Addl. C.I.T., Range-1, Aligarh V. Shashi bala Sharma, Aligarh

ITA 95/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56932 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOHAIL AKHTAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Question of law
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.95/AGR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A.O), VS. SMT. SH ASHI BALA SHARMA, RANGE-1, ALIGARH. 2, AVAS VIKAS COLONY, ALIGARH. (PAN: ASCPS 0930 R). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SOHAIL AKHTAR, JR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PANKAJ GARGH, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 14.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.03.2012 ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2003-04 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF ` 15,30,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME TAX ON THE AMOUNT OF INCOME OF ` 50 LACS SURRENDERED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. 2. WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE L D. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF ` 1,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN A/C NO.10101. ITA NO.95/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 2 3. WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE L D. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF ` 2,80,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN ACCOUNT NO.12690. 4. WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE L D. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF ` 5,99,817/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF REPAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF CAR . 5. WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE L D. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. 6. WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE L D. CIT(A) IS LEGALLY CORRECT IN ADMITTING AND RELYING ON THE AFF IDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT EXAMINING VERACITY OF THE AFFIDAVI T. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SURVEY UN DER SECTION 133A WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF GAGAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, JAIL ROAD, ALIGARH. THE ASSESSEE SMT. SHASHI BALA SHARMA IS THE SECRETARY O F THE SOCIETY AND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS SHE HAS SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS.50,00,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACIT Y. 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID INCOME TAX ON AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL IN COME RS.50,00,000/- SURRENDERED DURING THE SURVEY TOTALING RS.15,30,000 /-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAI D AMOUNT OF TAX DEPOSITED. IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PAYMENT S WERE MADE VIDE CHEQUES DRAWN ON BANK OF BARODA FROM THE ACCOUNT BELONGING TO GAGAN EDUCATION SOCIETY. ITA NO.95/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE UTI LIZED RS.15,30,000/- FOR HER BENEFIT FROM THE FUNDS BELONGING TO THE SOCIETY. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION THAT THERE WAS NO BENEFIT OBTAINED BY HER FROM THE SOCIETY BUT ONLY A SHORT TERM ARRANGEMENT TO MA KE PAYMENT OF TAXES ON ADDITIONAL INCOME SURRENDERED DURING THE SURVEY WAS MADE AND TO SUPPORT THIS CONTENTION FILED A CONFIRMATION COPY OBTAINED FROM GAGAN EDUCATION SOCIETY UNDER THE SIGNATURE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND. THE SAI D AMOUNT WAS STATED TO BE RETURNED IN CASH ON 9 TH AUGUST, 2002. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ULTIMATELY AG REED AND HELD THAT THOUGH NO BENEFIT OF RS.15,30,000/- CAN B E ADDED IN HER INCOME ACCRUING TO HER BY VIRTUE OF UTILIZATION OF FUNDS OF SOCIETY FOR PAYMENT OF TAX AND THE SUBSEQUENT REFUND IN CASH TO THE SOCIETY. HOWEVER, THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED AMOUNTING TO RS.50,00,000/- WAS NOT REPRE SENTED BY ANY LIQUID ASSET SUCH AS CASH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT SATISF Y THE SOURCE OF REPAYMENT IN CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.15,30,000/-, THEREFORE, HE MAD E THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT. 4. THE SECOND ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS OF RS.1,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK OF BARODA ACCOUNT N O.10101, RS.1,00,000/- ON 05.04.2002 AND RS.75,000/- ON 12.04.2002. THE SAID DEPOSIT WAS WITH REFERENCE TO REPAYMENT OF LOAN FOR CAR TAKEN FROM BANK. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ITA NO.95/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 4 ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPO SITED OUT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.50,00,000/- SURRENDERED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY . 5. THE THIRD ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF RS.4,80,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN S.B. ACCOUNT NO.10690 IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND WIFE IN BANK OF BARODA, ALIGARH. THE A SSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.4,80,000/- REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION. 6. THE 4 TH ADDITION IS RS.5,99,817/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF REPAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF CAR. 7. THE CIT(A) AT PAGE NO.20 NOTED THE BIFURCATION O F THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WHICH READS AS U NDER :- THE APPELLANT HAS, HOWEVER, VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT BY DISCLOSING ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.50,00,000/-, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH IN POSSESSION TO COVER THE SUM OF R S.15,30,000/-. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 04.02.2 008 GIVING BREAK UP OF UTILIZATION OF THIS INCOME OF RS.50,00,000/- AS UNDER :- (A) INVESTMENT IN LAND RS.11,84,500/- (B) INVESTMENT IN BANK FDRS RS. 6,19,667/- (C) REPAYMENT OF TATA CAR LOAN RS. 2,64,411/- (D) CASH IN HAND WITH FATHER RS.16,36,000/- (E) REPAYMENT OF TOYOTA CAR LOAN RS. 8,77,716/- (F) EXPENSES INCURRED ON DAUGHTERS MARRIAGE RS. 4 ,16,305/- (G) BALANCE IN BOB, SANSI GATE RS. 1,401/- (SB A/C NO.10101) TOTAL RS.50,00,000/- ITA NO.95/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 5 I FIND THAT FIRSTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT OBTAIN A SPECIFIC BREAK UP WHICH HE COULD HAVE INVESTIGATED OR RECHEC KED OR MODIFIED ACCORDING TO THE ENTRIES IN DIARY OR STATEMENT RECO RDED OF THE ASSESSEE; BUT RATHER MAKES WRONG ASSERTION THAT ADD ITIONAL INCOME OF RS.50,00,000/- IS ONLY RELATING TO SEIZED DIARY. 8. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.15,30,000/ - ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT CASH IN HAND OF RS.16,36,000/- WAS KEPT WITH ASSESSEES FATHER WHICH COVERS AMOUNT OF RS.15,30,000/-. 9. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,75,000/- USED FOR REPAYMENT OF CAR LOAN WHICH IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DISCLOSURE MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.4,80,000/- UNACCOU NTED CREDIT IN ACCOUNT NO.12690, THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLAN ATION WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN IN HIS ORDER AS UNDER :- RS. 500/- 26.02.2002 RS. 19,500/- 27.02.2003 RS. 60,000/- 08.03.2003 RS.4,00,000/- 10.03.2003 RS.4,80,000/- 11. THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,00 0/- AND DELETED THE BALANCE AMOUNT AS UNDER :- 7.5(A) ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, I FIND THAT RS. 500/- AND RS.19,500/- ARE SMALL AMOUNTS AND CAN WELL BE EXPLA INED IN CASH IN HAND. ITA NO.95/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 6 7.5(B) REGARDING ENTRY OF RS.60,000/-, FIRST OF AL L, IT IS NOT A CASH ENTRY, BUT IS A CHEQUE DEPOSIT. BEFORE ME, IT IS C LAIMED TO BE A GIFT FROM SHRI POORAN CHAND SHARMA, REAL UNCLE OF THE AP PELLANT, WHOSE AFFIDAVIT IS ALSO ENCLOSED, THE BANK COCOANUT HAS A LSO BEEN FURNISHED WHICH WAS REMANDED TO ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO. IN V IEW OF THIS, THE SOURCE OF RS.60,000/- IS ACCEPTED. 7.5(C) THE NEXT AMOUNT PERTAINS TO RS.4,00,000/-, WHICH CONSISTED OF RS.3,00,000/-, RS.50,000/- & RS.50,000/-. REGARDING ENTRY OF RS.3,00,000/- ON 10.03.2003, THI S IS ALSO NOT A CASH DEPOSIT BUT A CHEQUE CLEARING ENTRY. THE AP PELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THIS CHEQUE AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000/- WA S RECEIVED AS GIFT FROM SHRI RAMESH CHAND SHARMA, FATHER OF THE ASSESS EE, WHO HAS MEANWHILE EXPIRED AND HENCE WHOSE AFFIDAVIT OR GIFT DECLARATION CANNOT BE FURNISHED EXCEPT APPELLANTS OWN AFFIDAVI T CLAIMING THIS AMOUNT A GIFT. I HAVE ASKED FOR THE BANK ACCOUNT O F SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA AND FIND THAT THERE IS CASH DEPOSIT WHICH IS BEFORE THE ALLEGED GIFT IS GIVEN. THUS, THIS GIFT IS SUSP ICIOUS AS DONOR IS NOT AVAILABLE NOR ANY SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE EARLIER AND M ORE OVER, THERE IS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE DONORS BANK ACC OUNT. THE APPELLANTS COUNSEL HAS, IN THE LAST HEARING, S TATED THAT THIS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2,00,000/- IN FATHERS ACCOUNT M AY BE TREATED AS FROM CASH RELATING TO DISCLOSURE OF RS.50,00,000/- WHICH FATHER WAS HOLDING. TAKING INTO TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, I FIND ONE G LARING DEFECT IN THIS EXPLANATION. IF ASSESSEES FATHER WAS HOLD ING RS.16,36,000/- REPRESENTING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.50 LAKHS A ND RS.15,30,000/- WAS PAID BY WAY OF TAXES, THEN ONLY 1 LAKH WAS REMA INING WITH HIM. THUS, I FIND THAT THERE IS NO CO-RELATION OF CASH D EPOSIT OF RS.2,00,000/- FOUND IN FATHERS ACCOUNT WITH CASH H OLDING OF RS.16,36,000/- OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. TO THIS EXTENT, APPELLANTS EXPLANATION FOUND FAULTY AND NOT ACCEPTABLE. THERE FORE, ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE IN THIS RESPECT. WITH REGARD TO BALANCE TWO ENTRIES OF RS.50,000/- E ACH, THESE ARE ALSO CHEQUE ENTRIES. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THE SE AS LOANS FROM ONE SHRI AKASH GANGAL AND SHRI RAJEEV AGARWAL. THE CHEQUE ITA NO.95/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 7 NUMBERS OF THE TWO CHEQUES (RS.25,000/- EACH) GIVEN BY SHRI AKASH GANGAL AND ALSO THE TWO CHEQUES (RS.25,000/- EACH) GIVEN BY SHRI RAJEEV AGARWAL ARE ALSO MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY. BO TH ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND BOTH HAVE GIVEN CONFIRMATIONS IN THIS RESPE CT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO INFORM THE AOS OF THESE TWO PERSONS REGARDING SUCH LOANS. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED E NOUGH DETAILS AND EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE IDENTITY, NATURE OF TRANSAC TION AS ALSO CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE TWO LENDERS. THUS, THESE TWO LOAN ENTRIES ARE ACCEPTABLE. 7.5(D) IN VIEW OF ABOVE OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.4, 80,000/-, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,00,000/- IS CONFIRMED AND THE BA LANCE RS.2,80,000/- IS DELETED. 12. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,99,817/ - AS UNDER:- 7.6 THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.5,99,817/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF REPAYMENT OF PURCH ASE OF CAR. FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD, IT IS FOUND TO BE IN RESPECT OF TOYOTA CAR, WHICH IS VERY WELL MENTIONED IN THE BREAK UP GIVEN BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 04.02.2008. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE BREAK UP APP EARS TO BE REASONABLE AND HENCE I HOLD THAT REPAYMENT FOR TOYO TA CAR AT RS.5,99,817/- IS WELL COVERED BY THE ADDITIONAL INC OME OF RS.50 LAKHS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS ADDITION OF RS.5,9 9,817/- IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. 13. AS REGARDS OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE REGARDING A DMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, THE CIT( A) HELD AS UNDER :- 7.1 BEFORE I PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ISSUES, I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE REMAND REPOR T. FIRSTLY, THERE IS HARDLY ANY EVIDENCE WHICH COULD BE SAID TO BE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE; MOST OF THESE ARE CORROBORATING EVIDENCES OR SUBMIS SIONS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT EVEN IF THERE ARE CERTA IN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF GIFTS AND LOANS; I WOULD LI KE TO POINT OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUPPOSED TO COMMENT ON MER ITS OF THE ITA NO.95/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 8 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ALSO, BECAUSE IT IS THE PREROG ATIVE OF CIT(A) TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR NOT. THE ASSESSING OF FICER MAY OBJECT TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, BUT REMAINING SILENT ON MERITS IMPLIES THE MERITS WILL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED BY TH E UNDERSIGNED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION O N MERITS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROP ERLY EXPLAIN THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT SOME OF THE ADDITIONS W ERE MADE ON WRONG PRESUMPTION AND APPELLANT WAS NOT EVEN ASKED TO FUR NISH FURTHER DETAILS AND EVIDENCES, ESPECIALLY IN RESPECT OF GIF TS AND LOANS. TO THAT EXTENT; APPELLANT DESERVED AN OPPORTUNITY AT THIS S TAGE, ON A/C OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PA RTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. AS REGARDS THE GROUND NO.5 WHEREIN THE REVENUE OBJE CTED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE CIT(A) IGNORING RULE 46- A OF THE I.T. RULES, WE NOTICED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR THE REMAND R EPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT OBTAINING ANYTHING ON MERIT, OBJECTED ONLY ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN THIS REG ARD, IT IS TO STATE THAT WHEN THE CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO PLACE ON RECORD PROPER FACTS INSTEAD OF MERELY CHALLENGING THE POWER OF CIT(A) TO CALL FOR REMAND REPORT ON THE STRENGTH OF MATERIAL FILED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW THE PATH OF LAW. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/ S AAKAR CONSTRUCTION (P) LIMITED IN ITA NO.8 OF 2011 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN RE SPECT OF SCOPE OF RULE 46-A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 AS UNDER :- WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AT LENGTH AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ITA NO.95/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 9 RULE 46-A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES PRESCRIBED THAT A N OPPORTUNITY WILL HAVE TO BE GIVEN TO THE A.O. BEFOR E ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE CIT(A) VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 08.10.2009 HAS CALLED THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE A. O., WHO IN HIS REPORT DID NOT FIND ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE A.O. GOT THE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE CIT(A) HAS EXERCISED HIS POWER MENTIONED IN SECTION 250(4) OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE CIT(A) MAY REMAND THE CASE TO THE A.O. AND CALL FOR THE REMAND REPORT ON THE ASSESSMENT ON CERTAIN POIN TS. HENCE, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF RULE 46-A. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER IS CO-TERMINUS WITH THE POWER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALL THE POWERS, WHICH THE O RIGINAL AUTHORITY HAS SUBJECT TO CONDITION/RESTRICTION, IF ANY, PRESC RIBED BY LAW AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1. JUTE CORP. OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT, 187 ITR 688, 6 93 SC; AND 2. CIIT VS. NIRBHERAM DALURAM, (1997) 224 ITR 610 ( SC). IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO SUBSTA NTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS EMERGING FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED B Y THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNA L IS HEREBY SUSTAINED ALONG WITH THE REASONS MENTIONED THEREIN. 15. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE GROUND OF REVENUE AS THE CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAK E ANY OBJECTION ON MERIT. WE, THEREFORE, FIND THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF RULE 46-A OF THE I.T. RULES. 16. AS REGARDS MERIT OF THE CASE, WE NOTICED THAT T HE CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE BIFURCATION OF DISCLOSURE AND FOND THAT THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OUT OF AMOUNT OF DISCLOSURE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. ITA NO.95/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 10 17. IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN OTHER PETTY ADDITIONS OF RS.4,80,000/-, THE CIT(A) EXAMINED EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BAN K AND FOUND SUFFICIENT MATERIAL REGARDING SOURCE OF DEPOSIT AND THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL IN THE REMAND REPORT. TH E REVENUE HAS ALSO FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL AGAINST THE FINDING OF CIT(A) BEFORE US ALSO. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ORDER OF CIT(A) IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.03.2012) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 23 RD MARCH, 2012 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CONCERNED CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED D.R., ITAT AGRA BENCH, AGRA GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY