Sh. Maninder Singh Cheema, Hoshiarpur V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hoshiarpur

ITA 702/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0481 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Business income; Salary income; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Tax effect
• Section: 69C; 133A; 69B; 69A; 264; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 702/ASR/2013 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MR. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA R/O H. NO. 298, GALI NO. 20, GURU NANAK NAGAR, HOSHIARPUR [PAN: AEYPC 4778B] (APPELLANT) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HOSHIARPUR CIRCLE, HOSHIARPUR (RESPENDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SURINDER MAHAJAN, C. A. RESPONDENT BY SMT. RATINDER KAUR, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 05.07.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07.07.2021 ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 1, LUDHIANA IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2009-10. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. A. THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.14,15,788/- BEING DEVELOP MENT EXPENSES OF COLONY UNDER THE ITA NO. 702/ASR/2013 2 NAME AND STYLE OF M/S KARTAR ESTATE, PHAGWARA (PUNJ AB) CHARGED TO COST OF LAND. ADDITION CONFIRMED IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. B. THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW IN CONCLUDING THAT DISCLOSURE HAS BEEN NEUTRALIZED BY ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14,15,788/- AND THUS CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,15,788/-. ADDITION CONFIRMED IS ILLEGAL & BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. BRIEF FACTS 1. THAT SURVEY OPERATION U/S 133A OF ACT WERE CARRIED OUT AT BUSINESS PREMISES OF ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE SURRENDERED RS. 1,20,00,00 0/- OUT OF WHICH RS. 83;00,000/- WERE ON ACCOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT COST OF KARTAR ESTATE PROJECT, PHAGWARA. THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN BOD Y OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE SURVE Y THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED AND THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO SU RRENDER THE AMOUNT. OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT SURRENDERED AT RS. 1,20,00,000/-, R S. 89,05,000/-(RS. - 83,00,000/-DEVELOPMENT COST + RS. 6,05,000/- CASH) RELATED TO KARTAR ESTATES AND BALANCE 30,95,000/- WAS-ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL ASSETS.(PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK, STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE) 2. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE BROUGH T IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AMOUNT OF RS. 89,95,000/- BEING BUSINESS RELATED EN TRIES BY DEBITING RS. 83500,000/- TO DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES SURRENDERED DUR ING SURVEY OPERATIONS AND RS. 6,95,000/- TO CASH ACCOUNT & CREDITED CAPIT AL ACCOUNT WITH RS, 89,95,000/-. ITA NO. 702/ASR/2013 3 3. THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSABLE INCOME BUSINESS RELATED ITEMS OF RS. 89,95,000/- WERE DECLARED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS I NCOME & BALANCE RS. 30,05,000/- WERE DECLARED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCE. 4. THAT RS. 83,00;000/- DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES OF KARTAR ESTATE WERE DEBITED IN TRADING ACCOUNT. FEW PLOTS WERE SOLD FOR RS. 48,78, 200/- OF WHICH COST WAS RS. 90,62,903/-(COST OF LAND AND PROPORTIONATE SHAR E OF DEVELOPMENT COST) WHICH RESULTED IN GROSS LOSS OF RS. 41,84,703/-. PA GE 10 OF PAPER BOOK. 5. THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE WAS ASK ED TO JUSTIFY LOSS CLAIMED AT RS. 44.70,775/- AND ASSESSEE EXPLAINED V IDE HIS LETTER DATED 26.12.2011. PAGE 11 OF PAPER BOOK .THAT DETAILED CH ART OF CALCULATION OF COST OF LAND SOLD CHARGED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WAS A LSO FILED, PAGE 12 OF PAPER BOOK. FROM THE CHART , THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD S UBMITTED THAT TOTAL COST OF LAND & DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES WHICH INCLUDED RS. 83,0 0,000/- SURRENDERED DURING SURVEY HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO TOTAL SALEABLE L AND MEASURING 468 MARLAS, OUT OF WHICH 79.83 MARLAS WAS SOLD DURING T HE. YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF RS. 83,00,000/- SURRENDERED. DURING SURVEY ON ACCOUNT OF DEVELOPMEN T EXPENSES RS. 14,15,788/- (83,00,000/468*79.83) HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO COST OF LAND SOLD & BALANCE RS. 68,84,212/- HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO CLOSIN G STOCK. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EX PLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND. A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.83,00,000/- AS PER OBSERVATION IN PARA 3.1 OF AS SET ORDER BY HOLDING THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 83,00,000/- DEBITED IN TRADING ACCOUN T IS NOT ALLOWABLE SINCE THIS AMOUNT WAS SURRENDERED DURING SURVEY OPERATION S OVER & ABOVE NORMAL BUSINESS INCOME. ITA NO. 702/ASR/2013 4 7. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). CIT(A) HAD A PARTLY GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. IN PARAGRAPH 12 OF HIS ORDE R MENTIONED AS UNDER 12. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE. I T IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INCLUDED THE SURRENDER OF RS.83,00,00 0/- MADE DURING COURSE OF SURVEY IN THE COMPUTATION OF HIS INCOME I N THE FOLLOWING MANNER: SR. NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1. UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME 89,95,000/ - 2. UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 30,05,000/ - TOTAL 1,20,00,000/ - IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE DEBIT OF RS. 83,00,000/ - IN THE COURSE OF DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN NEUTRALIZED BY INCLUDING SAME IN THE CLOSING STOCK TO THE TUNE OF RS. 68,84,212/- WHICH MEANS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIM ED ADDITIONAL DEBIT OF RS. 14,15,788/- OUT OF THE DISCLOSED AMOUN T OF RS.83,00,000/-. THIS IS TO MEAN THAT THE DISCLOSURE HAS BEEN NEUTRALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF R S. 14,15,788/- AND NOT RS. 83,00,000/-. IT IS VERY SIMPLE TO APPRECIAT E THIS ISSUE AS BUT FOR THE SURRENDER OF RS.83,00,000/- INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RS.83,95,910/- WITH OPERATING NET LOSS OF RS. 44,70,775/- FROM BUSINESS OPERATIONS. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN ADDING BACK RS. 83,00,000/- IS ERRONEOUS WHEREAS ONLY AN A MOUNT OF RS. 14,15,788/- WRONGLY DEBITED BY ASSESSEE IN P & L AC COUNT HAS TO BE ADDED BACK. THE LOGIC OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T REATING THE SAID DEBIT - P & L ACCOUNT IS CORRECT BUT THE AMOUNT TAK EN IS ERRONEOUSLY TAKEN AS RS. 83,00,000/- WHERE IT SHOULD BE RS. 14, 15,788/-. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS CONFIRMED TO THE TUNE OF RS.14,15,788/- AND THE REST OF THE A DDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ITA NO. 702/ASR/2013 5 8. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITI ON TO THE TUNE OF RUPEES 1415788/-THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEAL. WHEREAS THE REVENUE HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEARING NO. 721 FOR DELETING THE ADDITION OF 6 8,84,212/- HOWEVER THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LAW TAX EFFECT. 9. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE O RDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT WHILE MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 83,00,000/- LD. A.O. HAS LOS T SIGHT OF FOLLOWING FACTS:- A) THAT RS. 83,00,000/- WAS DEVELOPMENT COS T OF TOTAL SALEABLE LAND MEASURING 468 MARLAS OUT OF WHICH ONLY 79.83 MARLAS HAVE BEEN SOLD DURING THE YEAR. COST OF RS. 14,15,788/- HAS BEEN. CHARGED TO LAND SOLD & BALANCE RS. 68,84,212/- HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN CLOSING STOCK. .AS SUCH CHARGE TO TRADING ACCOUNT IS. ONLY. OF RS. 14,15,788/- & NOT RS. 83,00,000/-. B) THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 83,00,000/- & 83,00,000/- & ANOTHER A MOUNT SURRENDERED TOTAL RS. 1,20,00,000/-.HAVE BEEN DULY DECLARED IN THE RETURN AS DETAILED BELOW:- SR. NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1. UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME 89,95,000/- 2. UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 30,05 ,000/- TOTAL: 1,20,0 0,000/- D) ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED SURRENDERED AMOUNT OVER & ABOVE NORMAL PROFIT WHICH WAS LOSS OF RS. 44,70,775/-. ITA NO. 702/ASR/2013 6 E) ASSESSEE HAS NOT ANNULLED THE SURRENDER OF RS. 8 3,00,000/- BY DEBITING THE SAME IN TRADING ACCOUNT SINCE INCOME OF RS. 83,00,0 00/- HAS BEEN SEPARATELY SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSABLE INCOME. 10. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 14,15,788/- CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IS UNCALLED FOR SINCE RS. 83,00,000/ - WERE SURRENDERED TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT COST OF KARTAR ESTATE PVT. LTD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS TO, BE ADDED IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT AND WOULD RESUL T IN INCREASED COST OF SALEABLE AREA OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 11. PER CONTRA DR FOR THE REVENUE HAD VEHEMENTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE CIT (A). TH E LD. DR HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARAGRAPH 3.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CATEGORICALLY THA T THE AMOUNTS UNDER DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS NOT DONE ON ACCOUNT OF NORMAL BUSINESS INCOME THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED AGAINST THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT AG AINST ANY OTHER INCOME . IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED WAS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, AND THE SAME CANNOT BE CL AIMED AS EXPENSES IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE JUDGMENTS CITED AT BAR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BY BOTH THE PARTIES. DURING THE COURSE OF S URVEY, THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED MAY AMOUNT OF 1.20 CRORE ON VARIOUS HEADS INCLUDING, CASH UNEXPLAINED PERTAINING TO KARTAR ESTATE FOR RS. 6,0 5,000/- AND DEVELOPMENT COST OF KARTAR ESTATE(PROJECT PHAGWARAH) FOR RS. 83,00,000/ -. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OPINED THAT THE AMOUNT OF 83 LACS WAS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES FALLING UNDE R THE ITA NO. 702/ASR/2013 7 GROUP OF SECTION 69A TO 69 C AND WAS NOT ACCOUNT OF THE BUSINESS INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT D ECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BUSINESS INCOME AND HENCE HAD CLAIMED SET OFF AGAIN ST THE BUSINESS LOSS IS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 71 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HAD GIVEN THE NOTICE AGAINST SET OFF T HE BUSINESS LOSSES AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE BUSINESS LOSSES C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 44,70,775/-. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD NOT DISPUTED THE BUSINE SS LOSSES HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ONLY DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE O N THE PREMISE THAT THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FROM ANY OTHER SOURCES AND NOT BUSINESS INCOME. 13. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HA D SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT, DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON ACCOUNT OF THE INVES TMENT MADE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF KARTAR ESTATE, THEN IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT, IN CASE THE ASSESSEE ABL E TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, IN THAT CASE ONLY THE AMOUNT SURRENDER ED SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER IN CASE TH E ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE, THEN SURRENDERED AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT COST W OULD BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF 69 A TO 69C OF THE ACT. 14. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE T O DEMONSTRATE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF KARTAR ESTATE ( S. NO 4 OF SURRENDERED STATEMENT )FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E OR OTHERWISE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT .INSTEAD OF SHOWING THE SOURCE OF COST I NCURRED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT, THE ASSESSEE HAD TREATED THE SAME TO BE BU SINESS INCOME IN THE COMPUTATION AND IT CLAIMED SET OFF AGAINST THE SAME IN THE TRAD ING ACCOUNT . IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION , THE INITIAL ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SH OW THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT /COST ITA NO. 702/ASR/2013 8 INCURRED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT AND THEREAFTER ONLY THE SAME CAN BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND AS PER SECTION 71 OF THE ACT, THE LOSSES CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME ONLY , NEEDFUL WAS NOT DONE, HENCE THE INCOME DISCLOSE DURING THE SURVEY FOR THE COST INCURRED FOR DEVELOPMENT AP PELLATE IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS INVESTMENT MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IS REQUIRED TO BE HELD AS INCOME FROM ANY OTHER SOURCES. HENCE THE SET OFF TH E BUSINESS LOSSES CAN NOT BE PERMITTED AGAINST THE INCOME FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. FOR THE ABOVE SAID PROPOSITION WE MAY RELY UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF KIM PHARMA (P.) LTD. [2013] 35 TAXMANN.COM 456 (PUNJAB & HARYANA) , WHER EIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNTSURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BUSINESS INCOME AND ASSESSABLE AS SUCH. HE RELIED U PON A DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT V. S.K. SRIGIRI & BROS. [2008] 298 ITR 13/171 TAXMAN 264 . 5. THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IN THIS APPEAL IS, WHE THER RS. 5,00,000 WHICH WAS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY UNDER S. 1 33A OF THE ACT WOULD FORM PART OF BUSINESS INCOME OR WAS ASSESSABLE UNDER S. 69A OF THE ACT. T HE AO, THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL ASPECT NOTICED THAT THE AMO UNTSURRENDEREDDURING THE SURVEY WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND NO SOURCE FRO M WHERE IT WAS DERIVED WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS, DEEMED INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE UNDER S. 69A OF THE ACT. THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD AR E AS UNDER: 'IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT ASS ESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY HAD SURRENDERED THE INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES THOUGH A PLEA HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INCOME WAS SURRENDE RED AS INCOME FROM JOB WORK BUT NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SURRENDERED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 10 LAKHS IN ASST. YR. 2005-06 ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITS, REPAIRS TO BUILDING AND ADVANCES TO STAFF, WHICH BEING RELATABLE TO BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY ASSESSEE WAS INCLUDED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. HOWE VER, IN RESPECT OF CASH FOUND DURINGSURVEY, WHICH WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, NO SOURCE WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF NATURE OF SOURCE OF CASH BEING PROVE D, THE SAME IS NOT ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME AS DEEMED INCOME UNDER S. 69A OF THE ACT AND NOT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF THE BUSINESS LOSSES DETERMINED AGAINST THE SAID DEEMED INCOME. T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED.' 6. THE TRIBUNAL HAD RELIED UPON A DECISION OF THE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT IN FAKIR MOHMED HAJI HASAN V. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 290/[2002] 120 TAXMAN 11 . IN THAT CASE, INTERPRETING THE SCOPE AND DESCRIBING THE SCHEME OF SS. 69, 69A, 69B AND 6 9C OF THE ACT, IT WAS OBSERVED : ITA NO. 702/ASR/2013 9 'THE SCHEME OF SS. 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C OF THE IT A CT, 1961, WOULD SHOW THAT IN CASES WHERE THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE AS SESSEE OR THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF MONEY, BULLION ETC., OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE OR TH E SOURCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT EXPLAINED AT ALL, OR NOT SATISFACT ORILY EXPLAINED, THEN, THE VALUE OF SUCH INVESTMENTS AND MONEY OR THE VALUE OF ARTICLES NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR THE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INC OME OF SUCH ASSESSEE. IT FOLLOWS THAT THE MOMENT A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION IS GIVEN ABOUT SU CH NATURE AND SOURCE BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE SOURCE WOULD STAND DISCLOSED AND WILL, THEREFORE, B E KNOWN AND THE INCOME WOULD BE TREATED UNDER THE APPROPRIATE HEAD OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, WHEN THESE PROVISIONS APPLY BECAUSE NO SOURCE IS DI SCLOSED AT ALL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE INCOME CAN BE CLASSIFIED UNDER ONE OF THE HEADS OF INCOME UNDER S. 14 OF THE ACT, IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO CLASSIFY SUCH DEEMED INCOME UNDER ANY O F THESE HEADS INCLUDING INCOME FROM 'OTHER SOURCES' WHICH HAVE TO BE SOURCES KNOWN OR EXPLAINE D. WHEN THE INCOME CANNOT BE SO CLASSIFIED UNDER ANY ONE OF THE HEADS OF INCOME UNDER S. 14, I T FOLLOWS THAT THE QUESTION OF GIVING ANY DEDUCTIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS WHICH CORRESPOND TO SUCH HEADS OF INCOME WILL NOT ARISE. IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO PEG THE INCOME UNDER ANY ONE OF THOSE H EADS BY VIRTUE OF A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION BEING GIVEN, THEN THESE PROVISIONS OF SS. 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C WILL NOT APPLY, IN WHICH EVENT, THE PROVISIONS REGARDING DEDUCTIONS ETC. APPLICABLE TO THE RELEVANT HEAD OF INCOME UNDER WHICH SUCH INCOME FALLS WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE ATTRACTED. THE OPENING WORDS OF S. 14 'SAVE AS OTHERWISE PROVI DED BY THIS ACT' CLEARLY LEAVE SCOPE FOR 'DEEMED INCOME' OF THE NATURE COVERED UNDER THE SCH EME OF SS. 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C BEING TREATED SEPARATELY, BECAUSE SUCH DEEMED INCOME IS N OT INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY, PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, OR CAP ITAL GAINS, NOR IS IT INCOME FROM 'OTHER SOURCES' BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C TREAT UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS, UNEXPLAINED MONEY, BULLION ETC. AND UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AS DEEMED INCOME WHERE THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, ACQUISITION OR EXPENDITURE, AS THE C ASE MAY BE, HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED OR SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED. THEREFORE, IN THESE CASES , THE SOURCE NOT BEING KNOWN, SUCH DEEMED INCOME WILL NOT FALL EVEN UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES'. THEREFORE, THE CORRESPONDING DEDUCTIONS WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO TH E INCOMES UNDER ANY OF THESE VARIOUS HEADS, WILL NOT BE ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF DEEMED INCOMES WHICH ARE COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 69, 69A, 69B AND 69C OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE SCHE ME OF THOSE PROVISIONS. 7. THE SAID DECISION FULLY APPLIES TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. ' 15. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AND WE ACCOR DINGLY DISMISSED THE SAME. 16. AT THIS STAGE, WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT TH E THOUGH CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION FOR AMOUNT OF RS. 68,84,212/-AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE HAD FILED THE APPEAL, HOWEVER THE SAME HAD BEEN DISMISSED ON ACCO UNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT, ITA NO. 702/ASR/2013 10 THEREFORE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, CANNOT BE REVI VED AS THE SAME HAD ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED BY THE BENCH. FURTHER WE ARE ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE WORSEN OFF, IN HIS APPEAL AND BENEFIT ACCRUED IN HIS FAVOR CANNOT BE NEGATED ON ACCOUNT OF OUR FINDING AND THEREFORE WE ARE DISMISS ING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 1 4,15,788/- WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PR ESENT APPEAL. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.07.2021 SD/- SD/- (DR. M. L. MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 07.07.2021 GP/SR. PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1)THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) THE CIT (4) THE CIT (APPEALS) (5) THE DR, I.T.A.T. TRUE COPY BY ORDER