The ACIT, 3(1), Bhopal V. Smt. Renu Agrawal, Bhopal

ITSSA 60/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1344 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV VARSHANEY
• Assessee Lawyers: L N MALIK; MANISH MALIK CAS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Document seized; Additional evidence; Assessment record; Tax effect; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 153A; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 56 TO 61/IND/2014 & I.T.A.NO. 98/IND/2014 A.YS : 2004 - 05 TO 2010 - 11 ACIT, SMT.RENU AGRAWAL, CIRCLE 3(1), VS 188,PUL BOGDA, BHOPAL JINSI, JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. ADQPA4360C I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 /IND/2014 & I.T.A.NO. 89/IND/2014 A.YS : 2005 - 06 & 2010 - 11 SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, ACIT, 188,PUL BOGDA, VS CIRCLE 3(1), JINSI, JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 2 2 DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAJEEV VARSHANEY, CIT DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI L.N.MALIK & SHRI MANISH MALIK, CAS O R D E R PER BENCH THESE ARE NINE APPEALS SEVEN APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT AND TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE, RELATE TO ASSESSME NT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2010-11. 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AN D SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132(1) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, HAS B EEN CARRIED OUT ON 04.02.2010 AT THE FACTORY-CUM-OFFICIAL AND R ESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ASSESSEE SITUATED AT 188, PUL BOGDA, JI NSHI, JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES ISSUED U/S 153A DATE OF HEARING : 06.10.2015. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 .1 2 .2015 ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 3 3 ON 28.04.2011, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURNS ON 21 .11.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2009-10 WHEREAS RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 HAS BEEN FILED ON 26.12.201 1 U/S 139 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THESE RETURNS DETAILS ARE AS UNDER AGAINST WHICH ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO VIDE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER UNDER APPEAL AS PER FOLLOWING CHART:- S.NO. A.Y. RETURNED INCOME (RS.) ASSESSED INCOME (RS) 1 2004-05 1,16,113 2,62,03,240 2 2005-06 1,10,065 29,46,970 3 2006-07 78,766 8,38,610 4 2007-08 1,59,270 16,48750 5 2008-09 1,72,780 17,89,450 6 2009-10 2,02,360 20,91,420 7 2010-11 2,06,790 6,36,660 4. THE COMMON GROUND TAKEN IN DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IN I.T.(SS).A.NO.56/IND/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,00,000 /- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. 5. THE GROUND NO. 2 IN I.T.(SS).A.NO.56/IND/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDI TION OF RS. 75,54,186/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM H OUSE ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 4 4 PROPERTY. 6. THE COMMON GROUND IN I.T.(SS).A.NO. 57/IND/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 GROUND NO.2 RELATING TO D ELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 9,90,585/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSE D INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. I.T.(SS).A.NO.56/IND/2014 DEPARTMENTS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 : (GROUND NO.2) 7. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 75,54,186/- TOT AL ADDITION FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2009-10 O N ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 'THE ASSESSEE IN HER RETURN FILED US 153A FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 TO, 2009-10 HAS CLAIMED RENTAL INCOME FROM PROPERTY AT 28, SATHANGADU ROAD, TOLGATE, CHENNAI AND FLATS AT 2C, ARIHANT CASTLE, 72, LANDONS ROAD, KILPARK, CHENNAI. FURTHER SHE HAS CLAIMED THE SAID RENT RECEIVED IS ONLY 10% SHARE AS THE PROPERLY IS CO-OWNED BY OTHERS TOO. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF PROPERTY ALONG WITH CO-OWNERS DE TAILS. TILL THE ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 5 5 END OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NO DETAILS WERE MADE AVAILABLE FROM THE ASSESSEE REGARDING CO-OWNERS OF ABOVE PROPERTIES. ALSO AS PER TENANCY AGREEMENT FOUND DUR ING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS ( LPS-2 PAGES 1-15) REVEALS THAT THE PROPERTY IS OWNED ONLY BY THE ASSESSEE HERSELF. THUS THE 10% SHARE OF RENT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS GROSSED UP TO 100% AND ADD ED BACK TO INCOME ACCORDINGLY. A.Y. 10% SHARE GROSSED UP AT 100% UNDISCLOSED INCOME 2004 - 05 1,16,113 11,61,130 10,45,017 2005 - 06 1,10,065 11,00,650 9,90, 585 2006 - 07 78,766 787660 7 , 08 , 894 2007 - 08 159270 15 92700 14 , 33 , 430 2008 - 09 172780 1727800 15 , 55 , 020 2009 - 10 202360 2023600 18 , 21 , 240 TOTAL 75,54,186 8. THE MATTER CARRIED TO LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 8.2 APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH ASSESS MENT ORDER AND RECORDS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED CAREFULLY. RELEVA NT SEIZED DOCUMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN PERUSED. AS MENTIONED IN PRE CEDING PARAS (PARA 7.2) OF THIS APPEAL ORDER, THE APPELLANT IS FOUND TO BE HAVING ONLY 10% SHARE IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BALAJ I ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 6 6 WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, CHENNAI. VIDE DEED DTD. 01. 04.1999, SIGNED BY ALL THE CO-OWNERS, AND MODIFY ING EARLIER DEEDS SHARES OF EACH ARE MENTIONED AS UNDER: SR.NO. NAME OF THE CO-OWNER SHAR E IN % 1. H.D. GUPTA 16% 2. SHYAMLAL GUPTA & SONS 6% 3. RAMESHCHAND GUPTA & SONS 4% 4. RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA 6% 5. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA 5% 6. RAVINDRA KUMAR GUPTA 5% 7. SURESH KUMAR GUPTA 16% 8. MISS TANVI GUPTA 8% 9. MRS. SWATHI GUPTA 8% 10 MRS. RENU GUPTA 10% 11. SOMESH GUPTA 16% THIS DEED HAS, INDEED, BEEN F OUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS (LPS-2, PG 30-33). THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO. DECLARED RENTAL INCOME @ 50% IN RESPECT O F FLAT 2-C, ARIHANT CASTLE, CHENNAI. A.O. HAS MADE IMPUGNED ADD ITION BY GROSSING IT UP TO 100% OF DECLARED RENT FROM BOT H THE PROPERTIES ON THE GROUND THAT SHE HAS NOT GIVEN DET AILS OF ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 7 7 OTHER CO-OWNERS AND RENT AGREEMENT @ RS. 20,000/- P .M. DTD. 10.05.2004 BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND M/S. ZUARI CEM ENT LTD. FOR THE PERIOD 10.05.2004 TO 09.04.2005 MENTIO NS THE APPELLANT TO BE THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF SAID PROPERTY /FLAT. HOWEVER, A.O. HAS NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED DEED FOUND AND SEIZED SHOWING APPELLANT TO BE THE COOWNER HAVING 1 0% SHARE ONLY FOR ONE PROPERTY AND DULY NOTARISED SETT LEMENT DEEDS DTD. 27.02.1999 & 30.06.2006 BY SMT. SARASWATI DEVI & SHRI PURAN CHAND GUPTA RESPECTIVELY WHERE BY THE APPELLANT AND HER SISTER HAVE BEEN MADE EQUAL CO-OW NERS IN RESPECT OF FLAT AT CHENNAI ; HER INCOME TAX RETURNS AND WEALTH TAX STATEMENT OF EARLIER YEARS FILED AT CHENNAI, SE IZED FROM HER RESIDENCE AND ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT DECLAR ING APPELLANT'S SHARES IN THESE PROPERTIES AS DECLARED EVEN NOW. A.O. HAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED LETTER DTD. 25.08.2004 OF ZUARI CEMENT LTD., WHEREBY THE ABOVE MENTIONED RENTED PRE MISES HAVE BEEN VACATED IN OCT.' 2004 ITSELF AND BY VIRTU E OF RENT AGREEMENT DTD. 01.02.2007 MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE OTHER COOWNER MRS. SANGEETA GUPTA, THE SAME PREMISE S HAVE ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 8 8 BEEN GIVEN ON RENT @ RS.20.000/- PM TO M/S. SYSTEMATIC CORPORATE SERVICES LTD. NO THIRD PARTY ENQUIRY BEEN MADE NOR ANY MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE A.O. BEFORE REJEC TING APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT PRESUMPTION U/S 292C R.W.S 132(4A) LEV IES THE ONUS ON THE APPELLANT AND THE RENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELL ANT AND M/S. ZUARI CEMENT HAS BEEN FOUND AND SEIZED FROM APPELLANT'S RESIDENCE. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT SUCH PRESUMPTION IS REBUTTABLE. THE ONUS T O REBUT THE SAME IS UPON THE PERSON WHO IS FOUND IN POSSESS ION OR CONTROL OF ASSET/ DOCUMENT BY LEADING EVIDENCE WHIC H MAY BE ORAL, DOCUMENTARY OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. WORDS 'MAY BE PRESUMED' USED IN SECTION 132(4A) MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE DRAWING OF PRESUMPTION IN SUCH CASES DEPENDS UPON PARTICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE AP PELLANT HAS ACTUALLY EARNED THE ESTIMATED RENTAL INCOME AS ASSESSED BY HIM IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN MY CONS IDERED VIEW THAT THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED RETURN S IN ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 9 9 REGULAR COURSE FOR THESE YEARS BUT SHE HAS DULY DEC LARED INCOME EARNED IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO PROPERTIES AT CHENNAI AS PER HER SHARE THEREIN AS PER HER RETURNS OF INCO ME FILED U/S 153A FOR A YS 2004-05 TO 2009-10 AND NO FURTHER ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS CALLED FOR. ACCORDINGLY . ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS. 75,54,186/- BY GROSSING UP DECLARE D RENTAL INCOME PRESUMING IT TO BE ONLY 10 % OF ACTUAL EARNE D INCOME IS NOT FOUND SUSTAINABLE AND HEREBY DELETED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS MADE 100% RENTAL INCOME FOR BOTH THE PRO PERTIES IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE OWNED 10% SHARES AS WELL AS 50% SHARES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED TH E DETAILS OF THE PROPERTY ALONGWITH COOWNERS WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE IN ADDITION TO LPS-2 AVAILABLE WITH THE AO IN WHICH 10 % INCOME FROM BALAJI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION WAS SHOWN. THE AO HAS TREATED THE INCOME AS 100 % RENTAL INCOME TO THE AS SESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS VERIFIED THE RENTAL INC OME SHOWN BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER. ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 10 10 THEREFORE, BY VERIFYING EACH AND EVERY AGREEMENT, T HE LD.CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, OUR INTERFEREN CE IS NOT REQUIRED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IN I.T.(SS).A.NO. 56/IND/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 -05 ON GROUND NO. 2 IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO.1: 10. GROUND NO.1 RELATING TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN U/S 153 CLAIMING RENTAL INCOME FROM PROPERTY AT 28, SATHANGADU ROAD, TOLGATE, CHENNAI, AND FLATS AT 2C, ARIHANT CASTLE, CHENNAI. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO P ROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE PROPERTY ALONGWITH THE SOURCE OF ACQ UISITION OF ABOVE PROPERTY. TILL THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, NO DETAILS WERE MADE AVAILABLE FROM THE ASSESSEE REGAR DING PURCHASE OF ABOVE PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAI MED TO HAVE RECEIVING ABOUT RS. 1 LAC TO RS. 1.75 LACS OF RENT IN VARIOUS ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 11 11 ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH IS ONLY 10% SHARE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RENTAL INCOME, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,00,000/- AS INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. 12. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. C IT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 7.2 APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED CAREFULLY. ASSESSMENT RECORDS ALONGWITH RELEVANT SEIZED DOCUMENTS, HAVE ALSO BEEN PERUSED. A.O. HAS ISSUED DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE ON 31.10.2011 ASKING THE APPELLANT TO GIVE DETAILS OF HER EARLIER ASSESSMENTS OF THESE YE ARS ALONGWITH LIST OF ALL IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES HELD/ACQUIRED BY HER DURING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004- 05 TO 2010-11. VIDE LETTER DATED 21.11.2011, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE REQUIRED DETAILS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY SHOWING HER SHARE AT 10% IN RESPECT OF BALAJI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AND 50% IN RESPECT OF FLAT SITUATED AT CHENNAI AND AS HELD BY HER DURING THE ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 12 12 ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. SHE HAS ALSO FILED HER NET WEALTH STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR 1996-97 IN SUPPORT THEREOF AGAIN VIDE LETTER DTD 23.12.2011, T HE APPELLANT HAS MADE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE A.O., SIMILAR TO ONE MADE NOW IN APPEAL, EXPLAINING HER SHARE IN PROPERTIES HELD BY HER IN VIEW OF SETTLEME NT DEED, RENTAL AGREEMENT ETC IN RESPECT OF BOTH THESE PROPERTIES. BALAJI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, WHERE T HE APPELLANT HAS ONLY 10% SHARE, HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED BY APPELLANT'S FATHER AND HIS FIVE BROTHERS IN THE YEAR 1980. FLAT AT CHENNAI BELONGED TO HER PARENTS WHO HAVE SETTLED THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES TO THE APPELLA NT AND HER SISTER VIZ MRS. SANGEETA GUPTA W/O SHRI SAMPATH GUPTA VIDE SETTLEMENT DEEDS DTD 27.02.1999 AND 30.06.2006 RESPECTIVELY. THE APPELLANT HAS AGAI N REITERATED AND EXPLAINED SIMILARLY BEFORE THE A.O. VIDE LETTER DATED 26.12.2011 ALSO. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS, INDEED, MADE ABOVE MENTIONED INVESTMENT OF RS. 2.5 CRORES IN THE SE ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 13 13 PROPERTIES DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. APPELLANT'S CONTENTION REGARDING THESE DECLARATIONS ARE FURTHER EVIDENCED BY HER EARLIER YEARS RETURNS FILE D AT CHENNAI, HER WEALTH TAX STATEMENT, SETTLEMENT DEEDS COPY WHICH HAVE, IN FACT, BEEN FOUND AND SEIZED ALS O IN LPS-I & LPS-2. IN FACT, IN CASE OF PROPERTY AT 28, KANTHAGADU ROAD. TOLGATE, CHENNAI FOR WHICH A.O. HAS MADE ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS. 1.5 CRORES AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT LPS-2, PG 32 CATEGORICALLY MENTIONS THAT THE APPELLANT IS ONE OF THE COOWNERS, HAVING 10% SHARE, IN BALAJI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ALONG WITH OTHER 10 CO-OWNERS VIDE DEED DATED 26.05.1971, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN AMENDED ON 01.04.1999. SIMILAR IS THE CASE WITH SETTLEMENT DEE DS DTD 27.02.1999 AND 30.06.2006 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY/FLAT AT 2C ARIHANT CASTLE, CHENNAI WHERE APPELLANT'S PARENTS HAVE DEVOLVED THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES EQUALLY TO THE APPELLANT AND HER ELDER SISTE R VIZ SMT. SANGEETA GUPTA. A.O. HAS NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 14 14 APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION AS WELL AS SEIZED DOCUMENTS NEITHER ANY THIRD PARTY ENQUIRY BEEN MADE TO PROVE CONTRARY TO WHAT APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE PROCEEDING TO MAKE IMPUGNED ADDITION AND THAT TOO BEEN MADE MORE ON PRESUMPTIONS AND ESTIMATIONS. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT SEIZED MATERIAL HA S TO BE READ AND ACCEPTED AS WHOLE. IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE T O PICK AND CHOOSE OR MAKE FURTHER ESTIMATES THERE FRO M UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE IS COGENT MATERIAL IN SUPPOR T OF UNDERTAKING SUCH AN EXERCISE. INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND DURING SEAR CH OR BROUGHT ON RECORD DURING POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES A ND INVESTIGATION MADE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. A.O. HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD, AT ANY STAGE, A NY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PRESUMPTIVE ADDITION MADE BY HIM CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND DURING SEARCH ITSELF AND AS PRODUCED DURING FURTHER ENQUIRES BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF HER SUBMISSIONS AND AS PER HER EARLIER DECLARATIONS MAD E ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 15 15 IN HER RETURNS AND WEALTH TAX STATEMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. AFTER PERUSAL. A.O. IS NOT AT ALL FOUND JUSTIFIED I N MAKING IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.2,50,00,000/- SOLELY ON SURMISES AND ESTIMATION. THE SAME IS, HEREBY, DELETED. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE THE DETAILS OF RELEVANT PAPERS REGARDING IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES HELD/ACQUIRED BY HER FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 T O 2010- 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY SHOWING HER SHARE AT 10% IN RES PECT OF BALAJI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AND 50% IN RESPECT O F FLAT SITUATED AT CHENNAI. SHE HAS ALSO FILED THE NET STA TEMENT OF WEALTH IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 AND SHE ALSO FILE D THE SETTLEMENT DEED RENTAL AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF PROP ERTY. THE LD. ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 16 16 CIT(A) HAS VERIFIED THE SETTLEMENT DEED RENTAL AGRE EMENT IN RESPECT OF BOTH THESE PROPERTIES AND IN RESPECT OF CHENNAI FLATS, WHICH BELONGS TO HER FATHER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS VER IFIED THE WEALTH TAX RETURN AND HE HAS ALSO VERIFIED HOW THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS DELETED THE ADD ITION. THEREFORE, OUR INTERFERENCE IS NOT REQUIRED. CONSEQ UENTLY, THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IN I.T.(SS).A.NO. 56/IND/2014 IS DISMISSED. I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 57/IND/2014 (DEPARTMENTS APPEAL) & 41/IND/2014 ( ASSESSEES APPEAL ) : 15. THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN THE GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9, 00,000/-ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 16. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION MERELY STATING THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF RS. 9 LACS WITHDRAWN ON 15.07.2004 AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 17. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. C IT(A) ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 17 17 DELETED TH E ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : - REGARDING FURTHER ADDITION MADE U/S 69C OF SAME AMOUNT OF RS. 9,00,000/- WITHDRAWN ON 15.07.2004 AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE, AO HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MERELY BY STATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS N OT PROVIDED ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. HOWEVER, THE SAME AO HAS ADDED RS. 9,00,000/- IN THE APPELLANTS HANDS ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT MADE ON 10.07.2004 IN THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH MO NEY HAS NOW BEEN WITHDRAWN ON 15.07.2004. ALSO AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE BY THE APPELLANT DESPITE TH E FACT OF CARRYING OUT EXTENSIVE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS AT APPELLANTS BUSINESS CUM RESIDENTIAL PREMISES ALONGWITH HER FAMILY MEMBERS. AS MENTIONED IN PRECEDING PARAS ABOVE, CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C FOR UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE HAVE NOT BEEN MET IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS. 9,00,0 00/- ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 18 18 OF THE SAME AMOUNT ALREADY ASSESSED IN APPELLANTS HANDS THOUGH UNEXPLAINED, IS NOT FOND SUSTAINABLE A ND, HEREBY, DELETED. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITI ON ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 9 LACS SEPARATELY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS ADDIT ION WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND OUR INTERFERENCE IS N OT REQUIRED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE DEP ARTMENTS APPEAL IS DISMISSED ON GROUND NO.1. 20. IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T.(SS).A.NO.41/IND/2014, THE ONLY GROUND TAKEN IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMING OF ADDI TION OF RS. 9 LACS IN RESPECT OF DEPOSIT IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. 21. THE AO HAS ASKED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT HELD IN HER NAME AND ALSO TO PROVIDE THE AS SESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE DEPOSIT IN VARIOUS ACCOUNT S WAS NOT TREATED TO BE UNEXPLAINED. ON SCRUTINY OF THE PUNJA B NATIONAL BANK, THE AO FOUND THAT THERE WAS RS. 9 LACS WITHDR AWN FROM PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ON 10.7.2004 AND RS. 10 LACS W AS ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 19 19 DEPOSITED ON 10.7.2004 AND AGAIN IT WAS WITHDRAWN ON 15.07.2004. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 9 LACS U/S 69C AND HE HAS ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 9 LACS AS CASH DEPOSIT. 22. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. C IT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 9 LACS IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE. 23. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM O NE SMT. GOGAN VYAS AND HE HAS GIVEN THE DECLARATION THAT RS . 9 LACS WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF SMT. GUNJAN AGRAWAL AND RENU AGRAWAL IN PNB AND THE SAME AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED AT CHANDIGARH AND WITHDRAWN AT BHOPAL. THEIR CONFIRMAT ION COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, THE ASSES SEE HAS GIVEN AN APPLICATION TO ADMIT THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE AND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE AO FOR VERIFICATION. 24. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT DR OBJECTED TO IT. 25. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND FROM ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 20 20 THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONE S MT. GOGAN VYAS HAS DEPOSITED RS. 9 LACS IN THE JOINT NAMES OF SMT. GUN JAN AGRAWAL & ASSESSEE AND IT WAS DEPOSITED AT CHANDIGARH BRANC H AND IT WAS WITHDRAWN ON 15.07.2004 AND AGAIN IT WAS GIVEN TO SMT. GOGAN VYAS. WE FIND THAT THIS EVIDENCE REQUIRES VER IFICATION AT THE END OF AO. THEREFORE, WE ADMIT THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO VERIF Y THE SAME DECLARATION AND BANK ACCOUNT AND DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH. 26. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS - I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 58 TO 61/IND /2014 AND 98/IND/2014 A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2010-11. 27. IN ALL THE ABOVE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS, FOLLOWING GR OUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN :- GROUND NO. 1 OF DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IN I.T.(SS) A.N O. 58/IND/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 REGARDING D ELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 7,08,894/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCL OSED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, GROUND NO. 1 OF DEPARTMENTS APPEAL 59/IND/2014 AND 60/IND/2014 REGARDING THE DELETION OF ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 21 21 ADDITIONS OF RS. 14,33,430/ - AND RS. 15,55,020/ - RESPECTIVELY ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERT Y, AND GROUND NO.1 IN I.T.(SS) A.NO. 61/IND/2014 REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 18,21,240/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOS ED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IN I.T.(SS).A.NO. 98/IND/2014, TWO GROUNDS ARE TAKEN I.E. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,27,500/- OUT OF RS. 1,55,271/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69A. AND DELETION OF AD DITION OF RS 1 LAC OUT OF RS. 2,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED CASH. 28. WE FIND THAT IN ALL THE ABOVE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS, THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. THE LD. C IT DR AGREED TO IT. THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTS APPEALS ARE NOT MAI NTAINABLE AND WE DISMISS ALL THE APPEALS. 29. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE DISMISS ED. I.T.(SS).A.NO. 89/IND/2014 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) A.Y . 2010- 11: 30. GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER :- THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING A DDITION OF RS. ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 22 22 1,00,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH OF RS. 1,00,000/- FOUND FROM LOCKER NO. 624 IN THE JOINT NAME OF THE APPELLANT A ND HER MOTHER-IN-LAW. 31. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 LACS BY OBSER VING AS UNDER :- LOCKER NO. 624 AT PNB T.T.NAGAR, BHOPAL, IS IN THE JOINT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HER MOTHER-IN-LAW SM T. MANORAMA AGRAWAL. DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT MOSTLY THE LOCKER IS BEING OPERATED BY HERSELF ONLY. WHILE SEARCH OPERATIONS T HE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE LAST OPERATIONS OF THE LOCKER WAS TAKEN PLACE ON 08/01/2010 AND ALSO STATED THAT THE CASH BELONGS TO COMPANY NAMELY M/S. G. S. ROLLE R FLOUR MILL WHICH WAS KEPT IN LOCKER FOR CONTINGENCY EXPENSES. FURTHER IT WAS STATED THAT THE CASH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM COMPANIES CASH IN HAND ON 10/01/2010. ON ASKING ABOUT HOW CASH WITHDRAWN ON 10/01/2010 FROM COMPANIES ACCOUNT CAN BE DEPOSITED ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 23 23 IN LOCKER TWO DAYS BEFORE I.E. ON 08/01/2010 THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING NO EXPLANATION ABOUT IT. HENCE CASH OF RS. 1,00,000/- FOUND IN LOCKER IS TREATED A S UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED BACK TO INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ALSO THE CASH CLAIMED TO B E WITHDRAWN FROM CASH BOOK ON 10/01/2010 GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT DEPOSITED IN LOCKER BUT HAS B EEN USED ELSEWHERE. ACCORDINGLY, AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000 /- IS BEING ADDED SUBSTANTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF SMT. R ENU AGRAWAL AND PROTECTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF MR. MANORA MA AGRAWAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 32. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. C IT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAC AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAC IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 33. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE GROUND THAT RS. 1 LAC WAS FOUND IN LOCKER NO.623 IN JOINT NAME OF THE ASS ESSEE AND HER MOTHER-IN-LAW SMT. MANORAMA AGRAWAL. RS. 1 LAC BELONGED TO ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SHE HAS WITHDRAWN CASH OF R S. 1 LAC ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 24 24 ON 10.01.2010 FROM COMP ANYS BOOKS. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN HIS STATEMENT BY PASSING THE ORDER IN PARA 5.2, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- 5.2 APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED CAREFULLY ALONGWITH ASSESSMENT ORDER AND RECORDS. STATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE ALSO BEEN PERUSED. LOCKER NO.624 HELD IN JOINT NAME OF THE APPELLANT A LONG WITH HER MOTHER-IN-LAW VIZ. MANORAMA AGARWAL HAS BE EN OPENED ON 17.02.2010. CASH OF RS. 1,00,000/- HAS BE EN FOUND THEREFROM ALONGWITH CERTAIN JEWELLERY WHICH H AS BEEN SEIZED. AS PER APPELLANTS OWN SUBMISSIONS AND AS STATED BY SMT. MANORAMA AGARWAL ALSO, THE SAID LOCK ER IS MOSTLY BEING OPERATED BY THE APPELLANT HERSELF A ND LAST OPERATION HAS TAKEN PLACE ON 08.01.2010. DURIN G THE COURSE OF LOCKER OPERATIONS, APPELLANTS STATEMENT HAS BEEN RECORDED ON OATH AND RELEVANT PORTION THEREOF IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- IZU %& 4 YKWDJ DH RYKKH DS NKSJKU :- ,D YK[K J[KS IK;S X;S D`I;K CRK;S OS FDLDS GSA VKSJ ;S DC J[KS FKS VKSJ CO. DS JKSDM+ ESA DC DH RKJH[K ESA ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 25 25 BANZKT GSAA MRRJ %& 4 ;S GEKJS CO. G.S. ROLLER FLOURMILL DS ISLS GSA ;G JANUARY DH CASH BOOKS ESA BANZKT GSA TKS CASH IN HANDS DS FKS JAN-08-2010 DKS ;G YKWDJ ESA J[KS X;S FKSA IZU %& 5 O;OLK; LS LECF/KR BL :I;S DK YKWDJ ESA J[KUS DK D;K MN~NS; FKKA MRRJ %& 5 EMERGENCY ESA USE DS FY, CONTINGENCY EXP. DS FY, J[KS FKSA IZU %& 6 CO DH CASH BOOKS ESA DKSU LH RK- ESA BLDK BUNZKT FD;K X;K GSA MRRJ %& 6 ;G CO DK DSK BU GS.M DK ISLK G S VKSJ BLDK DGHA BUNZKT ;K IZFO'VH UGHA GSA IZU %& 7 PWAFD ;G VKI CRK JGS GSA FD BL DH DGHA IZFO'VH UGHA GS RKS D;KSA U EKUK TK TK;S FD ;G VKIDH V?KKSF'KR VK; GSA MRRJ %& 7 BLDK LGH LGH MRRJ [KKRS CGH NS [KUS IJ GH CRK;K TK LDRK GSA ** THE APPELLANT IS DIRECTOR, ALONGWITH HER HUSBAND, I N M/S. G. S. ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (P)LTD HAVING BUSINESS PRE MISES ADJOINING APPELLANTS RESIDENCE. CASH OF RS. 37,030 /- HAS BEEN FOUND THEREFORM DURING SEARCH OPERATIONS. DURI NG THE ENTIRE COURSE OF HER STATEMENT IN LOCKER SEARCH OPERATIONS, IN ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPEAL PROCEED INGS, THE APPELLANT HAS MERELY SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID CA SH OF RS. 1,00,000/- FOUND FROM HER PERSONAL LOCKER BELON GS TO M/S. G. S. ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT.LTD., BUT WITHOUT THERE ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 26 26 BEING ANY ENTRY FOR THE SAME IN THE COMPANYS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NO OTHER EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANY STAGE BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF HER SUBMISSION S. SHE DOES NOT MAINTAIN CASH FLOW STATEMENT NOR THERE IS NO ACCOUNT IN HER NAME IN THE COMPANYS BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS AS PER LETTER DATED 23.12.2011 BEFORE AO. THE APPEL LANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE PRESENCE OF SUCH CAS H IN HER PERSONAL LOCKER EXCEPT STATING BUSINESS CONTINGENCI ES. WHEN ANY PERSON IS OWNER OF ANYTHING OF WHICH HE IS SHOWN TO BE IN POSSESSION, THE ONUS OF PROVING THAT HE IS NOT THE OWNER IS ON THE PERSON WHO0 AFFIRMS THAT HE IS NOT THE OWNER. [CHUHARMAL VS. CIT,(1988) 172 ITR 250 ( S. C.) ]. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED MISERABLY TO EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY THE SOURCE OF C ASH OF RS. 1,00,000/- FOUND AND SEIZED FROM HER LOCKER. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,000/- IS, HEREBY, CONFIRMED. 34. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF RS. 1 LA C. THEREFORE, ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 27 27 WE CONFIRM THE SAME. GROUND NO. 1 IS REJECTED. 35. GROUNDS NO.2 & 3 ARE NOT PRESSED. HENCE, THEY ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 36. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 37. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE DISMISS ED AND ASSESSEES APPEALS IN I.T.(SS).A.NO. 89/IND/201 4 IS DISMISSED AND IN I.T.(SS).A.NO. 41/IND/2014 IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST DECEMBER, 2015. SD/- (B. C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 ST DECEMBER, 2015. CPU* 27.10.18 ACIT VS. SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, I.T.A.NOS.56 TO 61 & 98 /IND/2014 AND I.T.(SS).A.NOS. 41 &89/IND/2014 A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 28 28