Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal, Gurgaon V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6626/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5366 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6623/DEL./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ITA NO.6624/DEL./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ITA NO.6625/DEL./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITA NO.6626/DEL./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) SMT. SANGEETA AGGARWAL, VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, G 184, PARK PLACE, NEW DELHI. DLF CITY PHASE V, SECTOR 54, GOLF COURSE ROAD, GURGAON. (PAN : AACPA1833F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. SAMPATH, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI S.S. RANA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 26.09.2018 DATE OF ORDER : 08.10.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA NOS.6623, 6624, 6625 & 6626/DEL./2014 2 SINCE COMMON QUESTIONS OF FACTS AND LAW HAVE BEEN R AISED IN ALL THE AFORESAID APPEALS, THE SAME ARE BEING DI SPOSED OFF BY WAY OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER TO AVOID REPETITION OF DISCUS SION. 2. THE APPELLANT, SMT. SANGEETA AGGARWAL (HEREINAFT ER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL S, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.10.2014 & 09.10.2 014 PASSED BY LD. CIT (APPEALS)-III, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 AND 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVEL Y ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT:- ITA NO.6623/DEL/2014 (AY 2007-08) 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW A ND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,27,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT AND INTEREST INCOME ACCRUED ON FDR OF RS.6,00,000/- FRO M BANSAL CREDITS LIMITED ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED IN COME. THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE GROUND OF A PPEAL OF APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF RELYING THAT THE FDR OF RS.6,00,000/- BELONGS TO APPELLANT AND INVESTMENT I N IT WERE MADE FROM HER UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AS WELL AS THE IN TEREST ON FDR AMOUNTING TO RS.27,000/- BELONGS TO APPELLANT. THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS GROUND WAS PURELY ON THE BASI S OF ASSUMPTION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITHOUT ANY IOTA OF EVIDENCE, COGENT MATERI AL OR CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN THE HANDS OF DEPARTMENT. THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIE D, ARBITRARY, FLAGRANTLY CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HENCE THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT SHOULD B E DELETED AS THE SAME IS BAD IN LAW. ITA NO.6624/DEL/2014 (AY 2008-09) 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW A ND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,64,545/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT AND ITA NOS.6623, 6624, 6625 & 6626/DEL./2014 3 INTEREST INCOME ACCRUED ON FDR FROM BANSAL CREDITS LIMITED ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE CIT ( A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF APPELLA NT ON THE BASIS OF RELYING THAT THE FDR OF RS.3,00,000/- BELO NGS TO APPELLANT AND INVESTMENT IN IT WERE MADE FROM HER UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AS WELL AS THE INTEREST ON FDR AMOUNTING TO RS.64,545/- BELONGS TO APPELLANT. THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS GROUND WAS PURELY ON THE BASIS OF ASSU MPTION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER W ITHOUT ANY IOTA OF EVIDENCE, COGENT MATERIAL OR CORROBORAT IVE EVIDENCE IN THE HANDS OF DEPARTMENT. THE ADDITION M ADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY, FLA GRANTLY CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HENCE THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT SHOULD BE DELETED AS THE S AME IS BAD IN LAW. ITA NO.6625/DEL/2014 (AY 2009-10) 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW A ND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.76,008/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ACCRUED ON FDR OF RS.9,00,00 0/- FROM BANSAL CREDITS LIMITED RELYING THAT THE FDR OF RS.9,00,000/- BELONGS TO APPELLANT AND INVESTMENT I N IT WERE MADE FROM HER UNDISCLOSED SOURCES DURING THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2006-07 & 2007-08 I.E. RS.6,00,000/- IN F.Y. 2 006-07 AND RS.3,00,000/- IN F.Y. 2007-08. THE ADDITION MA DE ON THIS GROUND WAS PURELY ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT AN Y IOTA OF EVIDENCE, COGENT MATERIAL OR CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN THE HANDS OF DEPARTMENT. THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCO UNT IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY, FLAGRANTLY CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HENCE THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT SHOULD BE DELETED AS THE SAME IS BAD IN LAW . ITA NO.6626/DEL/2014 (AY 2010-11) 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW A ND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.44,253/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ACCRUED ON FDR OF RS.9,00,00 0/- FROM BANSAL CREDITS LIMITED RELYING THAT THE FDR OF RS.9,00,000/- BELONGS TO APPELLANT AND INVESTMENT I N IT WERE MADE FROM HER UNDISCLOSED SOURCES DURING THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2006-07 & 2007-08 I.E. RS.6,00,000/- IN F.Y. 2 006-07 & RS.3,00,000/- IN F.Y. 2007-08. THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS GROUND WAS PURELY ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTION, SURMI SES AND CONJECTURES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY IO TA OF ITA NOS.6623, 6624, 6625 & 6626/DEL./2014 4 EVIDENCE, COGENT MATERIAL OR CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN THE HANDS OF DEPARTMENT. THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCO UNT IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY, FLAGRANTLY CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HENCE THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT SHOULD BE DELETED AS THE SAME IS BAD IN LAW . 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND O N FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,00,000/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS GROUND IS PURELY ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTIONS, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES WITHOUT ANY I OTA OF EVIDENCE, COGENT MATERIAL OR CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN THE HANDS OF DEPARTMENT. THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCO UNT IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY, FLAGRANTLY CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS.17,00,000/- ON THIS ACCOUNT NEEDS TO BE DELETED IN FULL AS THE SAME IS BAD IN LAW. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ADHOC BASIS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,00,000 EXPENDITURE MET FROM UNDISCLO SED SOURCES IN THE MARRIAGE OF HER DAUGHTER. THE ADDITI ON MADE ON THIS GROUND IS PURELY ON THE BASIS OF GUESS WORK , ASSUMPTIONS, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES WITHOUT ANY I OTA OF EVIDENCE, COGENT MATERIAL OR CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN THE HANDS OF DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE ADDITION MADE ON THI S ACCOUNT IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY, FLAGRANT LY CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HENCE THE ADDIT ION OF RS.1,00,000/- ON THIS ACCOUNT NEEDS TO BE DELETED I N FULL AS THE SAME IS BAD IN LAW. 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICA TION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL FOR AY 2007-08 ARE : DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION AT THE PREMISES OF ASSE SSEE, A LAPTOP WAS SEIZED CONTAINING FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HOL DING FDR IN HER OWN NAME AS WELL AS IN THE NAME OF HER FAMILY MEMBE RS WORTH RS.6,00,000/- FOR AY 2007-08 ISSUED BY BANSAL CREDI TS LTD.. OUT OF THE AFORESAID FDRS, ASSESSEE ALLEGED THAT FDR WO RTH ITA NOS.6623, 6624, 6625 & 6626/DEL./2014 5 RS.4,00,000/- BELONGS TO HER SISTER, RESIDENT OF US A AND THESE FDRS WERE KEPT WITH ASSESSEE IN SAFE CUSTODY AND TH E REMAINING FDRS OF RS.2,00,000/- IN THE NAME OF SMT. SARLA GUP TA, MOTHER AND SHRI H.M. AGGARWAL, FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESS EE WHICH WERE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE SOURCES. AO, DECLINING THE C ONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, HELD THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,27,000/- A S INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREBY ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2007-08. 5. FOR AY 2008-09, AO NOTICED FROM THE LAPTOP SEIZE D DURING SEARCH OPERATION FROM THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE ARE F DRS OF RS.3,00,000/- WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO BE BELO NGING TO HER SISTER RESIDING IN USA. ON FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE AS TO HOW THE FUNDS HA VE TRAVELLED FROM USA TO INDIA, AO MADE ADDITION THEREOF TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2008-09. 6. FOR AY 2009-10, AO NOTICED FROM THE LAPTOP THAT FROM THE FDR IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE FOR AYS 2006-07 & 2007- 08 FOR RS.9,00,000/-, INTEREST OF RS.76,008/- WAS ACCRUED ON FDR OF RS.9,00,000/- FROM BANSAL CREDITS LTD.. ON FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE ON THE SOURCE OF FD RS, AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.76,008/- AND RS.44,253/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ITA NOS.6623, 6624, 6625 & 6626/DEL./2014 6 ACCRUED ON THE AMOUNT OF FDR OF RS.9,00,000/- FOR A Y 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY. 7. IN AY 2010-11, AO ALSO NOTICED FROM THE ENTRIES MADE IN LAPTOP ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE B WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A PLOT AT VATIKA FOR RS.60 ,00,000/- (RS.57,00,000/- + RS.3,00,000/- COST OF REGISTRY). OUT OF WHICH RS.17,00,000/- WAS PAID IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND RS.3,00,000/- PAID IN CASH FOR REGISTRY AND RS.29,25,000/- WAS FI NANCED BY AXIS BANK AND RS.10,75,000/- WERE PAID BY AJAY, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. DECLINING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,00,000/- PAID BY THE AS SESSEE TO HER HUSBAND AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND THEREBY MADE THE ADDITION THEREOF TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AO ALSO NOT ICED FORM THE SEIZED MATERIAL THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION, MARRIAGE OF DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SOLEMNIZED AND THRE E FUNCTIONS WERE ORGANIZED VIZ. MATA KI CHOWKI AT THE RESIDENCE AT FARIDABAD, RING CEREMONY AT HOTEL MANSINGH PALACE, JAIPUR AND MARRIAGE CEREMONY AT HOTEL RAJPUTANA SHERATON WHEREAS HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,12,402/-. DEC LINING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO ESTIMATED TH E EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,50,000/- ON VIDEOGRAPHY, FLOWER DE CORATION ETC. ITA NOS.6623, 6624, 6625 & 6626/DEL./2014 7 FROM THE UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND MADE ADDITION THER EOF TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. ASSESSEES CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF APPEALS B EFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEALS. FEELIN G AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. GROUND NO.1 IN ITA NO.6623/DEL./2014 (AY : 2007-08) ITA NO.6624/DEL./2014 (AY : 2008-09) ITA NO.6625/DEL./2014 (AY : 2009-10) ITA NO.6626/DEL./2014 (AY : 2010-11) 10. UNDISPUTEDLY, FDRS OF RS.6,00,000/- WITH BANSAL CREDITS LTD. ARE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO N OT IN DISPUTE THAT THE INTEREST ON THESE FDRS IS BEING ACCRUED AND PAI D TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD EXCEPT CONFIRMATION LETTER F ROM HER SISTER RESIDING AT USA TO PROVE THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED AMOU NT OF RS.4,00,000/- FROM HER. OUT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.6, 00,000/- INVESTED IN FDRS, RS.4,00,000/- BELONGS TO HER SIST ER RESIDING IN ITA NOS.6623, 6624, 6625 & 6626/DEL./2014 8 USA FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS. WHEN THE ADDITION HAS B EEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL U/S 32(4)/292C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE AMOUNT OF FDRS BELONGS TO HER, THERE IS NO SCOPE TO INTERFERE INTO THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY LD . CIT (A) MOREOVER WHEN SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE IS RESIDING IN USA, THERE IS NOT AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE ON THE FILE AS TO HOW THE A MOUNT OF RS.4,00,000/- HAS TRAVELLED TO THE ASSESSEE TO BE D EPOSITED IN THE FDR WITH BANSAL CREDITS LTD.. SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT I N 2007-08 MUST HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, BUT NO EVIDENCE IS THERE ON FILE. FURTHERMORE WHEN THE IN TEREST ON THESE FDRS HAS BEEN ACCRUING ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS AT LEA ST THE SAME MIGHT HAVE BEEN DECLARED BY HER SISTER IN HER RETUR N OF INCOME. 11. MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSES SEE THAT US AUTHORITIES HAD NOT KEPT THE RECORD INTACT DOES NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION ATTACHED TO THE F ACT THAT THE FDRS ARE ADMITTEDLY IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER S EIZED MATERIAL. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO PROVE IF THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/- HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO HER BY HER MO THER AND FATHER- IN-LAW BY PROVING THE FACT THAT IF THEY HAD SHOWN T HE SAME IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NOS.6623, 6624, 6625 & 6626/DEL./2014 9 12. SIMILAR ARE THE FACTS TO THE ADDITION OF RS.3,0 0,000/- MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT (A) FOR AY 2008-09. AGAIN, ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE DEFENCE THAT THE AMOUNT OF R S.3,00,000/- BELONGED TO HER SISTER RESIDING IN USA FOR PURCHASI NG FDRS TO BE SPENT BY HER AS AND WHEN SHE VISITS INDIA. SO, FOR THIS AMOUNT ALSO, EXCEPT CONFIRMATION NO DOCUMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE AS TO HOW THIS AMOUNT WAS TRA NSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE OR IF THE SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS IN PO SSESSION OF SUCH AN AMOUNT WITH HER. SO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE IN THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY L D. CIT (A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.6,00,000/- AND RS.3,00 ,000/- FOR AYS 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY AS UNEXPLAINED INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. SO, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, GROUNDS NO.1 IN AYS 2007-08 & 2008-09 ARE DETERMINED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 13. SO FAR AS ADDITIONS OF RS.76,008/- AND RS.44,25 3/- FOR AYS 2009-10 & 2010-11 ARE CONCERNED, IN THE LIGHT OF TH E FINDINGS RETURNED IN THE PRECEDING PARAS, WHEN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT IS HELD TO BE BELONGING TO ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME, INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON ALSO BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. SO, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, GROUNDS NO.1 IN AYS 2009-10 & 2010-11 ARE DETERMINE D AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.6623, 6624, 6625 & 6626/DEL./2014 10 GROUND NO.2 IN ITA NO.6626/DEL./2014 (AY : 2010-11) 14. ASSESSEE BY FILING AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 SOUGHT TO BRING ON FILE COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER GIVEN BY VATIKA LIMITED ON THE GROUND THAT DUE TO IGNORANCE OF PROCEDURE AND LAW, THE ASS ESSEE HAD OMITTED TO FILE THIS DOCUMENT. APPLICATION HAS BEE N VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED BY LD. DR ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME CANNO T BE MOVED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED VIEW THAT WHEN THE ENTIRE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HINGES UPON TH E FACT AS TO WHAT IS THE PRICE OF FLAT IN QUESTION PURCHASED BY THE A SSESSEE, THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD CANNOT BE DISALLOWED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF PROCEDURAL TECHNICALITIES. SO, WE ALLOW THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BRING ON RECOR D THE CONFIRMATION GIVEN BY VATIKA LIMITED. 15. ADDITION OF RS.17,00,000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL, ANNEXURE B EXTRACTED FR OM THE LAPTOP, WHICH IS EXTRACTED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN PARA 8.2 A T PAGE 14 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHEREIN CASH AMOUNT OF RS.17,00,000 /- AND RS.3,00,000/- FOR REGISTRY IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PA ID TO VATIKA LIMITED. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT FOR PURCHASING T HE SAID PROPERTY BY VATIKA LIMITED, AJAY AGGARWAL, HUSBAND OF THE ASSES SEE AVAILED OF ITA NOS.6623, 6624, 6625 & 6626/DEL./2014 11 THE LOAN OF RS.29,25,000/- FROM AXIS BANK AND THIS FACT FORTIFIED THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE REMAINING AMOUNT W AS ALSO PAID TO VATIKA LIMITED FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT FOR RS.57,00,00 0/-. 16. ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL ONLY RELIED ON THE FACT THAT SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSEE PREFERRED TO BUY A 2BHK FLAT FOR RS.42,48,072/- INSTEAD OF 3B HK FLAT FOR RS.60,00,000/- AND RELIED UPON THE CONFIRMATION GIV EN BY VATIKA LIMITED SHOWING DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF RS.42,48,072/ -. FIRST OF ALL, CONFIRMATION LETTER RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE DOE S NOT DISCLOSE THE NAME OF THE ISSUING AUTHORITY. SECONDLY, UN-RE BUTTED SEIZED DOCUMENT ANNEXURE B CATEGORICALLY SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS.17,00,000/- IN CASH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO VATIKA LIMITED ON BEHALF OF HER HUSBAND. 17. FURTHERMORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD SALE DEED / ALLOTMENT OR TRANSFER DEED FOR PURCHASING 2B HK INSTEAD OF 3BHK FOR WHICH AMOUNT OF RS.57,00,000/- IS PROVED T O HAVE BEEN PAID. FURTHERMORE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS SPENT AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000/- ON THE SALE DEED FOR 3BHK FLAT, SHE H AS FAILED TO CLARIFY ON FILE IF THAT SALE DEED HAS GOT CANCELLED FOR EXECUTING OF THE NEW SALE DEED OF 2BHK BY PAYING STAMP DUTY OF R S.2,28,481/-. 18. SO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT (A) AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW IN ITA NOS.6623, 6624, 6625 & 6626/DEL./2014 12 CIT VS. SONAL CONSTRUCTION 2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-I T (DELHI) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 132 (4) OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 292C. SO, THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY AO AS WELL AS L D. CIT (A) ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED AND GROUND NO.2 FOR AY 2010-11 IS D ETERMINED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.3 IN ITA NO.6626/DEL./2014 (AY : 2010-11) 19. AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BEING UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN MARRIAGE OF HER DAUGHTER ON STAY EXPENSES, VIDEOGRAPHY, FLOWER DECO RATION ETC. WHICH WAS RESTRICTED TO RS.1,00,000/- BY THE LD. CI T (A). UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE AND SOURCES BEFORE LD. CIT (A) EXPLAINED AT PAGE 23 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT (A). 20. NOW, THE DISPUTE IS QUA ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000 /- WHICH IS PURELY ON ESTIMATE BASIS MADE BY AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT (A). WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN THE MISC. EXPE NSES OF RS.4,20,000/- HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AUTH ORITIES, THERE IS NO NEED TO GO FOR ESTIMATION. MOREOVER, IN THE MARRIAGE OF A DAUGHTER, SOME EXPENSES ARE INVARIABLY MADE FROM TH E SAVINGS MADE BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS. SO, WE ARE OF THE CONS IDERED VIEW ITA NOS.6623, 6624, 6625 & 6626/DEL./2014 13 THAT ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY LD. C IT (A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. SO, WE ORDER TO DELETE THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,000/-. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.3 FOR AY 2010-11 IS DETERMI NED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 21. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AYS 2007- 08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 IN ITA NO.6623/DEL./2014, ITA NO.6624/DEL./2014 & ITA NO.6625/DEL./2014 RESPECTIV ELY ARE DISMISSED AND APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2 010-11 IN ITA NO.6626/DEL./2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 8 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-III, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.