Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1), V. Smt. Meeta Khatri,

ITSSA 21/JAB/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3654 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V B SARGAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Search and seizure; Retrospective amendment; Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 21/JAB/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1990 TO 20.09.2000 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR VS SMT. MEETA KHATRI, 109, ADARSH NAGAR, NARMADA ROAD, JABALPUR PAN : - / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI V.B. SARGAR, DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUMIT NEMA, ADV. / DATE OF HEARING : 14/03/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16/03/2018 / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-2, JABALPUR DATED 08.03.2016 PERTAINING TO BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1990 TO 20.09.2000. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,09,362/- MADE BY THE AO ON AC COUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A NON FILER OF RETURN. MOREOVER, HE WAS FAILED TO PROVE THE VE RACITY OF HIS CLAIM. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.85,575/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED PROFIT FROM SALE PROPERTY WITHOUT APPRECIATI NG THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SOURCE OF INITIAL ACQUIS ITION. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.61,056/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON AC COUNT OF UNEXPLAINED OPENING BALANCE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,35,653/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. ITSSA NO. 21/JAB/2016 ACIT VS. SMT. MEETA KHATRI AY : BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.90 TO 20.09.2000 2 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.5,40,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON MARRIAGE OF ASSESSEE'S DAUG HTERS. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. IN CONSEQUENCE TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON 28.09.2000, A NOTICE U/S 158BC WAS ISSUED ON 02.08.2002. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE, ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN FORM NO.2B ON 09.09.2002 DECLARING UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT NIL. SUBSEQUENTLY, AS SESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE ORDER DATED 13.09.2002. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESS MENT, ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INC OME AT RS. 48,08,466/- BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME COMPUTED U/S 158BB OF THE ACT (RS.12,09,362), UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD (RS.83,420/-), UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND UNDISCLOSED PRO FIT ON TRUCKS (RS.20,19,475/-), UNEXPLAINED GIFT (RS.1,20,000/-), UNEXPLAINED I NVESTMENT IN PLOT (RS.2,39,500/-), UNEXPLAINED CASH (RS.61,056/-), UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT (RS.5,35,653/-) AND UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN MARRIAGE (RS.5, 40,000/-). 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL THEREBY DELETING PART OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW, REVENU E IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADD ITION. 5. THE FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDIT ION OF RS.12,09,362/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOS ED INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SEC TION 158BB, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.12,09,362/- ON ACCOUNT OF ITSSA NO. 21/JAB/2016 ACIT VS. SMT. MEETA KHATRI AY : BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.90 TO 20.09.2000 3 UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTION S WERE RAISED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, CIT(A ) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6.2.3 DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. I AM INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS BE EN CONSISTENTLY HOLDING THAT SECTION 158BB HAS BEEN AMENDED RETROSPECTIVELY AN D IN RESPECT TO THE YEARS WHERE THE INCOME WAS BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT, SA ME DOES NOT CONSTITUTE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, EVEN IF NO RETURN IS FI LED FOR SUCH YEARS. IN CIT VS. MAYA CHOTRANI (2007) 210 CTR 413(MP), WHERE THE ISSUE I NVOLVED WAS WHETHER UNDISCLOSED INCOME INCLUDES INCOME OF THOSE YE ARS WHERE RETURN WAS NOT FILED AND THE INCOME AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/ S SOL WAS BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME DOES NOT INCLUDE SUCH INCOME. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PURUSHOTTAMLAL TAMRAKA R (2004) 270 ITR 314 (MP), THAT SECTION 158BB HAS BEEN AMENDED RETROSPECTIVELY AN D IN RESPECT TO YEARS WHERE THE INCOME WAS BELOW TAXABLE LIMI T, SAME DOES NOT CONSTITUTE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, EVEN IF NO RETURN IS FI LED FOR SUCH YEARS. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PURUSHOTTAM KHATRI (2007) 290 ITR 260, WHERE INCOME OF THOSE YEARS WHERE RETURN WAS NOT FILED AND THE INCOME AFT ER ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S SOL WAS BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME DOES NOT INCLUDE SUCH INCOME. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEE N TAKEN BY THE AGRA BENCH OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN DEENA NATH AGARWAL VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2004) 82 TTJ 689(TRIBUNAL-AGRA), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT BY FINANCE ACT, 2002, SUB-CLAUSE (B) OF CLA USE (C) OF SUB- SEC. (1) OF SEC. 158BB HAS BEEN INSERTED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1ST JULY, 1995, ACCORDING TO WHICH IF THE RETURN HAS NOT BEEN FILED FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS NO INCOME EXCEEDING THE TAXABLE INCOME, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 158BB(1), PRIOR TO ITS SUBSTATION LAID DOWN THAT IN COMPUTING UNDISCLOSED INCOM E, INCOME TO BE REDUCED FOR A PARTICULAR YEAR WOULD BE NIL IF IN RELATIO N TO THAT YEAR NO RETURN OF INCOME HAD BEEN FILED EVEN THOUGH DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME HAD EXPIRED. INTERPRETATION OF THIS ORIGINAL CLAUSE GAVE RISE TO SERIOUS CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TAXPAYERS AND THE DEPARTMENT PLEA OF THE TAXPAYERS USED TO BE THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO OBLIGATION TO FILE RE TURN OF INCOME IN RELATION TO THE YEAR IN WHICH INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER WAS BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT, THE ENTIRE INCOME OF SUCH YEAR COULD NOT BE TREATED AS UN DISCLOSED INCOME AND SUBJECTED TO HIGHER RATE OF TAX SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT N O RETURN OF SUCH INCOME HAD BEEN FILED. THE DEPARTMENT RELIED ON LITERAL IN TERPRETATION OF THE ITSSA NO. 21/JAB/2016 ACIT VS. SMT. MEETA KHATRI AY : BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.90 TO 20.09.2000 4 WORDS OF SAID CLAUSE (C) AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO ITS SUBST ITUTION. THERE WERE SOME TRIBUNAL DECISION IN WHICH THIS POINT WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THE CONTROVERSY CAME UP FOR ADJUDICATING BEFORE KERALA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. M.M. GEORGE (2002) 173 CTR (KER) 357 : (2002) 254 ITR 45 (KER) IN WHICH THE DECISION WENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE HIGH COURT HE LD THAT INCOME BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT OF ANY PREVIOUS YEAR IS NOT TO BE E XCLUDED FROM THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD FOR THE PURPOSE OF S. 158BC, IF SUCH INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING THE RE TURN OF INCOME. CLAUSE (C) HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED BY NEW CLAUSE W.E.F. 1-7-1995 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1995. THE DECISION OF KERALA HIGH COURT HAS BEE N RENDERED REDUNDANT IN VIEW OF SAID SUBSTITUTION. 'SEE CIT VS. M.M. THOMAS (2004) 187 CTR (KER) 78 : (2004) 265 ITR 327 (KER)' IN CIT VS. PURSHOTTAMLA L TAMRAKAR UCHEHRA (2003) 184 CTR (MP) 349, THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT HELD THAT IF FOR SOME YEARS WHICH CONSTITUTE THE BLOC K PERIOD, THERE IS NO TAX LIABILITY ON THE BASIS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT I.E. INCOME IS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT, THE INCOME OF SAID YEARS IS NOT TO BE TREA TED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER S. 158BB. 'SEE ALSO CIT VS. SMT. CHANDRA BALAK RISHNAN (2003) 184 CTR (KER) 353. IN CHAIN SUKH RATHI VS. CIT & ANR. (2003) 185 CTR (RAJ) 56 IT WAS HELD THAT WHILE COMPUTING UNDISCLOSED I NCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF S. 158BB TAX EXEMPTION LI MIT HAS TO BE KEPT IN MIND, AND TAX SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED ON THAT PART OF THE I NCOME WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN EACH YEAR. IN CIT & ANR. VS. SMT . LILY TOBIAS (2004) 266 ITR 401 (PAT), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EFFECT OF RETRO SPECTIVE AMENDMENT W.E.F. 1ST JULY, 1995 IS THAT IF THE INCOME OF P ARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN THE BLOCK PERIOD IS NOT T AXABLE, THE SAME SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ALSO REFER CIT VS . ASHIM KRISHNA MONDAL (2004) 192 CTR (CAL) 336 : (2004) 270 ITR 160 (CAL). IN K.P. MOHAMMED SAWED VS. CIT (2005) 194 CTR (KER) 4 : (2005) 273 ITR 338 (KER) THE KERALA HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE HAD FA ILED TO FILE RETURN FOR THE ASST. YR. 1996-97 AS REGARDS CAPITAL GAINS AND NOTIC E UNDER S. 158BD HAD BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE IN JANUARY, 1998, SUCH INCOME COULD BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THAT YEAR. RELYING ON C IT VS. ASANDAS KHATRI (2006) 201 CTR (MP) 160 : (2006) 283 ITR 346 (MP) THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD IN CIT VS. LATE MANOHAR LAL SONI (2008) 214 C TR (RAJ) 395, IN RELATION TO BLOCK PERIOD 1988-89 TO 1999-2000, THAT IF THE I NCOME OF ASSESSEE FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR FALLING WITHIN THE BLOCK P ERIOD DOES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX, SUCH INCOME IS REQUIRE D TO BE REDUCED FROM OUT OF THE AGGREGATE INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD EVEN IF NO RETURN WAS FILED WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER S. 139, AS THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO FILE ANY RETURN. SEE ALSO RAMESHWAR S ONI VS. ASSTT. CIT (2008) 214 CTR (RAJ) 398. IN CIT VS. SMT. SHARMILA PANDEY (2005) 197 CTR (RAJ) 561 IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FALLING IN BLOCK PERIOD IN WHICH HER INC OME WAS BELOW ITSSA NO. 21/JAB/2016 ACIT VS. SMT. MEETA KHATRI AY : BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.90 TO 20.09.2000 5 TAXABLE LIMIT, MATTER WAS REMITTED TO THE AO TO RECOMPU TE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS IN THE LIGHT OF CL. (C) OF SUB-S. (1) OF S. 158BB SUBSTITUTED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1ST JULY, 1995. IN CIT VS. JUGAL KISHORE GUPTA (2009) 221 CTR (ALL) 352, IT WAS HELD THA T INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE PARTNER IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS BE ING BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE RETURNS WERE NOT FIL ED TO HIDE THE INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST AND SALARY AND, THEREFORE, INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST AND SALARY FROM THE FIRM CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNDISCLOSED INCO ME UNDER THE PROVISION OF S. 158BB. 6.2.4. THEREFORE, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE AND THE EMERGING LEGAL POSITION, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE I NCOME DISCLOSED ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED DURING BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE ASSESSED AS THE APPELLANT'S INCOME FROM UNDISC LOSED SOURCES. FURTHER, THE ITEMS OF INCOME, THE AGGREGATE OF WHICH HAS BE EN ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.12,09,362/-, HAVE BEEN ADDED AS UNDISCL OSED INCOME SEPARATELY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, T HE ADDITION AMOUNTS TO A DOUBLE ADDITION. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION OF FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 12,09 ,362/-. THE SAME IS DELETED. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 6. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ON B EHALF OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAD RIGHTLY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSE E AS DISCUSSED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND G ROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED. 7. SECOND ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF ADDI TION OF RS.85,575/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOS ED PROFIT FROM SALE OF PROPERTY. LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE INV ESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEES HUSBAND, THERE IS NO LOGIC IN ADDING THE PROFIT ON S ALE OF PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS FINDING OF FACT COULD NO T BE CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, WE SEE NO INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. ITSSA NO. 21/JAB/2016 ACIT VS. SMT. MEETA KHATRI AY : BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.90 TO 20.09.2000 6 CIT(A) WHICH IS CONFIRMED. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THUS DISMISSED. 8. NEXT ISSUE IS RELATED TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION O F RS.61,056/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED OP ENING BALANCE. THIS ISSUE ALSO ELABORATELY DISCUSSED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AND OBSERVED THAT THE OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE AS ON 01.04.1990 COULD NOT BE TR EATED AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD. HE IS ALSO S ATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REASONABLE WHICH IS NARRATED AT PAGE NO.33 IN HIS ORDER. THESE WELL REASONED FINDING OF FAC TS OF LD. CIT(A) HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY C ONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH IS CONFIRMED. GROUND NO. 3 IS ALS O DISMISSED. 9. NEXT ISSUE IS REGARDING DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .5,35,653/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH F OUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THIS ADDIT ION BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATION:- 6.10.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ARGUMENT S ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. DURING THE COURSE OF PRO CEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 158BD OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT'S HUSBAND LATE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KHATRI, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT VIDE REPLY DATED 27- 8-2004. AS PER SAID CASH FLOW STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF SALARY, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND DALALI INCOME. THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SEC. 158BD HAD BEEN ANNULLED IN APPEAL, THE CASE OF LATE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KHATRI HAS SINCE BEEN DECIDED ON MER ITS AND BY VIRTUE OF THE APPELLATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE HON'BLE ITAT, THE CASH FLOW STATEMENTS AS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE STOOD ACCEPT ED. 6.10.4 THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN THE TRUNK STATED TO HAVE BEEN KEPT REGULARLY BY LATE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KHATRI DURING HIS LIFE TIME IS SU PPORTED BY THE PANCHNAMA DRAWN AT THE TIME OF OPENING THE TRUNK AFTER HIS DEATH, AND HIS CAPACITY TO KEEP SUCH MONEY WITH HIM IS SUPPORTED WITH THE C OPIES OF ITRS AS ALSO THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED DURING THE BLOCK ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 158BD OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED HER O NUS OF PROOF. ITSSA NO. 21/JAB/2016 ACIT VS. SMT. MEETA KHATRI AY : BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.90 TO 20.09.2000 7 HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,35,653/- AS THE APPELLANT'S UNDISCLOSED INCOME.SED SOURCE S. THE ADDITION IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. 10. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ON B EHALF OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAD RIGHTLY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSE E AS DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND GROUND NO .4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 11. LAST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF ADDITIO N OF RS.5,40,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D EXPENDITURE ON MARRIAGE OF ASSESSEES DAUGHTERS. AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ALREADY CONSIDERED THE ISSUES REGARDING THE SOURCES OF ON INCOME OF ASSE SSEE SUCH AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME, GIFTS, INCOME FROM TRUCKS AS ALSO CASH RECEIVED FROM TRUCK OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND ALSO SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH INCOME, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICAT ION FOR THIS IMPUGNED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED MARRIAGE EXPENSES INC URRED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAS 1995-95, 1998-99 AND 1999-2000. THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A); THEREFORE, NO IN TERFERENCE IS REQUIRED. GROUND NO.5 IS ALSO THUS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16 TH MARCH, 2018 AT JABALPUR. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JABALPUR; DATED 16/03/ 2018 *BIT ITSSA NO. 21/JAB/2016 ACIT VS. SMT. MEETA KHATRI AY : BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.90 TO 20.09.2000 8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, JABALPUR 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, JABALPUR