ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Pradeep Khanna, New Delhi

ITSSA 20/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3455 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAMITA TRIPATHY
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Peak credit; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 68; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 20/DEL/2014 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.199 6 TO 17.10.2002 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS PRADEEP KHANNA, WARD 3(4), 480, KATR A ISHWAR BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. KHARI BAOLI, NEW DELHI-110006 (PAN: AGCPK0272E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. PRAMITA TRIPATHY, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAMEEP GUPTA, ADVOCATE PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2014, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A)- I, NEW DELHI, FOR BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.96 TO 17.10.2002. 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS A PPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS. 50,00,000/- IGNORING THAT NO DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANT IATE ITS CLAIM THAT THE PROPERTY BELONGED TO THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS . 33,28,363/- AS AGAINST RS. 95,96,937/- WITHOUT GIVI NG ANY COGENT REASONS AND BY FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF ADMITTED TO THE SAME DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. IT(SS) NO. 20/DEL/2014 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1996 TO 17.10.2002 2 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RI GHT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) O F APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL . 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND S EIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') IN THE COCO GROUP OF CASES ON 17.10.2002. THE ASSESSEE, ONE OF THE BROTHERS B ELONGING TO THE GROUP, WAS ALSO COVERED IN THE SEARCH. IN RESP ONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 158BC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT'), THE ASSESSEE FILED A NI L RETURN FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE CASE WAS ASSESSED AT AN INCOME O F RS. 1,79,25,000/- BASED ON DOCUMENTS/ASSETS FOUND/SEIZE D DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WAS COMPLETED ON 29.10.2004 U/S 158BC AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS:- 1. UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY - RS. 50,00,000/- SITUATED AT G-180 TIGER LANE, SAINIK FARMS, NEW DELHI 2. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CASH CREDITS U/S 68 - RS.1,29,25,000/ - TOTAL RS. 1,79,25,00 0/- 2.2 THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY AGAINST THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. FURTHER, DU RING THE IT(SS) NO. 20/DEL/2014 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1996 TO 17.10.2002 3 PENDENCY OF ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE MOVED THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE HONB LE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ADMITTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 37,00,000/-. THE SETTLEMENT APPLICATION WAS ADMITT ED BY THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESS EES APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE LD. CIT (A) EX PARTE EVEN BEFORE THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAD FINALLY DISPOSED OF THE SETTLEMENT APPLICATION. THE SETTLEMENT APPLICATION STOOD ABATED DUE TO NON-PAYMENT OF TAXES BY VIRTUE OF THE AMENDM ENT INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2007, MAKING IT MANDA TORY FOR THE PAYMENT OF TAXES DUE ALONG WITH INTEREST THEREON FO R THE SETTLEMENT APPLICATION TO BE PROCEEDED WITH. 2.3 THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE ITAT IN APPEAL CHAL LENGING THE EX PARTE DISPOSAL BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE APPEAL WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE DE CIDED AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 2.4 ON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BEING RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) BY THE ITAT, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDI TION OF RS. 50,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INVES TMENT IN PROPERTY ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROPERTY BELONGED T O THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE LD . CIT (A) ALSO IT(SS) NO. 20/DEL/2014 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1996 TO 17.10.2002 4 RESTRICTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE F OR THE BLOCK PERIOD BY BASING HIS FINDINGS ON PEAK THEORY AND TE LESCOPING THEREOF TO RS. 33,28,363/-. 2.5 NOW, THE DEPARTMENT HAS APPROACHED THE ITAT AND HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN ALLOWIN G RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AS MENTIONED AFORESAID. 3. LD. CIT DR SUBMITTED THAT AS FAR AS THE INVESTME NT OF RS. 50 LAKH IN PROPERTY SITUATED AT G-180, SAINIK FARMS WA S CONCERNED, ANNEXURE A-18 HAD BEEN SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT PAGES 31-33 OF THIS ANNEXURE WAS A REGISTERED LETTE R FROM ONE MR. ASHMIT SINGH CHATWAL WHICH SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF G-180, TIGER LANE, SAINIK FARMS, NEW DELHI. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LETTER MENTIONED THAT THE P ROPERTY WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO MR. CHATWAL FOR RS. 50 LAKH TOWARDS WHICH RS. 1 LAKH HAD BEEN PAID IN CASH AND TWO CHEQ UES OF RS. 2 LAKH EACH HAD ALSO BEEN GIVEN AS ADVANCE. IT WAS F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON THE ASSESSEE BEING SPECIFICALLY A SKED TO EXPLAIN THE ANNEXURE, NO EXPLANATION WAS SUBMITTED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, SOME PARTLY BURNT PAPERS WERE RECOVERED FROM THE BATH ROOM OF THE ASSESSEE A ND ON IT(SS) NO. 20/DEL/2014 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1996 TO 17.10.2002 5 INQUIRY, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN ATTEMPT TO BURN THE PAPER AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF SEARCH. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE PARTLY BURNT PAPERS WERE ALSO SEIZED AS PER ANNEXURE A-19 IN WHICH PAGES 25, 34 AND 35 WERE ELE CTRICITY BILLS REGARDING THE TIGER LANE PROPERTY. THE LD. CIT DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT LOCAL INQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED THROU GH THE INSPECTOR WHO HAD REPORTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RE SIDING THERE FOR SOME PERIOD BEFORE SHIFTING TO HIS RENOVATED HO USE AT E-18, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI. LD. CIT DR ALSO SUBMIT TED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD TOTALLY IGNORED THE FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAD DELETED THE ADDITION WITH OUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3.1 ON THE SECOND ISSUE PERTAINING TO UNDISCLOSED C ASH CREDITS, THE LD. CIT DR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, A SMALL POCKET PARTY LEDGER WAS SEIZED F ROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE A- 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PAGES 19-53 OF THE ANNEXURE PERTAINE D TO DEBIT AND CREDIT ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE NAME OF VARIOUS PARTIES WHEREIN THE FIGURES WERE WRITTEN IN CODES BY USING 00. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THAT AS PER THE SEIZED ANNEXURE, CAS H LOANS OF RS.5,17,00,000/- WERE TAKEN AND THE ASSESSEE WAS AS KED TO IT(SS) NO. 20/DEL/2014 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1996 TO 17.10.2002 6 ESTABLISH THE PROOF OF IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, T HE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS TO ADVANCE MONEY AND THE AVENUES OF TRANS ACTIONS BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE PERSONS FR OM WHOM LOANS HAD BEEN TAKEN. THE TOTAL CASH ENTRIES ON THESE PA GES WERE OF RS. 5,17,00,000/- AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 5.17 CRO RE WAS DIVIDED EQUALLY IN THE NAMES OF FOUR BROTHERS NAMEL Y SHRI KAMAL KHANNA, SHRI RAJESH KHANNA, SHRI RAMESH KHANNA AND THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY, AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,29,2 5,000/- EACH WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF FOUR BROTHERS. THE LD. CI T DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE LOAN, THE GENUI NENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS WELL AS THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS WHO HAD ADVANCED CASH LOANS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT TH E LD. CIT(A) HAD TOTALLY DISREGARDED THESE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER WHILE ALLOWING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESTRICTI NG THE ADDITION TO RS. 33,28,643/-. 4. IN RESPONSE, THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND WHILE EXTENSIVELY READING OUT FROM T HE RELEVANT PORTIONS, VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAD BEEN DELETED AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND THE EVIDEN CES ON RECORD. IT(SS) NO. 20/DEL/2014 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1996 TO 17.10.2002 7 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE O F UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY AT TIGER LANE, SAINIK FARM S IS CONCERNED, IT HAS BEEN THE DEPARTMENTS CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY FOR AN AGREED C ONSIDERATION OF RS. 50 LAKH WHEREAS THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS TH AT HE WAS LIVING THERE FOR SOME TIME BEFORE MOVING TO THE JOI NT RESIDENCE IN EAST OF KAILASH AND THAT DURING HIS STAY AT THE SAI D PROPERTY IN SAINIK FARMS, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL THE SAME WITH THE ASSESSEES WIFE MRS. HARSHA KHANNA ON 23.04.1998 BASED ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HA D ENTERED INTO A FURTHER AGREEMENT WITH SHRI A.S. CHATWAL FOR THE SALE OF PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 50 LAKH AND AN ADVANCE OF RS. 5 LAKH HAD BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST SUCH AGREEMENT TO SELL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY COULD NEVER BE TRANSFERRED TO SHRI CHATWAL. THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE TRANSACTION DID NOT FRUCTIFY, THERE WAS NEITHER ANY INCOME NOR ANY INVESTMENT FROM THESE TRANSACTIONS. 5.1 A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE TRAN SACTION UNDISPUTEDLY RELATES TO THE ASSESSEES WIFE AND NOT TO THE IT(SS) NO. 20/DEL/2014 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1996 TO 17.10.2002 8 ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO OBSERVED TH AT THE MATTER WAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE WIFE OF TH E ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT RE CORDED HIS REASONS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE HAS ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PROPERTY BELONGED TO THE WIFE OF THE ASSES SEE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER DOES NOT MENTION EXAMINATION OF ANY DOCUMENTS LIKE THE TWO IMPUGNED AGREEMENTS TO SELL BY THE LD. CIT (A) SO AS TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON TH IS ISSUE. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO NOT COMMENTED ON THE PARTLY BURNT PAPERS SEIZED FROM THE BATHROOM OF THE ASSESS EE, WHICH WERE ALLEGEDLY THE ELECTRICITY BILLS OF THE IMPUGNE D PROPERTY. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO NOT RECORDED A FINDING AS TO W HETHER THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS ULTIMATELY SOLD OR WAS STILL WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNER. THE LD. AR ALSO COULD NOT ESTABLIS H THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH PROPER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE US. WE ALSO FIND THAT NO PAPER BOOK HAS BEE N FILED BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES SO AS TO ENABLE US TO VERIFY THE VERACITY OF THE AVERMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES. IN SUCH A SITU ATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF J USTICE, THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) WITH A VIEW TO RE- IT(SS) NO. 20/DEL/2014 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1996 TO 17.10.2002 9 EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN ITS ENTIRETY. ACCORDINGLY, THI S ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) TO PASS APP ROPRIATE ORDERS AFTER DUE EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS AND THE RELATED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN LIGHT OF OUR OBSERVATIONS IN THE AFORE MENTIONED PARAGRAPHS AND AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5.2 ON THE SECOND ISSUE OF THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTI NG THE ADDITION TO RS. 33,28,363/- AS AGAINST RS. 95,96,937/-, IT I S SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE ELABORATELY IN P ARA 5.1 TO 5.5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOTED T HAT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE YIELDED SEVERAL DOCUMENTS REGARDING UNA CCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE BASICALLY IN THE NATURE OF CASH INWARD AND CASH OUTWARD. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO NOTED T HAT THE COMMON OBJECT OF THE GROUP WAS TRADING IN DRY FRUIT S. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DISCUSSED THE METHODOLOGY OF WORKING OU T THE PEAK THEORY AND TELESCOPING IN PARA 5.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN HE HAS MENTIONED THAT THE INCOME BASED ON THESE TRA NSACTIONS HAS TO BE DETERMINED BY WORKING OUT THE PEAK BY CON SOLIDATING THE CASH LOANS AND CHIT TRANSACTIONS, TREATING IT A S SOURCE OF UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES AND COMPUTING THE PROFITS OF UNDISCLOSED IT(SS) NO. 20/DEL/2014 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1996 TO 17.10.2002 10 SALES. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FURTHER ELABORATED THE METHODOLOGY BEING ADOPTED BY NOTING THAT THE UNDISCLOSED FUNDS SO WORKED OUT WILL BE ALLOCATED TO THE PERSONS TO WHOM THEY R ELATE (AS INDICATED BY THE DOCUMENTS AND AS ADMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE GROUP). THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE GROUP HAD ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 2,22,50,000/- IN ITS SETTLEMENT APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE SET TLEMENT COMMISSION FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.86 TO 31.3.2003 WHICH INCLUDED THE BLOCK PERIOD ENDING 17.10.2002. THE LD. CIT ( A) HAS NOTED THAT THE FACTS DISCLOSED IN THE SETTLEMENT APPLICAT ION MADE BEFORE THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ALSO CONSTITUTE E VIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF TH E VARIOUS PERSONS IN THE GROUP AND FURTHER THAT THE AMOUNTS A DMITTED BEFORE THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN EXCESS OF PEAK BALANCES WILL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS ADDITIONAL I NCOME. WHILE SPELLING OUT THE METHODOLOGY BEING ADOPTED, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE AMOUNT ADMITTED BEFORE THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION RELATING TO THE BLOCK PERIOD WOULD ALSO BE SET OFF INTER SE WHEREVER SO WARRANTED AND THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX SHALL NOT BE BELOW THE AMOUNT ADM ITTED BY THE GROUP BEFORE THE HONBLE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMM ISSION AND IT(SS) NO. 20/DEL/2014 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1996 TO 17.10.2002 11 BESIDES THIS, THE CASH DEPOSITS INDICATED IN THE BA NK DEPOSIT SLIPS INVESTMENTS IN PROPERTIES, ASSETS, CASH ETC. WOULD ALSO BE TAKEN SEPARATELY AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 5.3 THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PROCEEDED TO WOR K OUT THE PEAK BALANCES BASED ON THE METHODOLOGY AS OUTLINED ABOVE AND CALCULATED THE SAME AT RS. 1,33,13,450/- AND HAS A LLOCATED IT BETWEEN THE FOUR BROTHERS (WHO HAD ALSO OWNED UP TH ESE TRANSACTIONS) IN EQUAL AMOUNTS OF RS. 33,28,362.50 EACH. THE WORKING OF THE LD. CIT (A) HAS BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN THE TWO CHARTS WHICH ARE APPEARING ON PAGE 20 OF THE IMPUGN ED ORDER. 5.4 IT IS SEEN FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE CHART AT THE TOP OF PAGE 20 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN THE FIGURE SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE GROUP BEFORE THE HONBL E SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND HAS ADDED THERETO THE ADDITIONS PERT AINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 AGAINST THE NA MES OF VARIOUS GROUP ENTITIES. THEREAFTER, HE HAS ALSO AD DED THE AMOUNTS OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS AGAINST THE NAME S OF THE VARIOUS ASSESSEES TO WORK OUT THE PEAK AMOUNT TO WH ICH HE HAS ALSO ADDED THE BUSINESS PROFITS AND BANK DEPOSITS T O ARRIVE AT THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. THE RELEVANT CHART A S DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS REPRODUCED HEREIN UNDER FOR A READY REFERENCE:- IT(SS) NO. 20/DEL/2014 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1996 TO 17.10.2002 12 PERSON ITSC AMOUNT ADDITIONS IN ADDITIONS IN UDI FOR THE BP PEAK AMOUNT BUSINESS PROFITS BANK DEPOSITS TOTAL UDI 1.4.96 TO 31.3.03 AY 2002-03 AY 2003-04 1.4.96 TO 17.10.02 1.4.96 TO17.10.02 KAMAL KHANNA 6000000 1695859 1837282 2466859 3328362.5 477428 663317 4469107.5 RAJESH KHANNA 1500000 479404 1020596 3328362.5 3328362.5 INDIA INTERNATIONAL 8000000 977135 360982 6661883 951654 1326634 2278288 RAMESH KHANNA 2000000 437217 1562783 3328362.5 3328362.5 PRADEEP KHANNA 3700000 489134 3210866 3328362.5 3328362.5 HARSH KHANNA 300000 220430 79570 ' 0 COCO DRY FRUITS (1) PVT. LTD. 750000 424834 569904 -244738 295692 295692 TOTAL 22250000 1639358 4173923 16436719 13313450 1724774 1989951 17028175 5.5 ALTHOUGH THE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTI ON OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN ADOPTING THE PEAK GROUP THEORY, THE LD. CIT DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY LEGAL OR FACTUAL INFIRMITY IN THE SAME EXCEPT FOR PLACING RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THOUGH THE CHART AS WELL AS THE MODUS OF CALCULATION AS EXPLAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 5.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THIS F IGURE OF DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AFTER DUE CONSIDER ATION OF FACTS, DOCUMENTS SEIZED AS WELL AS CORRELATION OF T HE VARIOUS IMPUGNED AMOUNTS. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE ON IT(SS) NO. 20/DEL/2014 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1996 TO 17.10.2002 13 THIS ISSUE AND WE DISMISS THIS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN TERMS OF OUR ABOVE OBSE RVATIONS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST NOVEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUDHA NSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER DT. 1ST NOVEMBER, 2017 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR