The DCIT, 3(1), V. Smt. Ritu Gyan Chandani,

ITSSA 10/IND/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8231 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2005
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DARSHAN SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: R N GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Loose papers; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Block assessment
• Section: 143(3); 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARMA, A.M. PAN NO. AHFPG0480L I.T (SS) .A.NO. 10 / IND /200 5 BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1986 TO 5.2.1997 DY. CIT, SMT. RITU GYANCHANDANI, 3(1), VS E - 1/11A, ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL. BHOPAL. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. AHFPG0480L I.T (SS) .A.NO. 101 / IND /200 6 BLOCK PERIOD : 1987 - 88 TO 1997 - 98 SMT. RITU GYANCHANDANI, DY. CIT, E - 1/11A, ARERA COLONY, VS 3(1), BHOPAL. BHOPAL. APPELLANT R ESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI DARSHAN SINGH, CIT DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.N. GUPTA, C. A. O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. T HIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 19.10.2004, IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED BY - : 2 : - 2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SET - ASIDE PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CROSS APPEAL, WHICH WAS DELAYED BY ONE YEAR AND TEN MONTHS. WE FOUND THAT BENCH ON EARLIER OCCASION VIDE THEIR ORDER IN NOTE SHEET DATED 11.1.2010, CONDONED THE DELAY BY OBSERVING THAT LEGAL ISSUE WAS INVOLVED. AS THE DELAY HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONDONED, WE ALLOWED THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TO ARGUE ON THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEGAL GROUND TAKEN IN THE APPEAL RELATES TO AN NULMENT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S 158BC ON THE PLEA THAT NO SEARCH WARRANT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961, WAS ISSUED. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS N OT ARGUED NOR PRESSED THIS GROUND. KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M. B. LAL VS. CIT, 297 ITR 298 , LEGAL GROUND IS DIS MI SSED IN LIMINI . 3. WITH REGARD TO THE MERIT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SE T - AS IDE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH HAVE BEEN - : 3 : - 3 MOSTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) , AGAINST WHICH BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. GROUNDS TAKEN IN REVENUE S APPEAL IN I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 10/IND/2005 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW : - ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN : - 1) GIVING RELIEF OF RS. 20,000/ - OUT OF INVESTMENT IN THADDARAM COMPLEX FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996 - 97 DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. 2) GIVING RELIEF OF RS. 3,00,000/ - OUT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK, ALTHOUGH THE ASSESS EE REPORTED AT DIFFERENT STORY BEFORE THE CIT(A) STATING IT TO BE RELATED TO M/S. VANDANA FOODS. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE SAID CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 3,00,000/ - TO BE OUT OF FUNDS MOBILIZED FROM PARTIES BY WAY OF SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 15,000/ - EACH OF DEALERSHIP FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996 - 97 DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. - : 4 : - 4 3) GIVING RELIEF OF RS. 4,00,000/ - OUT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE TOOK A DIFFERENT STAND FROM THE STATEMENT GIVEN DURING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996 - 97 DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. 4) GIVING RELIEF OUT OF PEAK CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,36,500/ - FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996 - 97 DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. 5) GIVING RELIEF OF RS. 1,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN SECURITY DEPOSITS WITH PANTALOON IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98 DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. 6) GIVING RELIEF OF RS. 1,24,276/ - ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98 DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. 7) GIVING RELIEF OF RS. 40,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT, ASSESSED ON P ROT ECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR - : 5 : - 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98 DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. 8) GIVING RELIEF OF RS. 3,00,000 / - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98 DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. 9) GIV ING RELIEF OF RS. 3,10,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF FLAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98 DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. 10) GIVING RELIEF OF RS. 10,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK CASH DEPOSIT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98 DURING THE BLOCK PERI OD. 11) GIVING RELIEF OF RS. 57,319/ - ON ACCOUNT OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 19987 - 97 DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. 5. GROUNDS TAKEN IN ASSESSEE S APPEAL IN I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 10 1 /IND/200 6 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW : - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) - II HAS OVERLOOKED TO A LLOW AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT OR DEFEND HER - : 6 : - 6 CASE PROPERLY. THIS IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) - II HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS : - (A) RS. 1533 / - AS 10 % OF RS. 15330/ - UNDISCLOSED SALES. (B) RS. 1,05,637/ - AS 15 % OF RS. 7,04,250/ - DIFFERENCE IN SALES. (C) RS. 39,476/ - 10 % OF RS. 3,94,760/ - AS DIFFERENCE IN GROSS SALES [ RS. 23,35,074/ - RS. 19,40,314/ - ] \ (D) RS. 16,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHOP N O. G - 19, THADDARAM COMPLEX, M.P. NAGAR, BHOPAL. (E) RS. 69,965/ - AS 10 % OF CHEQUES DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNTS. (F) RS. 1,18,747/ - AS 15 % COMMISSION ON UNDISCLOSED SALES. - : 7 : - 7 (G) RS. 16,474/ - AS 10 % OF CHEQUES DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNTS AGGREGATING TO RS. 1,64,769/ - . 3. TH E CIT(A) - II HAS IGNORED TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH ENTIRE ORDER HAS BECOME ARBITRARY, BASELESS AND UNLAWFUL. 6. FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 20,000/ - OUT OF INVESTM ENT MADE BY ASSESSEE IN THADDARAM COMPLEX, M.P. NAGAR, BHOPAL, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996 - 97. 7. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THIS ADDITION RELATES TO PURCHASE OF SHOP BY ASSESSEE AT RS. 6 6,000/ - . RS. 30,000/ - WAS PAID BY CHEQUES AND RS. 20,000/ - WAS PAID BY CASH AND RS. 16,000/ - BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT OF ACCOUNT OF ASHOK LALWANI WITH THADDARAM & COMPANY. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE PAYMENT OF RS. 30,000/ - BY CHEQUES AND RS. 20,000/ - BY CASH. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE ADJUSTMENT ENTRY OF RS. 16,000/ - IN THE ACCOUNT OF ASHOK LALWANI. THE DEPARTMENT IS AGGRIEVED FOR DELETION OF RS. 20,000/ - IN CASH, WHERE AS THE - : 8 : - 8 ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR RETENTION OF ADDITION OF RS. 16,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT BY ADJUSTMENT ENTRIES OF ASHOK LALWANI. 8. IN GROUND NO. C, ASSES SEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR ADDITION OF RS. 69,965/ - . THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THERE WAS DE POSIT OF CASH AND CHEQUES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE, WHICH RELATED TO THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SALE OF PLOT/FLAT. AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF T RANSACTION, AO TREATED 10% OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN BANK AS ASSESSEE S INCOME. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DEPOSIT IN BANK, THEIR SOURCE AND THE PROFIT ELEMENT IN SUCH RECEIPTS, AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADDING 10% OF T OTAL DEPOSIT AS ASSESSEE S INCOME OUT OF SUCH RECEIPTS. NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. ON THE VERY SAME REASONING W E CONFIRM THE ACTION OF AO FOR ADDING RS. 16,474/ - BEING 10 % OF AMOUNT OF CHEQUES OF RS. 1,64,7 40/ - FOUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. - : 9 : - 9 9. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AND FOUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 20,000/ - . AS PER THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT PLACED ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY CASH PAYMENT OF RS.20,000/ - TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN THE SHOP DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996 - 97, ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS. 20,000/ - BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCORPORATED THE SAME IN ITS CASH ACCOUNT. 10. WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR RETAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,000/ - IN SO FAR AS NOTHING WAS PLACED BEFORE THE AO OR CIT(A) NOR BEFORE US TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT PAYMEN T WAS MADE THROUGH ADJUSTMENT ENTRY OF ASHOK LALWANI. ACCORDINGLY, NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED IN THIS PART OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 11. WITH REGARD TO REVENUE S GROUND NO. 2 FOR DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT ED IN THE BANK, WE FOUND THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF BANK DEPOSITS BY PAY IN SLIPS VIDE SEIZED PAPERS MIPS - 1 PAGE 4. NOTHING WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER, B EFORE THE - : 10 : - 10 CIT(A), IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT SEIZED BANK PAY IN SLIP RELATES TO ACCOUNT OF M/S. VANDANA FOOD WITH STATE BANK OF INDORE , M.P. NAGAR BRANCH, BHOPAL. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THIS ACCOUNT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE BUT RELATES TO M/S. VANDANA FOODS, WHICH IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE SAID FIRM STARTED ITS BUSINESS AND ALSO ICE CREA M PARLOR . THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED IN THE BANK WAS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS INTERESTED IN SETTING UP ICE CREAM PARLOR AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS OF TOWN, WHO DEPOSITED SECURITY MONEY. THE LIST OF PERSONS, WHO DEPOSITED THE SAID SECURITY MONEY WAS ALSO STATED TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. BY ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME. 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND THAT PAY IN SLIPS FOR THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK WAS FOUND DURING COURSE OF SEARCH. NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF FUNDS SO DEPOSITED IN BANK WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. BEFORE CIT(A), A LIST OF PERSONS WHO HAVE ALLEGED TO GIVE SECURITY MONEY FOR ICE - CREAM PARLOUR WAS SUBMITTED, WITHOUT GIVING AN Y FINDING WITH REGARD TO GENUINENESS OF SUCH DEPOSITOR AND THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED, - : 11 : - 11 THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. NEITHER ANY REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR NOR ANY OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO AO TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF SUCH CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN THIS PART OF CIT(A) S ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECIDING AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE DEPOSITORS , AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGL Y. 13. WITH REGARD TO THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1533/ - , WE FOUND THAT ON THE BASIS OF LPS - 8 PAGE 68, THE AO HAS COMPUTED COMMISSION FROM PANTALOONS IN RESPECT OF THE SALES EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. A DIFFERENCE OF R S. 15,330/ - WAS FOUND IN SALES . BY COMPUTING PROFIT AT 10 %, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION AT RS. 1533/ - , WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED IN THIS PART OF THE CIT(A) S ORDER. 14. ADDITION OF RS. 39,476/ - WAS MADE BY COMPUTING 10 % COMMISSION ON THE GROSS SALES. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT SALES TAX AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE GROSS SALES AND COMMISSION SHOULD BE COMPUTED ONLY ON THE NET SALES. BY - : 12 : - 12 OBSERVING THAT NOTHING WAS BRO UGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE SUGGEST ING ANY SALES TAX OR INCIDENTAL EXPENSES HAVING BEEN INCLUDED IN THE SALE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY ESTIMATING 10 % INCOME ON THE GROSS SALES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 39,476/ - WAS MADE IN THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. 15. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED FOR CONFIRMING ADDITION AT RS. 1,05,637/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY APPLYING 15 % COMMISSION ON THE GROSS SALES OF RS. 23,35,074/ - . THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN ONLY SALES OF RS. 16,30,824/ - , IN PLACE OF ACTUAL SALES OF RS. 23,35,074/ - , THEREFORE, HE WORKED OUT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 7,04,250/ - AND AFTER APPLYING COMMISSIO N RATE AT 15 % ON SUCH SALES AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,05,637/ - WAS MADE. NOTH ING WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO PERSUADE US TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITH REGARD TO CORRECT AMOUNT OF SALES EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A ) FOR SUCH ADDITION. - : 13 : - 13 16. THE REVENUE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED FOR DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 4 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR INVESTMENT IN PLOT AT ALKAPURI. WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE S HUSBAND SHRI KANHAIYALAL GYANCHANDANI PURCHASED PLOT NO.105A AT ALKAPU RI, BHOPAL, IN THE NATURE OF ASSESSEE (RITU GYANCHANDANI) AND PAID RS. 4 LAKHS FROM THE BOOK OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. THADDARAM BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS. PAYMENT WAS MADE BY CHEQUE. COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM AND THE BANK STATEMENT REGARDING ISSUE OF CHEQ UES/DD WAS PLACED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER RECORDING A FINDING AT PAGE 7 OF HIS ORDER. 17. WE FOUND THAT THE RELEVANT TRANSACTIONS WAS PROPERLY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND COPY OF AGREEMENT WITH THE BUYE R WAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD INDICATING PAYMENT OF RS. 4 LAKHS. IN VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD AND THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE 7, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN HIS ORDER FOR DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 4 LAKHS. 18. NEXT G RIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,36,500/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN - : 14 : - 14 STATE BANK OF INDORE IN ACCOUNT NO. 9557. WE FOUND THAT FOLLOWING CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN ACCOUNT NO. 9557 : - DATE AMOUNT PARTICULARS 16.10.1995 500 CASH 29.12.1995 50,000 CASH 29.08.1996 51,000 CASH 1,01,500 FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1995 - 96, THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE RS. 50,500/ - AND IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1996 - 97 THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE RS. 51,000/ - . 19. RESPECTIVE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE CASH BOOK. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,36,500/ - APPEARS TO BE MISCONCEIVED. THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE 7 & 8 HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 20. NEXT GRIEVANCE RELAT ES TO ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAKH MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DEPOSIT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT WITH THE PANTALOON. 21. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, AS PER STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS/PAYMENT LPS - 8 , IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS. 2 LAKHS AS SECURITY DEP OSIT WITH IT. HOWEVER, IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THERE WAS ONLY MENTION OF RS. 1 LAKH AS - : 15 : - 15 SECURITY DEPOSIT, ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAKH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME JUST BY OBSERVING THAT AS PER AGREEMENT WI TH PANTALOON, THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PAY ONLY RS. 1 LAKH AS SECURITY DEPOSIT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CIT(A) S ACTION. IN SO FAR AS SEIZED LOOSE PAPERS AND THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WITH PANTALOON, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS. 2 LAK HS AS SECURITY DEPOSIT. THUS, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS GROUND AND CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAKH MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH SECURITY DEPOSIT. 22. NEXT GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,24, 276/ - BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION INCOME FROM PANTALOON. 23. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE AO FOUND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALES INDICATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT VI S - - VIS SALES SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT OF M/S. PANTALOON. AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,43,023/ - . BY WORKING OUT COMMISSION, AS PER AGREEMENT ON THE DIFFERENCE OF SALES, AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,18,747/ - WAS UPHELD BY CIT(A) , - : 16 : - 16 W HEREAS, HE DELETED ADDITION OF RS. 1 ,24,276/ - . BOTH ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 24. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION INCOME RECEIVED FROM PANTALOON AS PER THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT REC EIVED FROM PA NTALOON COMPANY. HOWEVER, IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECORDED COMMISSION ENTRY ON THE BASIS OF SALES SHOWN IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ON THE BASIS OF REVISED COMPUTATION OF COMMISSION INCOME IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS YEARS AS REFLECTE D IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT VIS - - VIS COMMISSION AS PER THE STATEMENT OF PANTALOON, THE CIT(A) AFTER RECORDING DETAILED FINDING CORRECTLY SUSTAINED ADDITION OF RS. 1,18,747/ - AND DELETED ADDITION OF RS. 1,24,276/ - . FINDING OF CIT(A) WAS NOT CONTROVERT ED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED IN THIS PART OF CIT(A) S ORDER. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. (F) OF ASSESSEE S APPEAL AND GROUND NO. 6 OF REVENUE S APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 25. A PROTECTIVE ADDITION OF RS. 40 LAKHS WAS MADE IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE S - : 17 : - 17 HUSBAND, WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 25 TH JULY, 2008. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSEE S HANDS WITH RESPECT TO INVESTMENT IN KOLAR ROAD PROJECT. 26. NEXT GRIEVANCE OF REVENUE RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 3 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PURCHASE OF LAND BY HUSBAND. 27. ON THE BASIS OF AGREEMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FOR PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE S HUSBAND WITH MOHD. SALIM, THE ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE ASSESSEE S HANDS. WE FOUND THAT THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI KANHAIYA LAL GYANCHANDANI HAD PAID RS. 3 LAKHS TO MOHD. SALIM ON 11.4.1996 IN CASH, WHICH IS A DULY RECORDED TRANSACTION AND APPEARED IN THE BOOKS OF THADDARAM BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS. AS THE TRANSACTION IS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE, SOU RCE OF PAYMENT IS DULY EXPLAINED , W E DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION AFTER RECORDING FINDING AT PAGE 11 PART B , WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED . - : 18 : - 18 28. NEXT GRIEVANCE RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,10,0 00/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LUV KUSH APARTMENT. 29. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND THAT FLAT WAS PURCHASED FROM SHRI G.P. CHUGH TO WHOM PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI KANHAIYALAL THRO UGH ACCOUNT BOOKS OF M/S. T HADDARAM BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS. ENTIRE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES OF STATE BANK OF INDORE. FULL PARTICULARS OF CHEQUES, BLANK STATEMENT AND LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THADDARAM BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS WAS FURNISHED BEFO RE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION AFTER RECORDING FINDING AT PAGE 11 PARA 6. 30. AN ADDITION OF RS. 10,000/ - WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF ANNEXURE - B ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT OF CASH IN STATE BANK OF INDORE, SHIVAJI NAGAR BRANCH ACCOUNT NO.01190 /0113357. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED DETAIL OF VARIOUS CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SOURCES. RESPECTIVE CASH DEPOSIT WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,000/ - AFTER RECORDING FINDING AT PAGE 12 PARA D , WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED. - : 19 : - 19 31. IN GROUND NO. 11, THE REVENU E IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR GIVING RELIEF OF RS. 57,319/ - ON ACCOUNT OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98. AS PER LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, NO SUCH RELIEF HAD BEEN GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS MI S - CONCEIVED. IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE S SUBMISSION, WE HAD GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHEREIN NO SUCH RELIEF APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO ASSESSEE, OUT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE S APPEAL IS DIS MISSED. 32. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED, WHEREAS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JUNE , 2011. SD/ - SD/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) ( R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 15 TH JUNE , 2011 . CPU* 13 15