Shri Kewal Lakhera, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 712/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9275 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR VIJAY KUMAR CHADHA SENIOR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Additional evidence; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C; 54F; 69A; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.712/DEL./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) SHRI KEWAL LAKHERA, VS. ITO, WARD 1 (3), 71 NK 1 ST , INDIRAPURAM, GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD (UP) (PAN : ABWPL3403B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANOOP SHARMA, ADVOCATE SHRI SANJAY PARASHAR, CA SHRI SALIL SHARMA, CA REVENUE BY : DR. VIJAY KUMAR CHADHA, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 24.09.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 04.10.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, SHRI KEWAL LAKHERA (HEREINAFTER REFERRE D TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.11.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME - TAX (APPEALS), MUZAFFARNAGAR QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10-11 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR ERRED IN LA W, ON FACTS AND IN SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES IN SUSTAININ G MONSTROUS ITA NO.712/DEL./2017 2 ADDITIONS IN AN ARBITRARY, ILLOGICAL, WHIMSICAL AND MECHANICAL MANNER, HAVING NO SANCTITY IN LAW. 2. THAT IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN THE HUGE ADDITION OF RS . 4650000 TOWARDS ALLEGED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE LD. CI T(A), ERRED IN LAW, ON FACTS AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES IN FAIL ING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT, BEING MERELY A POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, HAVING NO LEGAL TITLE OR OWNERSHIPS RIGHTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL PLOT, IN QUESTION, IS NOT LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED TO CAPITAL GAIN TAX, AS PER SETTLED LAW OF BINDING NATURE OF H ON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADRAS DATED 03-11-2014 HAVING UNEQUIVOCAL APPLICABILITY ON FACTS AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), FURTHER ERRED IN LAW, ON FA CTS AND IN SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES IN INFERRING ILLOGICALLY THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM SMT. RAJV ATI, WHICH IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, IS CLEA RLY HYPOTHETICAL AND FICTIONAL IN NATURE. 4. THAT IN DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A), ALSO ERRED IN LAW, ON FACTS AND IN SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF DULY REGISTERED POWER ATTORNEY COUPLED WITH RECITAL IN THE SALE DEE D ITSELF AND AFFIDAVIT OF SMT. RAJWATI IS COMPLETELY SOUND, STRO NG AND CREDITABLE AND BEYOND IMPEACHMENT IN THE EYES OF LA W. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), ALSO ERRED IN LAW, ON FACTS AND IN SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, IN MAKING UNCALLED FOR F ISHING INQUIRY INTO THE PROCESS OF PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATIO N TO SMT. RAJWATI BY THE APPELLANT, THEREBY IGNORING THE VITA L ASPECT THAT ACCEPTANCE OF RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION IS ITSELF CL EARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY REFLECTED IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF SMT. RA JWATI, HAVING BEEN EXECUTED LONG AFTER THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY I N QUESTION. 6. THAT IN DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A), ERRED IN LAW, ON FACTS AND IN SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES IN FAILING TO APPR ECIATE THAT NON DISCLOSURE OF AMOUNT AND DATE OF PAYMENT BY CAS H/CHEQUE, IS QUITE IMMATERIAL, PARTICULARLY WHEN SMT. RAJWATI, H AD NEVER RAISED ANY DISPUTE ON THIS ISSUE. 7. THAT ORDER TO WIPE OUT THE IMPACT OF LANDMARK J UDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL ITAT, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF MA YAWATI, THE LD. CIT(A), ERRED IN LAW, ON FACTS, AND IN SURROUND ING CIRCUMSTANCES, IN CONVERTING SECTION 68 OF I.T. ACT INTO SECTION 69A OF I.T. ACT, IN AN ABRUPT AND ARBITRARY MANNER AND THAT TOO, WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT, RESULTING IN BREACH OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE BEING AUDI ALTERAM PARTUM. ITA NO.712/DEL./2017 3 8. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE THE LD. LD. CIT( A), IN A ZEAL TO SUSTAIN ADDITION FURTHER ERRED IN FAILING T O APPRECIATE THAT SECTION 69A OF I.T. ACT IS ITSELF NOT DIRECTLY APPL ICABLE TO THE FACTS AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND CONSE QUENCES OF THE CASE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.494250 TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT, E VENTUALLY AND COMPLETELY STANDS DELETED AUTOMATICALLY EITHER U/S 69A OR SECTION 68 OF I.T. ACT, AS THE CASE MAY BE. 9. THAT SO FAR INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPE RTY IS CONCERNED, LD. CIT(A), ALSO ERRED IN LAW, ON FACTS AND IN SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT OF RS.3332500 HAVING BEEN EXPLAIN ED FULLY DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ALSO CO MPLETELY WIPES OUT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 1482500 FOR ALL IN TENTS AND PURPOSES. CONCLUSION: THAT THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER UNDER APPEAL, BEI NG BASED ON MISPLACED, MISCONCEIVED, OUT OF CONTEXT, WHIMSICAL FINDINGS AND WITHOUT SHRED OF ANY EVIDENTIARY BACKING, IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE IT IS PRAYED ACCORDINGLY. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE ISSUE AT HAND ARE : ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS SOLD PROPERTY BEARING NO.2/432, NITI KHAND, INDIRAPURAM, GHAZIABA D FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.18,00,000/- VIDE SALE DEED DATE D 25.09.2009 AS AGAINST THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE SALE DEED AT RS .64,50,000/-. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATI ON OF CAPITAL GAIN ADOPTED CIRCLE RATE UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT), DECLINED THE EXEMPTION U/S 54F AN D THEREBY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.46,50,000/-. AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.12,44,250/- AND RS.15,33,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH D EPOSIT AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY RESP ECTIVELY. ITA NO.712/DEL./2017 4 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS BY DISMISSI NG THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UP ON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. SO FAR AS ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TO THE TUNE OF RS.46,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTY AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS CONCERNED, BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) , THE ASSESSEE HA S BROUGHT ON RECORD NEW FACTS THAT SINCE HE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PR OPERTY RATHER HE HAS EXECUTED THE SALE DEED IN QUESTION AS ATTORNEY OF S MT. RAJWATI, ORIGINAL OWNER, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF COMPUTING THE CAPITA L GAIN IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND BROUGHT ON RECORD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHICH WAS ALLOWED U/S 46A OF THE ACT. 6. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING UPON THE DECI SION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE THE CASE OF CIT VS. C. SU GUMARAN (2015) 281 CTR 115 CONTENDED THAT WHEN ASSESSEE WAS NOT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION RATHER HE WAS MERE ATTORNEY OF SMT. RAJWATI, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.712/DEL./2017 5 7. HOWEVER, BARE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASS ED BY THE LD. CIT (A) PARTICULARLY PARA 11 GOES TO PROVE THAT, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS THRASHED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH AND CALLED UPON THE AS SESSEE TO BRING ON RECORD THE FACTS IF ANY CONSIDERATION HAS EVER BEEN PASSED BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND SMT. RAJWATI BEFORE OR AFTER THE EXECU TION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 18.09.2008 AND TO FURNISH THE FACTS AS TO THE EXACT SALE CONSIDERATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SMT. RAJWATI AFTER EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED AND EXACT SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO TO FILE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS FILED WITH TH E RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN. 8. INSTEAD OF FILING THE AFORESAID INFORMATION, ASS ESSEE CONTINUED TO HARP ON THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY HONBLE HIGH COUR T OF MADRAS, WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN RELIED UPON BEFORE THE BENCH. 9. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXECUTED THE SALE DEED DATED 25.09.2009 BEING ATTOR NEY ON THE BASIS OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 18.09.2008 ONE BEHALF OF SM T. RAJWATI, OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, BUT THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM CHOSEN TO KEEP SILENT TO EXPLAIN THE FACTS I F THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HIM BEING ATTORNEY HAS EVER BEEN TRANSF ERRED TO SMT. RAJWATI NOR HE HAS PRODUCED COMPUTATION OF INCOME A LONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HIM QUA THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS CALLED FOR BY THE LD. CIT (A). ITA NO.712/DEL./2017 6 10. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D VIEW THAT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF LEGAL POSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE BE ING ATTORNEY CANNOT BE TREATED AS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN DISPUTE FOR COM PUTING CAPITAL GAINS BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THE TRUE AND CORRECT FACTS RATHER INTENTIONALLY SUPPRESSED THE MATERIAL FACTS FROM THE AO/CIT (A) AS WELL AS FROM THE BENCH. DURING THE COURSE OF A RGUMENTS, THE BENCH HAS PUT A SPECIFIC QUERY TO THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSE SSEE THAT : WHETHER ASSESSEE BEING THE ATTORNEY HAS TRANSFERRE D THE SALE CONSIDERATION TO SMT. RAJWATI, ORIGINAL OWNER OF TH E PROPERTY, IF SO, WHETHER IN CASH OR THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. BUT THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THIS QU ERY CAN BE ANSWERED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT UNLESS ASSESSEE DOES NOT EXPLAIN IF HE HAS TRA NSFERRED THE SALE CONSIDERATION TO SMT. RAJWATI, ORIGINAL OWNER AND H AS NOT PRODUCED COMPUTATION OF HIS INCOME ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCO ME QUA THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 18.09. 2008 IS A MERE SHAM DOCUMENT PREPARED TO EVADE THE TAX AND HE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR BENEFIT OF JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. C. SUGUMARAN (SUPRA). 11. LD. CIT (A) IN THIS CASE WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO C ALL FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM AO IF SMT. RAJWATI RECEIVED THE SALE CO NSIDERATION QUA THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND CAPITAL GAINS HAS BEEN COM PUTED IN HER HANDS BECAUSE SMT. RAJWATI HAS ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT BEFOR E THE LD. CIT (A) STATING IN PARA 6 THEREOF THAT SHE ENDORSED THE SAL E DEED DATED ITA NO.712/DEL./2017 7 25.09.2009 AS SHE HAS RECEIVED CASH SALE CONSIDERAT ION. IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE : AS TO WHETHER BY VIRTUE OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 18.09.2008 ASSESSEE HAS EXECUTED THE SALE DEED MER ELY AS AN ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF SMT. RAJWATI AND HAS TRANSFER RED THE SALE CONSIDERATION TO HER OR THE POWER OF ATTORNEY IS A SHAM DOCUMENT JUST TO EVADE THE TAX, THE ISSUE IS REQUIRED TO BE REMANDED BACK TO THE AO TO DECIDE AFRESH. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS ISSUE IS REMANDED BACK TO THE AO TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. SO FAR AS QUESTION OF CONFIRMING THE ADDITION B Y LD. CIT (A) TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,44,250/- AND RS.15,33,500/- ON AC COUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT AND ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS THRASHED THE ISSUE IN QUESTION BY RETURNING FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- 13. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND REJOINDER OF THE APPELL ANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED A PROPERTY AT 4/130 HIG, GYAN KHAND, INDIRAPURAM, GHAZIABAD DURING THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE FOR RS.33,32,5001-. THE APPELLANT DID NOT FURNISH SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PROPERTY BEFORE THE A O. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS BEEN EXPLA INED BY THE AR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN A BANK LOAN OF RS.18,4 3,000/- FROM P.N.B. HOUSING FINANCE LTD. THE REMAINING AMOUNT HA S BEEN EXPLAINED BY MAKING PAYMENTS FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH PNB, INDIRAPURAM VIDE CHEQUES NOS.251593 AND 251588 DATE D 16.09.2009 AND 29.07.2009 OF RS.5 LAC EACH RESPEC TIVELY, CHEQUE OF RS.L.5 LAC DATED 28.09.2009 AND RS.7,000/- IN CASH. ON PERUSAL OF THE SUBMISSION AND BANK' ACCOUNT WITH PNB, GHAZIABD (ACCOUNT NO.40S2000100000763) OF THE APPEL LANT IT IS NOTED THAT TWO CHEQUES FOR RS.2 LAC EACH HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED ON 14.09.2009, CASH OF RS.5 LAC HAS BEEN DEPOSITED ON 28.07.2009 AND CASH OF RS.2.5 LAC HAS BEEN DEPOSITED ON 26.09.2009 BEFORE ISSUING CHEQUES FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AS ABOVE. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EXPLANATION/DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED OR DETAILS OF CHEQUES ITA NO.712/DEL./2017 8 RECEIVED OF RS.4 LAC TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPLANATIO N GIVEN ABOVE FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE. THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN GIVEN R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE ABOVE PROPERTY FOR RS.14,82,500/- (EXCLUDING AMOUNT OF RS.18,43,000/-) HAS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED . THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED TO MAKE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14,82,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY AND THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.12,44,250/- ON ACCOU NT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF TH E APPELLANT U/S 68 OF THE ACT DUE TO NON-SUBMISSION OF ANY EXPLANAT ION DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDING S, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED ONLY A COPY OF BANK STATEMENT W ITH PNB BUT HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE SAME WITH SUPPORTIN G EVIDENCES. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. L LAC (03.06.2009) AND RS.3,94,250/- (29.01.2010) HAS REMAINED UNEXPLA INED. THE REMAINING ADDITIONS OF RS.5 LAC AND RS.2.5 LAC AS M ADE BY THE AO HAVE BEEN ALREADY CONSIDERED WHILE MAKING ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE IN THE PRECEDIN G PARA. .. IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED' U/S 69A OF THE ACT THAT WHERE THE APPELLANT IS FOUND IN OWNERSHIP OF ANY AMOUNT AND T HE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE NATURE AND T HE SOURCE OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE SAME IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY T HEN SUCH AMOUNT WILL BE DEEMED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THAT FIN ANCIAL YEAR. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF THE DEPOSITS MADE ON DIFFERENT DATES IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND EXPLANAT ION OFFERED BY HIM FOR THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE SAME HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE UNSATISFACTORY. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DENIED THE OWNERSHIP OF SUCH AMOUNTS FOUND CREDITED IN HIS BAN K ACCOUNT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO UNDER A WRONG PROVISION OF THE ACT CANNOT ABSOLV E THE APPELLANT FROM BEING TAXED UNDER THE CORRECT PROVISIONS OF TH E ACT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.14,82,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY IS ASSESSED U/S 69 OF THE ACT WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THE ADDITION MADE AT RS.4,94,250/- ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IS ASSESSED U/S 69A OF THE ACT WHICH IS HER EBY CONFIRMED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IS DISMISSED. 13. LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO FILE EXPLANATION/DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT AS WELL AS UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS A S WELL AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ITA NO.712/DEL./2017 9 ATTENTION TOWARDS CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND BANK STAT EMENT ISSUED BY PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, AVAILABLE AT PAGES 114 & 116 OF THE PAPER BOOK RESPECTIVELY, WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN DULY CONSIDER ED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AND HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY NEW FACTS/DOC UMENTS TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSIT AS WELL AS DEPOSIT OF RS.4,00,000/ - BY CHEQUES. 14. SO, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.14,82,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT (A). LD. CIT (A) OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.12,44,250/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNE XPLAINED CASH, THUS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- DEP OSITED ON 03.06.2009 AND RS.3,94,250/- DEPOSITED ON 29.01.2010. IT IS A LSO RIGHTLY HELD BY LD. CIT (A) THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- AND RS.2 ,50,000/- MADE BY THE AO HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. SO, WE FIN D NO ILLEGALITY OR PERVERSITY IN THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE, HENCE THIS ISSUE IS DETERMINED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 13. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 4 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 4 TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 2019 TS ITA NO.712/DEL./2017 10 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.