Neeraj Kumar, Uttrakhand V. Income Tax Officer- 2, Uttrakhand

ITA 989/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 98920114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA
• Assessee Lawyers: K SAMPATH CA SH RAJA KUMAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 50C; 142(1); 68; 37

Judgement Text

NEERAJKUMAR V ITO ITA 989/DEL/2012 A Y 2007 - 08 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 989 /DEL/ 2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ) NEERAJ KUMAR, MOHAILA DILLA SINGH, JASPUR, U.S. NAGAR, JASPU R, UTTRAKHAND, PAN:ANCPK0333R VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2, KASHIPUR, U.S. NAGAR, UTTRAKHAND (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. K. SAMPATH , CA : SH. RAJA KUMAR, ADV REVENUE BY : SH. P. DAM KANUNJNA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: - 26.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : - 09 /12/2015 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 01 . ABOVE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY HON ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 20.04.2011 FOR CERTAIN DEFECTS AND SUBSEQUENTLY ON PREFERRING MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AFTER CURING DEFECTS BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS RESTORED VIDE ORDER OF ITAT DATED 16.11.2012. THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL IS REINSTATED AND NOW ADJUDICATED. 02 . THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT ( A) - II , DATED 11.08.2010 PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 . THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED: - 1. IN CONSTRUING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF PLOTS AT RS.20,28,436/ - INSTEAD OF THE TRUE, FACTUAL AND GENUINE AMOUNT OF RS.15,57,000/ - . 2 IN CONSTRUING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF ABOVE PLOTS AT A NOTIO NAL RATE INSTEAD OF THE TRUE AND GENUINE RATE OF RS.3,00,000/ - . 3. IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.4,49,000/ - IN RESPECT OF BANK DEPOSIT MADE OUT OF CASH IN HAND CARRIED FORWARD FROM PREVIOUS YEAR. PAGE 2 OF 6 03 . THE FACTS IN BRIEF OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED R ETURN OF INCOME ON 1.4.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.65,768/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.1,36,000/ - . R ETURN HAS BEEN PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 22.10.2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.21,000/ - . FOR CALCULATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.3,00,000/ -- AND INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND AT RS.15,57,000/ - . THE A SSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED THE SALE VALUE OF RS.15,36,000/ - TO CALCULATE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS WHEREAS DEEMED SALES CONSIDERATION WAS RS.20,28,436 / - AS PER STAMP DUTY VALUATION U/S 50C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, VIDE PARA 6 OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) DAT ED 22/10/2009 AND THROUGH SPECIFIC QUERY VIDE NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 25/11/2009, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH COPIES OF SALE DEEDS, BASIS AND JUSTIFICATION OF VALUING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS. 3,00,000/ - AS ON 01/04/1981 AND TO JUSTIFY THE CA LCULATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS WORKED OUT AT RS.( - )21,000/ - . IN COMPLIANCE, THE COPIES OF SALE DEEDS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED AND PLACED ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE LAND IN A QUESTION IS AN URBAN LAND SITUATED WITHIN THE VICINITY OF MUNICIPAL AR EA AND IS A CAPITAL ASSETS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2 (14) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN CONFESSED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF BY CALCULATING LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS. NOW THE DISPUTE REMAINS THAT OF VALUING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND AT RS, 3,00,000 / - AS ON 01/04/1981 AND ADOPTING DEEMED CONSIDERATION IN PLACE OF ACTUAL SALES CONSIDERATION TO CALCUL ATE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS. 04 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT NO EVIDENCES, JUS TIFICATION OR BASIS OF CALCULATING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AND THAT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS HAS BEEN PROVIDED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM OF CALCULATING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AS ON 01/04/1981. FURTHER ASSE SSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS OBLIGATION CAST UPON HIM AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 C (2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER: - AREA OF PLOT SOLD OUT 1295.87 SQ MT COST OF ACQUISITION O F THE LAND @RS.100 PER SQ MT RS.1,29,587/ - INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION 1,29,587X519/100 RS.6,72,556/ - SALE CONSIDERATION U/S 50C RS.20,28,436/ - LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (20,28,436 - 6,72,556) RS.13,55,880/ - PAGE 3 OF 6 05 . ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT (A) HELD THAT AS THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE VALUATION OF STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES AT RS. 20,28,436/ - AGAINST THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS 15,36,000/ - UPHOLDING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT . HE ALSO STAT ED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT CONTEST AT ALL THAT THE VALUATION AS PER CIRCLE RATES EXCEEDED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY , THEREFORE ACCORDING TO HIM THEREFORE THERE IS NO CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEST THE ADOPTION OF DEEMED CONSIDERATION AS P ROVIDED U/S 50 C BY THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE HE UPHELD THE ADOPTION OF DEEMED CONSIDERATION OF RS 20,28,436 / - BY THE AO. 06 . REGARDING COST OF ACQUISITION OF ASSETS HE FURTHER UPHELD THAT COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY IS RS 1,29,587/ - AGAINST THE CO ST OF ACQUISITION TAKEN BY ASSESSEE OF RS 3,00,000/ - . LD AO HAS TAKEN THE COST OF ACQUISITION BASED ON COPY OF NOTIFICATION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSETS AS AT 1.4.1981 FROM SUB REGISTRAR, JASPUR. WHO GAVE THE RATES RANGING FROM RS 80/ - TO R S 10 0/ - PER SQUARE METER AND LD AO ADOPTED RS 100/ - AS AVERAGE PRICE AMOUNTING TO RS 1,29,587/ - AND FURTHER INDEXING IT TO RS 6,72,556/ - . AGAINST THIS ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY BASIS FOR TAKING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS AT 1.4.1981 OF RS 3,00,000/ - . THEREFORE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION TAKEN BY AO AT RS. 6,72,556/ - . 07 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED A SUM OF RS.12,81,000/ - IN THE NEW PARTNERSHIP FIRM AS A PARTNER. FURTHER ASSESSEE HA S DEPOSITED RS 9,00,000/ - DURING THE YEAR IN TWO LOAN ACCOUNTS WITH PRATHMA BANK IN TWO TRENCHES RS 6,50,000/ - AND RS 2,50,000/ - . THEREFORE, TOTAL INVESTMENTS OF RS 21,81,000/ - WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. AGAINST WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER W AS CONVINCED BOUT THE SOURCES OF RS. 17,32,000/ - BEING RS 15,36,000/ - RECEIVED TOWARDS THE SALE OF ABOVE PROPERTY AND RS 1,36,000/ - OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND RS 60,000/ - BEING OTHER INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AO MADE THE ADDITION OF R S 4,49,000/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. DESPITE P ROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION REGARDING THIS CASH OF RS. 4,49,000/ - DEPOSITED IN THE BANKS. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS), H AS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS.4,49,000/ - AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CORRECTLY BROUGHT TO TAX BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 08 . AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AP PEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 09 . FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADOPTION OF VALUE AS PER CIRCLE RATE BY AO STATING THAT LOWER AUTH ORITIES ERRED I N CONSTRUING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF PLOTS AT RS.20,28,436/ - INSTEAD OF THE TRUE, FACTUAL AND GENUINE AMOUNT OF RS.15,57,000/ - . PAGE 4 OF 6 10 . BEFORE US, LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE SALE VALUE IS ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AND THEREFORE AO HAS ERRED I N TAKING THE CIRCLE RATE OF THE PROPERTY. 11 . LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 50 C ARE MANDATORY AND ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS LESS THAN THE CIRCLE RATE SO AO AND CIT (A) BOTH HAVE DEALT WITH THIS I SSUE CORRECTLY. 12 . WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS . UNDISPUTEDLY ASSESSEE HAS SOLD PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 15,57,000/ - AND CIRCLE RATE FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES VALUATION OF THAT PROPERTY IS RS 20,28,436/ - . IT IS ALSO UN DISPUTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTENDED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS LESS THAT THE VALUATION ADOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ARE AS UNDER : - SPECIAL PROVI SION FOR FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN CERTAIN CASES. 50C. (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED [OR ASSES SABLE] BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE 'STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY') FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED 86 [OR ASSESSABLE] SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48 , BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE P ROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (1), WHERE ( A ) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED 6 [OR ASSESSABLE] BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DA TE OF TRANSFER; ( B ) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSE D 6 [OR ASSESSABLE] BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTHORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COUR T, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS MADE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTIONS (2), (3), (4), (5) AND (6) OF SECTION 16A, CLAUSE ( I ) OF SUB - SECTION (1) AND SUB - SECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A, SUB - SECTION (5) OF SECTION 24, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEALTH - TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957), SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS , APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THAT ACT. [ EXPLANATION 1 ]. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, 'VALUATION OFFICER' SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE ( R ) OF SECTION 2 OF THE WEALTH - TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957). [ EXPLAN ATION 2. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE EXPRESSION 'ASSESSABLE' MEANS THE PRICE WHICH THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WOULD HAVE, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, ADOPTED OR ASSESSED, IF IT WERE REFERRED TO SUCH AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY.] (3) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB - SECTION (2), WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUB - SECTION (2) EXCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED 88 [OR ASSESSABLE] BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTION (1), THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED 88 [OR ASSESSABLE] BY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER.] (EXTRACTED FROM TAXMANN. COM} THEREFORE IN CASE IF THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ADOPTION OF DEEMED CONSIDERATION , ACCORDING TO SECTION 50C AS PER THE STAMP DUTY RATES, ACT HAS PROVIDED ADEQUATE PAGE 5 OF 6 SAFEGUARD IN SUBSECTION (2) WHERE IN ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM BEFORE ASSESSING OFFI CER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER . IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE S AO MAY REFER THE PROPERTY TO THE VALUATION CELL AND THEN IF THE VALUATION BY DVO IS LESS THAN THE CIRCLE RATES THEN SUCH VALUATION SHALL BE ADOPTED AS DEEMED CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY. IN THE PRESENT CASE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY SUCH CLAIM AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS . THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF AO AND CIT (A) IN ADOPTING VALUATION OF RS 2028436/ - AS DEEMED SALES CONSIDERATION INSTEAD OF CONSIDERATION FOR RS. 15,57,000/ - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE . WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT (A ) ON THIS GROUND THEREFORE GROUN D NO 1 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 13 . REGARDING ADOPTION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AS AT 1 - 4 - 1981 OF THE PROPERTY WHERE ASSESSEE H A S TAKEN IT TO BE RS 3,00,000/ - AND AO HAS TAKEN IT TO BE RS 129527/ - . BEFORE L OWER AUTHORITIES, ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY E VIDENCE FOR TAKING THE VALUE OF RS 3,00,000/ - IN THE FORM OF EITHER VALUATION REPORT OR PROOF OF PREVAILING CIRCLES RATES OF THAT PROPERTY AS AT 1.4.1981. AGAINST THI S A O HAS OBTAINED SUCH RATES F ROM THE SUB REGISTRARS OFFICE AND TAKEN AVERAGE OF THE H IGHEST AND LOWEST RATES. ACCORDING TO SECTION 55(2) (B) OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSEE AT HIS OPTION CAN CHOSE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS AT 1 - 4 - 1981 OR THE COST OF ACQUI SI TION OF THE PROPERTY. IN THI S CASE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE WITH ANY EVIDENCE RS 3,00,000/ - TAKEN AS FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PR OPERTY AS AT 1 - 4 - 1981 WHEREAS AO HAS TAKEN VALUATION BASED ON THE INQUIRY FROM SUB REGISTRARS OFFICE AND THEN HAS TAKEN AVERAGE RATES. THEREFO RE IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY ASSESSEE AT ANY STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS SUPPORTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS AT 1 - 4 - 1981 ADOPTED BY HIM , WE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN ARRIVING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS AT 1 - 4 - 1981 AT RS. 1,29,527/ - BASED ON CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND IN A FAIR MANNER. WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT (A ) ON THIS COUNT AND GROUND NO TWO OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 14 . THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS 4,49,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF AMO UNTS DEPOSITED IN FIRM AS WELL AS IN BANK ACCOUNTS. AO HAS MADE THIS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT PREPARED AND THEN SHORTFALL HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE OA AND CIT (A) THERE WAS NO SATISFACTORY JUSTIFICATIO N, HENCE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED . 15 . BEFORE US LD AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS HOLDING AGRICULTURAL LAND MORE THAN 10 ACRES AND IS ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ALSO THEREFORE THERE IS ENOUGH SAVINGS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE ADDI TION IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. PAGE 6 OF 6 16 . LD DR SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE AO, NOTHING WAS PRODUCED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF AVAILABILITY OF SOURCES OF FUND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE ADDITION IS RIGHTLY MADE BY AO. 17 . WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SU BMISSION OF THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ENOUGH FUND IN HANDS AND THEREFORE AR OF THE APPELLANT TRIED TO SAY THAT BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.3.2007 SHOWS THE FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT THERE IS SOURCES OF ENOUGH FUNDS AVAILABLE TO COVER UP THE DEPOSIT. AS THE BALANCE SHEET DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS AT 31.3.2007 WAS PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US AND THEREFORE IT MAY BE THAT ASSESSEE MAINTAINS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . T HIS BELIEF IS FURTHER STRENGTHEN BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT BEFORE US WHICH SHOWS THE AMOUNT OF OPENING CAPITAL AS AT 1.4.2007 AND ALSO THE FUND INFLOW AND OUT FLOW DURING THE YEAR. BANK LOAN ACCOUNT IN WHICH THE MONEY IS DEPOSITED IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.3.2007. THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO EXAMINE THE LOAN ACCOUNTS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO AVAILABILITY OF SOURCES AS ON THE D ATE OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN FIRM AS WELL AS LOAN ACCOUNT AND THEN DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED WITH ABOVE DIRECTION. 18 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 .1 2 .2015. - SD/ - - SD/ - (H.S.SIDHU) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 09 /1 2 /2015 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1 . APPLICANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT (A) 5 . DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI