Smt. Radha Sharma, Bhopal V. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

ITSSA 42/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0314 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M
• Assessee Lawyers: H P VERMA; N D PATWA S
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 54F; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MUKU L KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER PAN NO. BCOPS9823C I.T(SS).A.NOS. 41, 42 & 44/IND/2013 A.YS. : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2006-07. SMT.RADHA SHARMA, E-5/137, ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.P.VERMA, AND SHRI N. D. PATWA, ADVOCATES. REVENUE BY : SHRI M.S.PANWAR, CIT DR / // / DATE OF HEARING : 15.09.2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :19.09.2014. / O R D E R PER P.K.BANSAL, A.M. SINCE ALL THESE THREE APPEALS RELATE TO THE SAME AS SESSEE, THEREFORE, THEY ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDE R. I.T(SS).A.NO. 41/IND/2013 : A.Y. 2002-03 : 2. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ADVANCE RECEIVED IN CASH FROM SHRI AMARJEET SHARMA AT RS. 1,50,000/- TOWARDS AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 1.4.2001 FOR CHUNA BHATTI PLOT ON KHASRA NO.9/4 & 9/5. SMT. RADHA SHARMA, BHOPAL I.T(SS).A.NOS. 42,42 & 44/IND/2013 A.YS : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2006-07 2 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE R ECEIVED ADVANCE TOWARDS SALE OF THE LAND TO ONE SHRI AMARJE ET SHARMA. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERE D INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SALE WITH SHRI AMARJEET SHARMA ON 1.4. 2001 FOR SALE OF THE PLOT IN CHUNA BHATTI FOR A CONSIDERATIO N OF RS. 3.95 LAKHS AND RECEIVED ADVANCE AND SUBSEQUENTLY THIS AG REEMENT WAS CANCELLED ON 15.4.2002. THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH TRANSACTION BEING DISCLOSED IN THE BANK MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTH ORITIES BELOW AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE SAID SUM OF RS. 1.50 LAKHS FROM S HRI AMARJEET SHARMA. THE SAID SUM WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AND THE S AID SUM WAS RETURNED BY CANCELLING THE AGREEMENT ON 15.4.20 02. THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED ON 1.4.2001 AGAINST THE AGREEME NT ENTERED INTO FOR THE SALE OF CHUNA BHATTI PLOT KHASRA NO. 9/5 BHOPAL. UNDER SECTION 68, THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PR OVE CASH CREDIT, FINISHED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, TO THE SATISFAC TION OF THE SMT. RADHA SHARMA, BHOPAL I.T(SS).A.NOS. 42,42 & 44/IND/2013 A.YS : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2006-07 3 ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SU CH CREDIT. ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS RELATED TO IDENTITY, CREDITWO RTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION ARE TO BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED COPY OF THE AGREEMENT, WHICH IS NEITHER NOTARIZED NOR BEING REGISTERED AND THE CLAIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 1.50 LAKHS IN CASH FROM SHRI AMARJEET SHARMA S/O SHRI PA RMANAND SHARMA. AGAINST THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO FOR THE SALE AS HIS LAND SITUATED AT GRAM CHUNA BHATTI, COLA ROAD, BHOP AL, AND SUBSEQUENTLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID VERY AGREE MENT WAS CANCELLED ON 15.4.2002 AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUB MIT PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. OF SHRI AMARJEET SHARMA. SHRI AMARJEET SHARMA IS NOT AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT HA S BEEN PAID IN CASH. EVEN NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED WHICH MAY PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI SHARMA. WE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF PLOT . THE AGREEMENT IS NEITHER REGISTERED NOR NOTARIZED AND S UBSEQUENTLY, THE SAME VERY AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED. BOTH THE AGR EEMENTS WERE ON PLAIN PAPER. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, NO INT ERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). AS IN OUR OP INION, IT IS NOT A SMT. RADHA SHARMA, BHOPAL I.T(SS).A.NOS. 42,42 & 44/IND/2013 A.YS : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2006-07 4 FIT CASE WHICH WARRANTS OUR INTERFERENCE. WE, ACCOR DINGLY, DISMISS THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 002- 03 IS DISMISSED. I.T(SS).A.NO. 44/IND/2013 : A.Y. 2006-07 : 6. THE ONLY GROUND IN THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF RS. 65,000/- AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS UNSECURED LOAN. 7. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM THAT HE HAS RECEIVED UNSECURED LOAN BY CHEQUE FROM SHRI ANIL SHARMA RS. 25,000/-, SHRI RAJKUMAR TIWARI RS. 20,000/- AND SHRI SATYANARAYAN RS. 20,000/-. SINCE THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF TH E SAID CASH CREDIT. THEREFORE, HE MADE THE ADDITION AMOUNTING T O RS. 65,000/- U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AND TH E MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRM ED THE ADDITION. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME. BEFORE US, WE NOTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTE NDED THAT SMT. RADHA SHARMA, BHOPAL I.T(SS).A.NOS. 42,42 & 44/IND/2013 A.YS : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2006-07 5 THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 25,000/- FRO M ANIL SHARMA AND RS. 20,000/- FROM SHRI RAJKUMAR TIWARI. FOR THIS, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS THEIR COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS, WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE 154 TO 156 AN D PAGE 157 RESPECTIVELY. FROM THE SAID BANK STATEMENT, WE NOTE D THAT THIS CHEQUE HAS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ENCASHED. IT IS NOT PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE CH EQUE FROM THESE PERSONS. IN THE CASE OF SATYA NARAYAN, WE NOT ED THAT CHEQUE NO. 734830 OF RS. 20,000/- WAS ENCASHED FROM PUNJAB & SINDH BANK IN FAVOUR OF NAGAR NIGAM, BHOPAL ACCOUNT . THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO N AGAR NIGAM TOWARDS THE CHARGES DUE. BUT THIS WAS ALSO ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN TRANSF ERRED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATION COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOU NTS, WHICH ARE ON RECORD. THE PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEL ETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,000/- AND CONFIRM THE ADDITION O F RS. 45,000/- I.E. RS. 25,000/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI ANIL SHARMA AN D RS. 20,000 FROM SHRI RAJ KUMAR TIWARI. THUS, THIS GROUND IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. SMT. RADHA SHARMA, BHOPAL I.T(SS).A.NOS. 42,42 & 44/IND/2013 A.YS : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2006-07 6 9. IN THE RESULT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. I.T(SS).A.NO. 42/IND/2013 : A.Y. : 2004-05 : 10. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) DATED 17.12.2012. 11. GROUND NO. 1 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S 54F OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS . 6,84,029/- CLAIMED OUT OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FOR SALE OF CONSIDERATION ON 29.2 .1994. THE SAID LAND WAS PURCHASED IN 1994 FOR RS. 85000/-, THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMED INDEX COST FOR ACQUISITION AND NET LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 21,54,532/-. AGAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE INVESTED A SUM OF RS. 7.30 LAKHS FO R THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL FLAT AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,84,029/-. THUS, NET TAXABLE LONG TERM CAPITAL WAS SHOWN AT RS. 14,70,523/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE SUM OF RS. 7.30 LAKHS WAS PAID TO M/S. HARE KRI SHNA COLONIZER PRIVATE LIMITED TOWARDS THE AGREEMENT TO SALE TO PURCHASE THE HOUSE NO. F-2 IN H. K. HOMES, WHICH WA S NOT REGISTERED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE PAYMENT O F RS. 7 LAKHS SMT. RADHA SHARMA, BHOPAL I.T(SS).A.NOS. 42,42 & 44/IND/2013 A.YS : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2006-07 7 WAS PAID THROUGH CHEQUE, RS. 3 LAKHS ON 9.4.2004 AN D RS. 1 LAKH ON 11.4.2003 AND RS. 3 LAKHS ON 21.2.2004, BALANCE OF RS. 30000/- WAS PAID IN CASH ON 10.04.2003. THE ASSESSE E CLAIMED THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID FLAT WAS RECEIVED O N 2.4.2004. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE HAD BEEN SEARCH AND SEIZURE AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE BUSINE SS PREMISES OF M/S. HARE KRISHNA COLONIZER PRIVATE LIMITED. NO SUC H AGREEMENT TO SALE OR POSSESSION LETTER WAS FOUND WHEREAS OTHE R AGREEMENTS REGARDING PURCHASE OF THE LAND BY THE ASSESSEE IN G ANESH NAGAR AND OTHER PLACES WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT M/S. HARE KRISHNA COLONIZER PRIVATE LIMITED IS A CL OSELY HELD COMPANY WHEREIN THE SHAREHOLDERS AND DIRECTORS ARE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING HER HUSBAND. THER EFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT A RE AL TRANSACTION AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 54F. T HE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) CO NFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 54F. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONGWITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCE PTED THE SALE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH M/S. C.I. BUILDERS PRIV ATE LIMITED FOR SMT. RADHA SHARMA, BHOPAL I.T(SS).A.NOS. 42,42 & 44/IND/2013 A.YS : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2006-07 8 THE SALE OF THE LAND IN WHICH ASSESSEES SHARE WAS RS. 22,99,331/- AND, ACCORDINGLY, ACCEPTED THE LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 54F. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOUBTED THE AGREEMENT TO SALE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE F-2 IN H.K.HO MES FROM M/S. HARE KRISHNA COLONIZER PRIVATE LIMITED AS WELL AS THE POSSESSION OF THE HOUSE ON 2.4.2004. THIS IS AN UND ISPUTED FACT THAT THERE HAD BEEN A SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE AS WELL AS IN M/S. HARE KRISHNA COLONIZER PRIVATE LIMITED W ITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHAS E OF THE HOUSE AGAINST WHICH THE EXEMPTION U/S 54F HAS BEEN CLAIMED. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SUM OF RS. 7 LAKHS ON DIFFERENT DATES WERE PAID THROUGH CHEQUE COMMENCING FROM 9.4.2003 TO 21.2.2004. ONLY A SUM OF RS. 30,000/- W AS PAID IN CASH ON 10.4.2003. THE ENCASHMENT OF THE CHEQUE IS REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AT PAGES 45 & 48 O F THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH WE HAVE PERUSED. NOW THE QUESTION BEFOR E US IS THAT WHETHER THE SAID PAYMENT THROUGH BANK HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF THE FLAT OR IN RESPECT OF OT HER TRANSACTION, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS WITH M/S. HARE KRISHNA COLON IZER PRIVATE LIMITED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN OUR OPINION, CAN NOT MERE SMT. RADHA SHARMA, BHOPAL I.T(SS).A.NOS. 42,42 & 44/IND/2013 A.YS : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2006-07 9 SUSPECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AGREEMEN T TO SALE AND POSSESSION LETTER SINCE WERE NOT FOUND DURING THE S EARCH, BUT CAN CHECK CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE OR NOT, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ASCERTAINED ONLY BY CALL ING FOR THE RECORDS AND AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. HARE KRIS HNA COLONIZER PRIVATE LIMITED. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE REVENUE HAS PRODUCED BEFORE US THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AN D PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE SAID CONCERN. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO BOTH THE PARTIES, SET-ASID E THE ISSUE AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL PRODUCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COPY OF THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. H ARE KRISHNA COLONIZER PRIVATE LIMITED ALONGWITH LIST OF THE ADV ANCES FROM THE CUSTOMERS AS WELL AS DETAILS OF THE SALES AS A CONT RACT BY THE M/S. HARE KRISHNA COLONIZER PRIVATE LIMITED, AS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY M/S. HARE KRISHNA COLON IZER PRIVATE LIMITED ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE IN RESPECT OF THE SAI D FLAT AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION U/S 54 F WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BY M/S. HARE KRISHNA COLONI ZER PRIVATE LIMITED AS AN ADVANCE FROM THE CUSTOMER AGAINST THE FLAT OR IN CASE THE SALE STANDS COMPLETED, M/S. HARE KRISHNA C OLONIZER SMT. RADHA SHARMA, BHOPAL I.T(SS).A.NOS. 42,42 & 44/IND/2013 A.YS : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2006-07 10 PRIVATE LIMITED MUST HAVE SHOWN THIS AS ITS SALES I N ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS ALONG WITH THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND THE DETAILS OF THE CUSTOM ERS AND SALES OF M/S. HARE KRISHNA COLONIZER PRIVATE LIMITED AND THAT THE COMPANY HAS SHOWN THE SALES OR ADVANCE OF THE SAID FLAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 54F OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THUS, THIS GRO UND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO LEVY OF THE TAX @ 20%. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME. WE NOTED THAT SINCE THE INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THEREFORE, THE TAX HAS TO BE LEVIED ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN @ 20%. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO LEVY THE TAX ON THE SAID LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN @ 20%. THUS, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 16. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO NOT ACCEPTING THE INVESTMEN T IN PURCHASE OF FIVE PLOTS WITH THE FUNDS PROVIDED B Y THE HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT SHRI SHYAM NATH SHARMA AT RS. 3,44 ,506/-. 17. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER NOTED DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATI ON, THE SMT. RADHA SHARMA, BHOPAL I.T(SS).A.NOS. 42,42 & 44/IND/2013 A.YS : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2006-07 11 ASSESSEE HAS BOUGHT THE VARIOUS PROPERTIES AND PLOT S AS ENUMERATED IN PARA 5.2 AT SERIAL NOS. 1 TO 5 AND, T HUS, MADE AN INVESTMENT OF RS. 3,44,506/-. IN RESPECT OF TWO PLO TS BEARING NO. 143 & 147, TOTALING TO RS. 1,80,000/-, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT HAD PURCHASED THESE PLOTS OUT OF ITS OWN SO URCES, WHILE THE OTHER THREE PLOTS 158, 210 AND 169 AT GANESH NA GAR COLONY WERE PURCHASED BY HER HUSBAND SHRI SHYAM NATH SHARM A AND HAS DULY BEEN SHOWN IN HIS BALANCE SHEET. SINCE THE SALE DEED WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ASSES SING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE INVESTMENTS INCLUDING THE REGISTRATION CHARGES IN R ESPECT OF THREE PLOTS BEARING NOS. 158, 210 AND 169 AT GANESH NAGAR COLONY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APP EAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSE E CLAIMED THAT THESE PLOTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHE ET OF HER HUSBAND FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04, BUT HER HUS BAND SHRI SHYAM NATH SHARMA HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOM E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONGWITH ORDERS OF THE TAX AUT HORITIES SMT. RADHA SHARMA, BHOPAL I.T(SS).A.NOS. 42,42 & 44/IND/2013 A.YS : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2006-07 12 BELOW. WE NOTED THAT SHRI SHYAM NATH SHARMA, THE HU SBAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY FILED HIS INCOME TAX RETURN. COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PLACED BEFORE US. COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2004 WAS ALSO PLACED BEFORE US AT PAGE 89 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FROM THE SAID BALANCE SHEET, WE NOTED T HAT THE INVESTMENT IN RESPECT OF PLOT NOS. 158, 210 AND 169 AT GANESH NAGAR WAS ONLY RS. 2,92,759/-. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDE RED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 153C/143(3) DATED 31.12 .2007. THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN ADVERSELY DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF SHRI SHYAM NATH SHARMA, BUT S INCE THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 3,44,506/- IN RESPECT OF THREE PLOTS, THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 51,747/- REMAINS TO BE UNEXPLAINE D. THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE INVE STMENTS UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. WE DO AGREE THAT ASSETS B ELONGED TO THE PERSONS WHO HAD MADE THE INVESTMENT. SINCE THE INVESTMENT IN THESE THREE PLOTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,92,759/ - HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE HUSBAND OF THE AS SESSEE SHRI SHYAM NATH SHARMA, WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITI ON TO THAT EXTENT AND SUSTAIN THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 51,7 47/-. THUS, THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. SMT. RADHA SHARMA, BHOPAL I.T(SS).A.NOS. 42,42 & 44/IND/2013 A.YS : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2006-07 13 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (P. K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER INDORE; DATED 19/09/2014 CPU*SPS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '# ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $%$&' # # ( / CONCERNED CIT 4. # # ( ( ) / THE CIT(A), INDORE 5. +,# &' , # # &' , -.% / DR, ITAT, INDORE 6. ,/0 1 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, -# -# -# -# $2 $2 $2 $2 (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, INDORE SMT. RADHA SHARMA, BHOPAL I.T(SS).A.NOS. 42,42 & 44/IND/2013 A.YS : 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2006-07 14 1. DATE OF DICTATION- 16.09.2014 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 18.09.2014 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S. .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : 26 .09.2014 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER