788/-, UNACCOUNTED CASH OF RS. 297271/- AND UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASES AND ELEMENT OF PROFIT THEREON OF RS. 1846000/- AND MISC INCOME TO COVER OTHER DISCRE PANCIES IN THE BOOKS AT RS. 290941/- WHICH ARE ASSESSABLE U/S 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE FACTS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDEN CE ON RECORD EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY INDICATING THAT THE SOURCE OF THE SAID INVESTMENTS/ MONEY / EXPENDI TURE WAS EVER EXPLAINED. THERE IS NO SUBMISSION REGARDING ANY PA RTICULAR PURCHASE OR SALE TRANSACTIONS WHICH WAS BUSINESS IN NATURE, WHI CH GENERATED THE SAID UNACCOUNTED STOCK, UNACCOUNTED CASH, UNACCOUNTED IN VESTMENT ETC. THIS BEING SO, HAVING REGARD TO THE RATIO OF THE DECISIO N OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WHICH IS CLEAR ON THE RELEVANT POINT THAT INC OMES HAVING BEEN ASSESSED U/S 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C OF THE ACT, NO SE T OFF OF ANY KIND OR NO DEDUCTION OF ANY KIND IS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE SAI D INCOME. 3.6 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY U/S 133AS, DISCREPANCIES IN THE STOCK, CASH, PURCHASE AND MISC ITEMS WAS FOU ND, THESE ARE CONSIDERED SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFOR E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. HENCE THIS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 35,00,000 /- IS ASSESSED AS DEEMED INCOME U/S 69 AND 69A IN VIEW OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURTS ABOVE NOTED DECISION AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN A BLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THIS ADDITIONAL INCOME WITH SUPPORTIVE E VIDENCE EITHER AT THE TIME OF SURVEY OR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS . ABOVE CLEARLY SHOW THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT EXCE SS CLOSING STOCK WAS AGAINST SOME ITEMS FOR WHICH DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND F OR UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE. NO EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE THE AO OR EVEN BEFORE US TO RECONCILE THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES LEADING TO E XCESS STOCK. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION, ADDITION HAS BEEN CORREC TLY MADE BY THE AO 6 AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9 GROUNDS NO. 2 & 3 - AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIE S WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO DIRECTED THE ASSES SEE TO FILE SEPARATE TRADING ACCOUNT FOR ACCOUNTING PERIOD 1.4. 2007 TO 13.9.2007 AND 14.9.2007 TO 31.3.2008 I.E. PRE SURRENDER AND P OST SURRENDER PERIODS. SAME WERE FILED. PERUSAL OF THE SAME REV EALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 151014/- IN THE PR E SURRENDER PERIOD BUT FOR THE POST SURRENDER PERIOD GROSS PROFIT WAS 216209/-, ON GROSS TURNOVER OF RS. 1510139/- AND RS. 2162161/-. THIS MEANS THAT GP RATE WAS SAME FOR BOTH THE PERIODS. THE ASSESSEE WAS DIR ECTED TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL GOODS RECEIPTS IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASES MAD E BY HIM AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THESE DETAILS. EVEN NO STOCK REGISTER WAS BEING MAINTAINED TO SHOW ITEMWISE DETAILS. ON THIS BASIS AO MADE OBSERVATION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT BE RELIED. THEREAFTER HE ADDED A SUM OF RS. 121671/- O N THE FOLLOWING BASIS: FOR THE POST SURVEY PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TOTAL SALES AT RS. 21,62,161/-. ON EXAMINATION OF THE TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE PRE SURVEY PERIOD; IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EFFECT ED TOTAL SALES OF RS. 1510139/- AGAINST TOTAL PURCHASE OF RS. 1526433/-, WHICH GIVES PERCENTAGE OF SALES AT 99%. BUT FOR THE POST SURVEY PERIOD; T HERE IS CONSIDERABLE DECLINE IN THE SALES. IN THE POST SURVEY PERIOD, T HE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TOTAL PURCHASE AT RS. 2347182/- PLUS THE STOCK AVAI LABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AT RS. 1065 788/-, I.E. TOTAL OF RS. 3412970/- AGAINST WHICH TOTAL SALES HAVE BEEN REFLE CTED AT RS. 21,62,131/- WHICH GIVES SALES PERCENTAGE AT 63.35% ONLY. APPAR ENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAS RESTORED TO SUPPRESSION OF SALES IN THE POST SURVEY PERIOD, WHICH FINDS FORCE FROM THE FACT THAT NO S ALES HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF THE EXCESS STOCK AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE IRRELIABLE AND REJECTE D, THE SALES FOR THE POST SURVEY PERIOD ARE REASONABLY AND JUSTIFIABLY ESTIMA TED AT RS. 3378840/- @ 99% OF RS. 3412970/- AS AGAINST WHON AT RS. 2162131 /- MEANING THEREBY INCREASE IN SASLS BY RS. 1216709/- DURING THE POST SURVEY PERIOD. FURTHER THE GROSS PROFIT RATE DECLARED AT 10% BY THE ASSESS EE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS APPLIED AND ACCORDINGLY TRADING A DDITION OF RS. 121671/0 (10% OF RS. 1216709/- IS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 10 ON APPEAL ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CO NFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 11 BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT WHATEVER EXCESS STOCK WAS THERE, HAS ALREADY BEEN O FFERED FOR TAXATION DURING SURRENDER. THEREFORE THERE IS NO FURTHER JUS TIFICATION OF ENHANCING THE SALES AND THE GP. 12 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 13 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT WH ATEVER DISCREPANCIES WERE THERE, WERE SURRENDERED DURING T HE SURVEY AND WE HAVE ALREADY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 LAKH S. EVEN IF SOME OTHER DISCREPANCIES ARE THERE THE SAME WOULD STAND COVERED BY THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 LAKHS MAKING THE TOTAL SURRENDER INCOME OF RS. 35 LAKHS DURING THE SURVEY. THEREFORE THERE IS NO FURT HER SCOPE FOR MAKING ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS. ACCORDINGLY ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AN D DELETE THIS ADDITION. 14 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.06.2014 SD/- SD/ - (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 09.06.2014 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR 8