ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s Ina Puri, Gurgaon

ITA 951/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 95120114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H L DIHANA
• Assessee Lawyers: O P SAPRA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Onus to prove
• Section: 132; 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ITA NO. 951(DEL)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF MS. I NA PURI, INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, VS. LTH 112 A, THE LABURNUM, NEW DELHI. SUSHANT LOK, PHASE-I, BLOCK-A, GURGAON. PAN-AFRPP1559H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.L. DIHANA, CIT, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P. SAPRA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 24.08.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT: 30.08.2011. ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL : AM IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN UP TWO GR OUNDS TO THE EFFECT THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF (I) RS. 4,75,4 14/- IN RESPECT OF SALE OF PERSONAL EFFECTS, AND (II) RS. 8.00 LAKH ON ACCO UNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON FOREIGN TRAVELS. THE BACKGROUND FACTS ARE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HER ORIGINAL RETURN ON 31.08.2005 SHOWING TOTAL I NCOME OF RS. 2,06,250/-. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN HER CASE U/S 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), ON 17.04.2007. TH EREFORE, A NOTICE U/S ITA NO.951(DEL)/2011 2 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 14.05.2009. RETURN UNDER THIS PROVISION WAS FILED ON 25.09.2009 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,36,250/-. IN THIS RETURN, THE ASSESSEE ENHANCED HER INCOME BY A S UM OF RS. 30,000/-, REPRESENTING THE VALUE OF CHARWAL DRAWING FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. 1.1 IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CURATOR AND HELPS VARIOUS ARTIST S IN ORGANIZING ART EXHIBITIONS. IN THIS YEAR, SHE DECLARED INCOM E BY WAY OF COMMISSION FROM M/S SYNERGY FOUNDATION AND INTEREST. ACCO RDING TO THE AO, THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT PREPARED BY THE ASSESSE E DOES NOT FURNISH A CLEAN PICTURE OF THE STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN THAT SHE MAI NTAINS SEPARATE DETAILS FOR DIFFERENT PROJECTS, HOWEVER, THE SAME IS STATED TO BE UNSUBSTANTIATED AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VOUCHERS AND BILLS FOR T HESE PROJECTS HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED. THEREFORE, A FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE HAS BIFURCATED THE REVENUE AND E XPENSES IN DIFFERENT YEARS. ITA NO.951(DEL)/2011 3 2. COMING TO THE FIRST ISSUE IN DISPUTE, IT IS ME NTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED RECEIP TS OF RS. 4,75,414/- AS EXEMPT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME REPRESENT SALE PROCEEDED OF PERSONAL EFFECTS CONSISTING OF (I) FURNITURE RS. 2.00 LAK H, (II) MUSIC SYSTEM RS. 1,50,000/-, (III) PAINTINGS RS. 72,414/- AND (IV) OTHERS RS. 53,000/-. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASE OF AFORESAID PERSONAL EFFECTS. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT NO DETAILS WHATSOEVER HAVE BEEN FURNISHED IN RESP ECT OF PAINTINGS CLAIMED TO BE PERSONAL EFFECTS. THEREFORE, THE WHOLE AMOUNT O F RS. 4,75,414/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 2.1 IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND CLAIMED TH AT THE SAME IS ADMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF CLAUSES (C) AND (D) OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR SUBMITTING THE REMAND REPORT. IT WAS REPORTED THAT SUFFICIEN T OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF PERSONAL EFFECTS. IN THE COUNTER REPLY, THE ASSESSEE IN TER-ALIA MENTIONED THAT THIS QUESTION WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. THE LD. ITA NO.951(DEL)/2011 4 CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE , THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED NOW NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE INTERES T OF NATURAL JUSTICE. COMING TO THE MERITS, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT TH E SALE PROCEEDS, EXCEPT FOR A SUM OF RS. 53,000/-, WERE RECEIVED BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, WHICH WERE CREDITED TO THE BANK ACCOUN T. THE CASH WAS ALSO DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT HAS BEEN SUBMI TTED THAT VARIOUS HOUSE- HOLD ITEMS PURCHASED IN PAST WERE SOLD DURING T HE YEAR WITH A VIEW TO REPLACE THE SAME. NO DOCUMENT WAS FOUND DURIN G SEARCH REGARDING PURCHASE OF THESE ITEMS IN THIS OR PAST FEW YEA RS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUCH ITEMS ARE SOLD AFTER A LONG INTERVAL OF TIME AND NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE IN PAST IS EXPECTED TO BE FOUND IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE. HE WEIGHED THESE SUBMISSIONS AGA INST THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED A SUM OF RS. 4,75,414/- TO THE BANK ACCOUNT BUT WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE RELATING TO PURCHASE OF PERSONAL EFFECTS. AFTER WEIGHING THE ARGUMENTS, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND IN SEARCH S HOWING THAT THE CREDITS ARE NOT IN RESPECT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF HOUSE-HOLD EFFECT BUT ON SOME OTHER ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSE E HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. ITA NO.951(DEL)/2011 5 2.2 BEFORE US, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT NO EVID ENCE REGARDING SALE OF HOUSE HOLD GOODS WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVE R, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUN D INTER-ALIA THAT NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE WAS LIKELY TO BE FOUND IN SE ARCH BECAUSE OF LAPSE OF TIME AND MOST OF THE RECEIPTS ARE BY WAY OF AC COUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. IT IS ARGUED THAT MERE RECEIPT BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DOES NOT ESTABLISH GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THEREFO RE, IT IS AGITATED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO MAY BE SUSTAINED BY SETTIN G ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 2.3 IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THE FAC T THAT FOUR RECEIPTS AGGREGATING TO RS. 4,75,414/- WERE CREDITED IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT. NO QUESTION WAS ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABO UT THESE CREDITS, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED SPECIFICALLY THAT NO INVESTMENT IN MOVABLE OR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS YEAR. TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS) ENTERTAINED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH CONTAINED C ONFIRMATORY LETTERS IN RESPECT OF ALL FOUR RECEIPTS. THE AO WAS REQUI RED TO FURNISH THE REMAND REPORT. IN THE REPORT IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. THIS IS AGAINST ITA NO.951(DEL)/2011 6 THE FACTS ON RECORD. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT EXAM INE THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) EXAMINED THE EVID ENCE AND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THEREAFTER DELETED THE ADDITION . IT IS SEEN THAT THE EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK ON PAGE NOS. 13 TO . PAGE NO. 13 IS A CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM MR. SAT ISH KUMAR OF KOLKATA TO THE EFFECT THAT HE PURCHASED DINING TABLE WITH SIX CHAIRS, SIX SEATER LEATHER SOFA SET (3+2+1), THREE DOUBLE BEDS, TWO GODREJ STEEL ALMIRAHS, MARBLE CENTRAL TABLE, SIX MARBLE SIDE TABLES, 8 TABLE LAM PS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2.00 LAKH, THE PA YMENT FOR WHICH WAS MADE VIDE CHEQUE NO. 949039 DATED 21.02.2005 DRAWN O N ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE. PAGE NO. 14 IS A CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM MR. A. BURMAN OF KOLKATA THAT HE PURCHASED A TECHNICS FROM THE AS SESSEE FOR A SUM OF RS. 1,50,000/- AND PAYMENT WAS MADE BY CHEQUE NO. 529 826 DATED 21.02.2005 DRAWN ON BANK OF BARODA. THE TECHNIC CONSISTED OF TAPE DECK, 200-WATT-AMPLIFIER, TWO SPEAKERS, AUTOMATIC RECORD PLAYER AND SONY LD PLAYER. PAGE NO. 15 IS A CONFIRMATION L ETTER FROM MR. S. BAGCHI OF KOLKATA TO THE EFFECT THAT HE PAID A SUM OF RS. 53,000/- IN CASH TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF MISCELLANEOUS HOUSE HOL D ITEMS, BEING CONSOLE TABLE, CURIO, 69 PIECES CROCKERY, TWO CARPETS, 60 OLD L.P RECORDS, 8 EASY CHAIRS AND ONE WROUGHT-IRON TROLLEY WITH GLASS SH ELVES. THE AMOUNT IS ITA NO.951(DEL)/2011 7 STATED TO HAVE BEEN PAID IN CASH. PAGE NO. 16 IS A CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM MR. RAHUL KUMAR OF KOLKATA TO THE EFFECT T HAT A PAINTING WAS PURCHASED FOR A SUM OF RS. 72,414/- FROM THE ASSE SSEE AND THIS AMOUNT INCLUDES POSTAL/CURRIER CHARGES. THE AMOUNT IS PAID BY CHEQUE NO. 190908 DATED 13.11.2004. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. THE FACTS ARE THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FI LED BEFORE THE AO IN REGARD TO SALE OF HOUSE HOLD GOODS. IT ALSO REMAINS A FACT THAT NO QUESTION IN REGARD TO SALE OF PERSONAL EFFECTS WAS ASKED FRO M THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEBITED ANY AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF NEW HOUSE HOLD GOODS ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN ORALLY STATED BEFORE U S THAT SUCH HOUSE-HOLD GOODS WERE PURCHASED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSES SEE. IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE AO OBJECTED TO ADMISSI ON OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, BUT DID NOT ENQUIRE INTO THE GENUINENES S OF THE TRANSACTION. THE LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED THE EVIDENCE BUT DID NOT GO INTO THE QUESTION OF GENUINENESS OF SALE. HIS FINDINGS ARE THAT NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE COULD BE EXPECTED IN SUCH CASES AND NO EVIDENCE HAS B EEN FOUND IN SEARCH SHOWING THAT THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO THE BANK ACCO UNT WAS ON SOME OTHER ACCOUNT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A PPEALS) HAS NOT FOLLOWED ITA NO.951(DEL)/2011 8 PROPER APPROACH WHILE RECORDING THE FINDING IN THE MATTER AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED INCOME OF RS. 4,75,414/-. THE EXPLANATION IS THAT THE AM OUNT REPRESENTS SALE PROCEEDS OF HOUSE-HOLD GOODS AND, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX. ONCE A RECEIPT IS IN THE NATURE OF INCOME, THE BURDEN TO PROVE THAT IT IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX IS ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED EV IDENCE AND EXPLANATION. THEREFORE, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE LD. CIT(A) TO EXAMINE OR GET EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE FILED REGARDING SALE OF HO USE HOLD GOODS. THE AMOUNTS ARE QUITE LARGE COMPARED TO THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, ON THE FACE OF IT THE EVIDENCE REQUIRE S VERIFICATION. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) RECORDED HI S FINDING WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. IN SUCH A CI RCUMSTANCE, WE THINK IT FIT TO RESTORE THIS WHOLE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRE CTION THAT HE SHALL EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS OR G ET THEM EXAMINED FROM THE AO AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE MATTER AS PER LAW. 4. IN REGARD TO SECOND ISSUE, IT IS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK TWO FOREIGN TRIPS, DELHI-LONDON-DELHI AND DELHI-SYRIA-TURKEY-UAE-DELHI IN THIS YEAR. THE AS SESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THESE TRIPS. IT WAS ITA NO.951(DEL)/2011 9 SUBMITTED THAT SHE TRAVELED TO SYRIA-TURKEY-UAE I N CONNECTION WITH CURATING WORK OF SHRI MANJIT BAWA. A LETTER FROM HIM WAS SUBMITTED STATING THAT ALL EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF THIS TRIP WERE BORNE BY HIM. THE AO REJECTED THESE SUBMISSIONS BY MENTIONING THAT NO DOCUMENT HAS BEEN FILED SHOW THAT SHE HAD RENDERED CURATING SERVI CES TO SHRI MANJIT BAWA FOR TRAVELING TO THESE COUNTRIES. THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED. THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN EST IMATED AT RS. 6.00 LAKH AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN REGA RD TO THE LONDON TRIP, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED B Y WITHDRAWING FUNDS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. THIS EXPLANATION HAS ALSO BEEN REJECTED BY MENTIONING THAT NO BILL OR VOUCHER WAS FURNISHED SHOWING THE EXTENT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED. THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE WAS ESTIMATED AT RS. 2.00 LAKH AND ADDED TO THE INCOME. 4.1 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), IT WAS REITERATED THAT SHRI MANJIT BAWA MET THE EXPENSES FOR THE FIRST TRIP UNDERTAKEN B Y THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT SHE HA D BEEN RENDERING SOME PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO HIM AS AN ARTIST AND P ERSONAL SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF HIS PROFESSION. THERE WAS A FORMAL ARRANGE MENT FOR THE AFORESAID TRIP AND NO MONETARY CONSIDERATION WAS INVOLVED. I N ANY CASE, SHRI BAWA ITA NO.951(DEL)/2011 10 COULD HAVE BORNE THE EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF FORE IGN TRAVEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDE RED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS MENTIONED THAT SHRI MANJIT BAWA WAS HAVING GOOD PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ASSESSEE AND H ER FAMILY AND THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED SHRI BAWA TILL HIS DEATH. HE WAS A MAN OF MEANS AND HE COULD EASILY AFFORD TO MEET THE EXPENSES. THEREFORE, TH ERE IS NO GROUND FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THIS FOREIGN TOUR. IN REGARD TO THE LONDON TRIP, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E UNDERTOOK THE TRIP TO LONDON FOR LAUNCH OF THE BOOK 200 YEARS OF VICTOR IA MEMORIAL. THE EXPENSES OF THIS TRIP WERE DEBITED TO THE ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. TWO SUMS OF RS. 1,37,768/- AND RS. 1,16,082/- WERE W ITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FO R MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2.00 LAKH. 4.2 BEFORE US, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT NO DETA ILS REGARDING THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY SPENT ON TWO FOREIGN TRIPS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. ALTHOUGH A CONFIRMATION LETTER HAD BEEN FILED FRO M SHRI MANJIT BAWA, HE WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) GRANTED RELIEF IN O NE CASE BY SAYING THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY SHRI MANJIT BAWA AND IN OTHER CASE BY ITA NO.951(DEL)/2011 11 MENTIONING OF TWO WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCO UNT. THESE WERE IN NO WAY CO-RELATED WITH THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURR ED IN THE COURSE OF THESE TRIPS. 4.3 IN REPLY, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE A O HAD NOT CALLED FOR ANY EXPLANATION IN THE MATTER. CONFIRMATORY LETTER H AD BEEN FILED BY SHRI MANJIT BAWA, WHICH IS NOW PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK ON PAGE NO. 17. THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWED TWO WITHDRAW ALS OF RS. 1,37,768/- AND RS. 1,16,082/- ON 11.09.2004 MADE FOR THE L ONDON TRIP. THIS BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN PLACED ON PAGE NOS. 18 AND 19. I N THE LIGHT OF THESE EVIDENCES, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHT LY DELETED THE ADDITION. AT THIS STAGE, WE MAY REFER TO PAGE NOS. 17 TO 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK. PAGE NO. 17 IS A CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 28.02.2005 FR OM SHRI MANJIT BAWA TO THE EFFECT THAT IN JANUARY, 2005, THE ASSESSEE AND H ER HUSBAND TRAVELED WITH HIM ON HIS INVITATION TO TURKEY-UAE AND ALL EXP ENSES ON THEIR TRAVEL AND STAY WERE BORNE BY HIM AND PAID OUT OF HIS BANK A CCOUNT. THE PAN IS ALSO FURNISHED. PAGE NOS. 18 AND 19 ARE THE BANK ACCOUN TS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IMPRESSARIO, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN. THE FIRST AC COUNT SHOWS A DEBIT OF RS. 1,37,768/- ON 11.09.2004 BY WAY OF TRANSFER TO A CCOUNT NO. 440127. THE SECOND ACCOUNT ALSO SHOWED DEBIT OF RS. 1,16,082/ - ON 11.09.2004 BY ITA NO.951(DEL)/2011 12 TRANSFER TO ACCOUNT NO. 440127. THUS, NONE OF TH E DEBITS ARE BY WAY OF CASH WITHDRAWAL. THE IMPORT OF TRANSFER TO ACCO UNT 440127 HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED TO US AND THERE IS NO MENTION THEREOF EVEN IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. IN SO FAR AS THE EXPENDITURE BORNE BY SHRI MANJIT BAWA IS CONCERNED, THE SAME STANDS SUPPORTED BY THE CO NFIRMATION LETTER PLACED ON PAGE NO. 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS EXPLAI NED TO US THAT THIS LETTER WAS OBTAINED SOON AFTER THE JOURNEY WAS PERFORM ED. SHRI BAWA COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AS HE PASSED AWAY BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS STARTED. SHRI BAWA IS A KNOWN ARTIST. IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM A RESPECTABLE SOURCE CANNOT BE REJECT ED. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) RIGHTLY DELET ED THIS ADDITION. 5.1 THE POSITION IN RESPECT OF LONDON TRIP IS NOT CLEAR AS BOTH THE DEBITS ARE BY WAY OF TRANSFER ENTRIES, WHICH MEA NS THAT THE MONEY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER ACCOUNT. THE SUBMIS SION BEFORE US IS THAT THESE SUMS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FOR MEETING LONDON TRIP EXPENSES. HOWEVER, ITA NO.951(DEL)/2011 13 AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN TRAN SFERRED TO ANOTHER ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY TO VERIFY TH E DESTINATION OF THESE AMOUNTS SO THAT IT COULD BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER T HESE DEBITS WERE IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE LONDON TRIP. ACCORDINGLY, THIS MATTER IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) FOR GETTING APPROPRIATE ENQUIRY MADE WITH A VIEW TO PASS A FRESH ORDER O N MERITS AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. 6. THE RESULT OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION IS THAT GRO UND NO. 2 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED AND GROUND NO. 3 IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THUS, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI)) (K.G. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- MS. INA PURI, GURGAON. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -7, NEW DELHI. CIT CIT(APPEALS) THE DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.