Smt. Kanika Rathi, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6628/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4791 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHARAVAN GOTRU
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH CHADHA
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6628 /DEL/201 3 AY. 2007-08 KANIKA RATHI, 27, SADHNA ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI (PAN: AFWPR7242A) VS. ITO, WARD 23(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. VED JAIN, ADV. & SH. ASHISH CHADHA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SHARAVAN GOTRU, SR. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DA TED 25.9.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS)XI, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. 2 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW, LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 10.00 LACS U/S INCOME TAX ACT,1961 IN AS MUCH AS HE DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD AGAINST ASSESSEE I N RESPECT OF CASH TRANSACTIONS OF RS.L 0.00 LACS WHICH WAS DE POSITED BY APPELLANT ASSESSEE IN HER BANK ACCOUNT FROM THE SAL ES PROCEEDS. THE UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.10.OO LACS IN THE GARB IRRELEVANT DISCUSSIONS AS PER IMPUGNED ORD ER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW, LD.CIT(A) DID NOT EXAMINE THE COMPLETE MATERIAL S AND RECORDS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM IN RESPECT OF SALE, PU RCHASE, CASH TRANSACTIONS AND BANK TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE APPELLANT/ ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS AS IS EVIDENT BY THE OBSERVATION AND FINDINGS RECORDED IN THIS IMPUGNED ORDER. THE FINDING RECORDED AS PER IMPUGNED ORDER ARE WRON G AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AVAILABLE AS PER DOCUMENTS (I .E. FOR EXAMPLE THE SALE OF SARIA WAS DONE TO AN IDENTICAL PARTY 3 WHOSE NAME AND ADDRESS IS APPEARING ON THE INVOICE ITSELF WHEREAS LD.CIT(A) WRONGLY OBSERVED THAT THE BUYER OF THE SARLA WAS NOT IDENTIFIABLE. THE FINDING GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) ARE PERVERSE AND FACTUALLY INCORRECT WHICH RENDER T HE ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT (A) ERRONEOUS AND ILLEGAL. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW, LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED OBSERVING WRONG FINDINGS WH ICH WERE NEITHER RELEVANT NOR SUPPORTING UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 1O.OO LACS.U/S 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND BAD IN LAW IN AS MUCH AS THE BASIS OF ADDITIONS OF RS. 10 LACS WHICH WAS TAKEN BY LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS NEITHER DISCUSSED NOR DELIBERATED UPON BY LD.CIT(A) CORRECTLY. THE OBSERVATION MADE BY LD.CIT(A) ARE WH OLLY IRRELEVANT AND BEYOND THE CORRECT FACTS WHICH RENDE R THE IMPUGNED ORDER ILLEGAL & HAD IN LAW. 4 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW LD.CIT(A) AND ASSESS ING 'OFFICER HAVE ERRED MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.10.OO LACS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961. 6. BECAUSE THE TRANSACTIONS OF CASH IN RESPECT OF R S.10.00 LACS WAS FOUND DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WH ICH WERE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A WERE ERRONEOUSLY INVOKED. 7. BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE RECOR DS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION HAVING DONE THE DETAILED EXA MINATION OF THESE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION WERE FOUND DULY RECORDED. HENCE THE ALLEGA TION THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH RS.1O.OO LACS REMA INED UNEXPLAINED IS PRIMA FACIE CONTRARY AND FACTUALLY I NCORRECT. MOREOVER, LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SAME. 5 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW, LD.CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE SAID ADDI TIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. HE OUG HT TO HAVE RECORDED HIS FINDING ON THE VIOLATION/APPLICATION O F THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A WHEN HE WENT TO CONFIRM T HE ADDITION OF RS. 1O.OO LACS. 9. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIATED HER SOURCE OF D EPOSIT RS. 10 LACS BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT BRING ING ANY MATERIAL CONTRARY ON RECORDS MADE THE ADDITIONS RS. 1O.OO LACS WHICH WAS ILLEGAL AND UNWARRANTED AND LIABLE T O BE DELETED. HOWEVER, LD.CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO GIVE DEFI NITE OBSERVATION IN THIS REGARD . 10. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE T IME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. 2,65,950/- ON 30.7.2007. T HE CASE OF THE 6 ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR THE SCRUTINY UNDER AIR A ND STATUTORY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HER EINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRES ALONWITH NOTIC E U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONS E TO THESE NOTICES, THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROC EEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND REQUISITE DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED . THE SOURCE OF INCOME DECLARED IS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM SAL ARY INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN THIS CASE, AN AIR INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 19,00,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PROVE THE G ENUINENESS OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE CASH OF RS. 9 LACS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE PURCHASE ON SALE OF PROPERTY. THE CREDIT OF THE SAME WAS ALLOWED. KEEPI NG IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, HE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AS PER THE INFORMATION/DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 6,76,000/-. THE AS SESSEE PURCHASED A PROPERTY FOR 6.24 LACS AND SOLD IT AT R S. 13 LACS 7 THEREBY SHOWING A SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 6. 76 LACS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN DECLA RED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED AND AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS WAS DISALLOWED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 69A OF THE I.T. ACT A ND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, AS NO DETAILS / E VIDENCE IN UPPORT HAS BEEN FURNISHED. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO CO MPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT RS. 17,41,950/- U/S. 143(3) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 AND ADDED THE SUM OF RS. 10 LACS TOWARDS UNEXPLAINE D CASH DEPOSITS AND RS. 6.76 LACS AS CAPITAL GAIN. 4. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.9.2 013 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY DELETI NG THE ADDITION OF RS. 6.76 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL G AIN AND UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 8 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT LD. CI T(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 10.00 LACS U/S IN COME TAX ACT,1961 IN AS MUCH AS HE DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIA L ON RECORD AGAINST ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CASH TRANSACTIONS O F RS.L0.00 LACS WHICH WAS DEPOSITED BY ASSESSEE IN HER BANK ACCOUNT FROM THE SALES PROCEEDS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT LD.CIT(A) D ID NOT EXAMINE THE COMPLETE MATERIALS AND RECORDS AVAILABL E BEFORE HIM IN RESPECT OF SALE, PURCHASE, CASH TRANSACTIONS AND BANK TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE APPELLANT/ ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS AS IS EVIDENT BY THE OBSERVATION AND FINDINGS RECORDED IN THIS IMPUGNED ORDER. THE FINDING RECORDED AS PER IMPUGNE D ORDER ARE WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AVAILABLE AS PER D OCUMENTS (I.E. FOR EXAMPLE THE SALE OF SARIA WAS DONE TO AN IDENTI CAL PARTY WHOSE NAME AND ADDRESS IS APPEARING ON THE INVOICE ITSELF WHEREAS LD.CIT(A) WRONGLY OBSERVED THAT THE BUYER O F THE SARLA WAS NOT IDENTIFIABLE. THE FINDING GIVEN BY LD.CIT(A) ARE PERVERSE AND FACTUALLY INCORRECT WHICH RENDER THE ORDER PASS ED BY LD.CIT 9 (A) ERRONEOUS AND ILLEGAL. IT WAS THE FURTHER CON TENTION THAT THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 10 LACS WHICH WAS TAKEN BY ASSES SING OFFICER WAS NEITHER DISCUSSED NOR DELIBERATED UPON BY THE L D. CIT(A) CORRECTLY. THE OBSERVATION MADE BY LD.CIT(A) ARE WHO LLY IRRELEVANT AND BEYOND THE CORRECT FACTS WHICH RENDE R THE IMPUGNED ORDER ILLEGAL & HAD IN LAW. HENCE, HE STA TED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.10.OO LACS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961, BECAUSE THE TRANSACTIONS OF CASH IN RESPECT O F RS.10.00 LACS WAS FOUND DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS WHICH WERE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HENCE, THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 69A WERE ERRONEOUSLY INVOKED. HE FURTHER ST ATED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE RECORDS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION HAVING DONE THE DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THESE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHE REIN THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION WERE FOUND DULY RECORDED. H ENCE THE ALLEGATION THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH RS.1O.O O LACS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED IS PRIMA FACIE CONTRARY AND FA CTUALLY 10 INCORRECT. MOREOVER, LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SAME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD.CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE SAID ADDITIONS IN LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. HE OUGHT TO HAVE RECORDED HIS FINDING ON THE VIOLATION /APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A WHEN HE WENT TO CONFI RM THE ADDITION OF RS. 1O.OO LACS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONT ENTION, HE FILED A SET OF PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 57 IN WHI CH HE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF I NCOME ALONGWITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR AY 2007-08; CO PY OF REPLY DATED 16.12.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE AO; COPY OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31 .3.2007; COPY OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2006 TO 3 1.3.2007; COPY OF PURCHASE BILLS OF M/S RATHI RE ROLLERS (IND IA) LTD.; COPY OF PURCHASE BILLS OF M/S RATHI STEEL TRADING CO.; COPY OF LIST SHOWING CASH PURCHASES WITH CORRESPONDING SALES; COPY OF CO NFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT OF KANIKA RATHI FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 FROM R ATHI RE- ROLLERS (INDIA) LTD.; COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF SH. ROHIT SHARMA FOR AY 2008-09; COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF SH. PAWAN MITTAL FOR AY 2007-08; COY OF STATEMENT OF AC COUNT OF SH. 11 VAIBHAV RATHI FOR AY 2007-08; COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF SH. VIKAS RATHI FOR AY 2007-08; COPY OF STATEMENT O F ACCOUNT OF SH. KUSH KUMAR FOR AY 2007-08; COPY OF CONFIRMATION FROM JAGDAMBA MARBLES LTD. IN RESPECT OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE ENTERED INTO FOR THE SALE OF PLOT IN HARYANA ALONGW ITH RELEVANT DOCUMENTS COPY OF BANK STATEMENT AS ON 30.9.2006, 3 1.12.2006 AND 31.3.2007 OF KANIKA RATHI; COPY OF LETTER FIL ED BEFORE CIT(A) DATED 14.3.2012; COPY OF REMAND REPORT DATED 16.4.2 012 ISSUED BY AO; COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 21.5.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 31.5.2012; COPY OF REMAND REPORT DATED 22.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE AL LOWED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT HE HAS PASSED A WELL REASONE D ORDER WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PA SSED BY THE 12 REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY T HE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CONTAINING THE PAGES 1 TO 57 IN WHI CH HE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF I NCOME ALONGWITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR AY 2007-08; CO PY OF REPLY DATED 16.12.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE AO; COPY OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31 .3.2007; COPY OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2006 TO 3 1.3.2007; COPY OF PURCHASE BILLS OF M/S RATHI RE ROLLERS (IND IA) LTD.; COPY OF PURCHASE BILLS OF M/S RATHI STEEL TRADING CO.; COPY OF LIST SHOWING CASH PURCHASES WITH CORRESPONDING SALES; COPY OF CO NFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT OF KANIKA RATHI FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 FROM R ATHI RE- ROLLERS (INDIA) LTD.; COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF SH. ROHIT SHARMA FOR AY 2008-09; COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF SH. PAWAN MITTAL FOR AY 2007-08; COY OF STATEMENT OF AC COUNT OF SH. VAIBHAV RATHI FOR AY 2007-08; COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF SH. VIKAS RATHI FOR AY 2007-08; COPY OF STATEMENT O F ACCOUNT OF SH. KUSH KUMAR FOR AY 2007-08; COPY OF CONFIRMATION FROM JAGDAMBA MARBLES LTD. IN RESPECT OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE ENTERED INTO FOR THE SALE OF PLOT IN HARYANA ALONGI WTH RELEVANT 13 DOCUMENTS COPY OF BANK STATEMENT AS ON 30.9.2006, 3 1.12.2006 AND 31.3.2007 OF KANIKA RATHI; COPY OF LETTER FIL ED BEFORE CIT(A) DATED 14.3.2012; COPY OF REMAND REPORT DATED 16.4.2 012 ISSUED BY AO; COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 21.5.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 31.5.2012; COPY OF REMAND REPORT DATED 22.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE AO. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 30.07.2007, DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.2,65,950/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF ASSESSEE W AS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AS AN INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM TH E AIR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH AMOUN TING TO RS.19,00,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. OUT OF THE AB OVE AMOUNT, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- U/S 69A OF THE ACT, ALLEGING THAT THE SAID AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISS UE IN PARA 2 - 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUS TAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO HOLDING THAT THE EXPLANATIO NS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SHAM AND HAVE BEEN CREATED JUST TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CAS H DEPOSITS. IT 14 WAS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS A SKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AC COUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.19,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTY. THE CREDIT OF THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO, HOWEVER, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.10,00,000/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. WE FIND THAT AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT OF RS.10,00,000/- IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COMPLETE DETAILS WITH RE GARD TO THE SAME BEFORE THE AO. THE CASH WAS RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF HER BUSINESS OF TRADING IN STEEL, AS EXP LAINED IN REPLY DATED 16.12.2009 (PB 4-5). THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMIT TED COMPLETE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION (PB 7-8), WHICH PROVES THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD SUFFICIENT CASH IN HER HAND THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, WHICH WAS DEP OSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED COPIES OF INVOICES ISSUED BY M/S RATHI RE-ROLLERS (INDIA) LTD. AND MIS RATHI STEEL TRADING CO. (PB 9 - 40) IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASES MADE DURING 15 THE YEAR. IN ORDER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SALES MADE, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED A LIST SNOWING THE CASH PURCHASES ALONG WITH THE CORRESPONDING CASH SALES MADE (PB 41 ). ALSO, THE ASSESSEE DULY SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATIONS (PB 42 - 48) FROM VARIOUS PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CASH DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, WHICH WAS S ENT BY THE AO VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 16.04.2012, ENCLOSED AT PB 54. THE AO, HOWEVER, IN THE SAID REMAND REPORT, HAS NOT GIVEN A NY FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND HAS ONLY RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED. IN REPLY TO THE R EMAND REPORT, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS REJOINDER DATED 21.0 5.2012 (PB 55 - 56), WHEREIN IT WAS AGAIN REITERATED THAT IT HAS BEEN WRONGLY ALLEGED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE ABO VE DETAILS WERE NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THIS FAC T HAS FURTHER BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT DAT ED 21.11.2012 (PB 57), WHEREIN THE AO HAS STATED AS UN DER: 'THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED SOME COPIES OF INVOICES ISS UED BY M/S RATHI RE-ROLLERS (INDIA) LTD. AND M/S RATHI S TEEL 16 TRADING CO. BUT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE T HE COMPLETE DETAILS, THE A 0 ALLOWED THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 9,00,000/- RUPEES NINE LAKHS ONLY AND THE BALAN CE AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LAKHS WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME ULS 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HENCE, THE AO WAS CORRECT IN DISALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,00,000/ - IN ABSENCE OF COMPLETE SUBMISSIONS OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD.' 8.1 THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ALL THE ABOVE DETAI LS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO, WHICH CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH-IN-HAND GENERATED OUT OF HER TRADIN G BUSINESS, WHICH WAS FURTHER DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 8.2 WE FURTHER NOTE THAT D. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE I MPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE SUBMISSIONS AND EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND B Y FURTHER ALLEGING THAT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE SHAM AND HAVE BEEN CREATED JUST TO PRO VE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS 17 SUSTAINED THE ADDITION BY COMPLETELY DEVIATING FROM THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND BY INDULGING INTO MERE SURM ISES AND CONJECTURES. THE ALLEGATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT I F THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN GENUINE, THERE WOUL D HAVE BEEN SOME PURCHASE OR SALE TRANSACTIONS THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AS WELL IS COMPLETELY MISPLACED, SO MUCH SO THAT THE B USINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DULY ACCEPTED BY TH E AO AS WELL WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION HA S BEEN MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8.4 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW T HAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF COMPLETE CASH DEPOSIT MADE DURING THE YEAR, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO A ND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE AND AL LOW THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E STANDS ALLOWED. 18 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/08/2017. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:22/08/2017 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY OR DER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES