Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Surya Kant Jaipuria, New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 1 July, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHE 'E', NEW DELHI
Before Sh. R. K. Panda, Accountant Member
And
Sh. Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member
ITA No. 2586/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08
Sh. Surya Kant Jaipuria, Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income
S-25, Green Park Main Market, Tax, Central Circle-7,
New Delhi-110016 New Delhi
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAIPJ6008K
Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Yadav, Adv.
Revenue by : Smt. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Date of Hearing :01.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 01.07.2019
ORDER
Per R. K. Panda, Accountant Member:
Thi s appeal fil ed by the assessee i s di rected agai nst the orde r dated 29.02.2016 of l d. C ommi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s)-24, New Delhi rel ati ng to assessment year 2007-08.
2. Facts of the case, i n bri ef, are that the assessee i s an i ndi vi dual . The ori gi nal return of i ncome was fil ed on 31.07.2007 decl ari ng total i ncome of Rs.44,36,953/-. A search & sei zure operati on u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carri ed out on M/s Jai puri a Group of cases on 27.03 .2012. Warrant of authori zati on u/s 132 of the Act was al so i ssued i n the name of Sh. Su rya Kant Jai puri a, 7, Aurangzeb Roa d, New Delhi . In response to n oti ce u/s 153A of the Act dated 08.04.2013, the assessee fil ed hi s return of i ncome on 18.07.2013 decl ari ng an i ncome of Rs.65,37,410/-. The 2 ITA No. 2586/Del/2016 Surya Kant Jaipuria Assessi ng Offi cer duri ng the course of assessment proceedi ngs noted that duri ng the course of search & sei zure operati on vari ous i ncri mi nating materi al s/documents were found an d sei zed. The detail s of whi ch are as under:
Sl. Page No. A n n exu re Prem i se A ddress A m ou nt A .Y .
No. No.
1. 2 -3 5 A -3 S -2 5 , G reen Park , 6 2 ,4 4 ,9 62 2 0 0 6 -0 7
Mai n Mark et , New
Del h i
2. 8 7 -9 3 , A -5 S -2 5 , G reen Park , 1 8 ,1 0 ,8 21 2 0 0 6 -0 7
9 7 -1 01 & Mai n Mark et , New
1 0 4 -11 1 Del h i
80,55,783
3. Duri ng the post search i nvesti gati on, above transacti on were confronted to Sh. S. K . J ai puri a vi de summons dated 20.07.2012 and he was asked to furni sh the detail regardi ng mode of payment, source of the fund and i ts accountabili ty i n the books of accounts. The assessee submi tted that the above document contai ns bi ll s etc. for repai r carri ed out at hi s resi dence whi ch was met out from the withdrawal s of the family members of the assessee.
4. Duri ng the assessment procee di ngs, the Assessi ng Offi cer agai n asked the assessee to furni sh detail s regardi ng nature of transacti on, mode of t ransacti on a nd whether they are entere d i nto books of account wi th supporti ng evi dences. The assessee i n i ts repl y submi tted as under:
"In this regard, it is humbly submitted that the alleged document were bills and vouchers, rough calculation of measurement etc and pertains to r epair and maintenance work carried out at residential house at 7 Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi. The complet e det ailed chart of these documents duly showing th e date referenc e/item page no., name of the party amount and remark is enclosed herewith. The to tal value of the tra nsaction comes out Rs. 25,01,379/- of all these documents as against Rs. 63,04,46 2/- & 18,5 2,306/- shown by your honour in t he 3 ITA No. 2586/Del/2016 Surya Kant Jaipuria notice. It appears in the notice s um total of all the documents has been taken which is not correct. In the remarks column it is clearly stated that repeatedly th e same amount has been added towards payment, invoices, measurement sh eet, duplicate shee t etc. and thus th ere is no relevanc e of figure of Rs. 63,04, 462- and Rs. 18,52,306/- On going through with the details chart your honour will find that the t ransactions pertains to F.Y. 2006- 07 & 2 007- 08 de tails is as under:
F.Y. 20 06-0 7 Rs. 22,00,4 54/-
F.Y. 2 007- 08 Rs. 3,00,92 5/-"
5. However, the Assessi ng Offi cer was not sati sfi ed wi th the expl anati on gi ven by the assessee and made addi ti on of Rs.80,55,783/- to the total i ncome of the assessee on the ground that the assessee fai l ed to furni sh the requi red detail s and di d not provi de the source of cash pai d.
6. The Assessi ng Offi cer further made addi ti on of Rs.28,38,370/- bei ng unaccounted cash transa cti on on the basi s of certai n document sei zed from the resi dence of the assessee, the detail s of whi ch are as under: Sl. Page No. A n n exu re Prem i se A ddress A m ou nt A .Y .
No. No. (i n Rs.)
1. 166 A -1 7 , A u ran gzeb Road, 1 9 ,2 8 ,3 70 2 0 0 6 -0 7
New Del h i
2. 167 A -1 7 , A u ran gzeb Road, 9 ,1 0 ,0 0 0 --------
New Del h i
7. After consi deri ng the addi ti onal i ncome di scl osed at
Rs.22,00,454/-, the Assessi ng Offi cer determi ned the total
i ncome of the assessee at Rs.1,52,31,110/-.
8. In appeal , the l d. Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s) restri cted the addi ti on to Rs.15,60,197/- out of the addi ti on of Rs.88,55,783/- made by the Asse ssi ng Offi cer by treati ng the same as unexpl ai ned expendi ture i ncurred on repai rs an d 4 ITA No. 2586/Del/2016 Surya Kant Jaipuria mai ntenance of resi denti al house. So fa r a s the a ddi ti on of Rs.28,38,370/- bei ng the unaccounted cash transacti on is concerned, the l d. Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s) del eted an addi ti on of Rs.9,10,00 0/- and sustai ned addi ti on of Rs.19,28,370/-.
9. Aggri eved wi th such order of the l d. Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s), the assessee i s in appeal before the Tri bunal by rai sing the foll owi ng grounds:
"1. That on facts and circumstanc es of t he cas e, the order passed by the Ld . C IT ( Appeal) is bad both in th e eyes o f law and on facts.
2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,60,19 7/- (Rs. 13,32,91 0/- plus Rs.2, 27,28 7/-) by t reating the same as unexplained expenditure inc urred on repair and maintenance of r esidential house.
3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,60,197/- (Rs.l3,32,910/-plus Rs.2,27,287/-)by treating the same as unexplained expenditure inc urred on repair and maintenance of residential house relying on rough papers/estimations and rough measurements.
4. Without prejudice to t he abov e grounds the Ld. C IT (Appeal) has erred in law and on fac ts in confirming the addition of Rs. 19,28,370/- by rely ing on rough paper not supported by any corroborative material.
5. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence.
6. That the Appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal."
10. The assessee has al so filed the foll owi ng addi ti onal grounds:
5 ITA No. 2586/Del/2016Surya Kant Jaipuria "On th e facts and circumstances of the case th e Assessmen t Order passed under s ect ion 153 A of th e I.T. Act, 1961 is bad in law as the assessment was not pending at the time of search and there is no incriminating material found during the s earch of assessee.
6. It is well set tled that an assess ee can raise a legal additional ground or even fresh l egal plea at any stage of the proce edings. In support the appellant seeks to rely on the judgments o f Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Varas Int ernational reported in 284 ITR 80(SC) and NAT ION AL THERMAL POWER C O. LTD vs. CI T reported in 229 ITR 383( SC). Special Bench decision in the case of DHL operators reported in 108 TTJ 15 2(SB).
7. It is furth er relevant to m en tion here that the assessee had not raise this ground categorically at the time of filing of appeal since the judgment of Kabul Chawala was not there. There fore the delay in raising this ground may kindly be condoned. Since it is settled principle of law that unless th e malafides writ large the delay should be condoned and justice should be done, as held by Apex Court in th e case of Im provement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (2010) 6 SSC 786 / (2010) 6 Scale 173 (Supreme Court).
8. The appellant shall be highly grateful if th e aforesaid ground is permitted to be urged which had not been raised due to incorrect legal advice."
11. The l d. Counsel for the assessee submi tted that the above addi ti onal ground i s purel y l egal ground and i t can be rai sed at any stage of the procee di ngs. For the above proposi ti on, he reli ed on the deci si ons of Hon'bl e Supreme Court i n the case of CIT Vs Vara s Internati onal Ltd. reported i n 284 ITR 80 and Nati onal Thermal Power Co. Lt d. Vs CIT re ported i n 229 ITR 383 and the deci si on of the Speci al Bench of the Tri bunal i n the case of DHL Operators report ed i n 108 TTJ 152 (SB). He submi tted that the assessee had not rai sed thi s ground categori cally at the ti me of filing of the appeal si nce the deci si on of Hon'bl e Del hi Hi gh Court i n the case of CIT Vs 6 ITA No. 2586/Del/2016 Surya Kant Jaipuria Kabul Chawal a reported i n 380 ITR 573 was not avai l abl e. Therefore, the del ay i n rai sing thi s ground shoul d be condoned. He submi tted that i t i s the settl ed proposi ti on of l aw that unl ess the mal afi des wri t l arge the del ay shoul d be condoned and justi ce shoul d be done. For the above, proposi ti on he reli ed on the deci si on of Hon'bl e Apex Court i n the case of Improvement Trust Vs Ujaga r Si ngh (2010) 6 SSC 786.
12. After heari ng the a rguments of the l d. Departmental Representati ve and consi deri ng the facts narrated in the peti ti on for rai si ng the addi ti onal ground by the assessee , the addi ti onal ground so rai sed by the assessee i s admi tted for adjudi cati on.
13. The l d. Counsel for the assessee submi tted that the ori gi nal return of the assessee wa s fil ed on 31.07.2007 and the ti me li mit for i ssue of noti ce u/s 143(2) of the Act was 30.09.2008. A search & sei zure operati on i n the instant case took pl ace on 27.03.2012. Referri ng to the copy of the panchnama dated 28.03.2012 , he submi tted that the name of the assessee does not appear i n the search warrant. Further, the warrant of sea rch was i n the premi ses at S-25, Mai n Market, Green Pa rk, New Del hi whereas the resi dence of the assessee i s at 7, Au rgan zeb Road, New Del hi . Further, the statement of the assessee has al so not been recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. He submi tted that the Assessi ng Offi cer made an addi ti on of Rs.80,55,783/- on account of unaccounted cash transacti on bei ng the repai rs carri ed out at hi s resi dence out of whi ch the l d. Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s) sustai ned an amount of Rs.15,60,197/-. So far a s the other 7 ITA No. 2586/Del/2016 Surya Kant Jaipuria addi ti on of Rs.28 ,38,370/- i s concerned, the l d. C ommi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s) sustai ned an amount of Rs.19,28,370/-. He submi tted that since the resi denti al premi ses of the assessee was not searched and no i ncri mi nati ng materi al s were found duri ng the search from the premi ses of the assessee, therefore, no addi ti on u/s 153A of the Act coul d have been made when the return wa s not pendi ng. For the a bove proposi ti on, he rel i ed on the deci si on of Hon'bl e Del hi Hi gh Court in the case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawl a reported i n 380 ITR 573 and vari ous other deci si ons.
13.1 Referri ng to page 2 of the assessment order, he submi tted that the Assessi ng Offi cer hi msel f menti ons that the documents were found and sei zed from S-25, Green Park, Mai n Market, New Del hi . So far as the addi ti on of Rs.28,38,370/- i s concerned the same consi sts of page no. 166 and 167 of Annexure A-1. Page No. 167 Annexure A-1 contai ning the detail s of Rs.9,10,000/- has al ready been del eted by the l d. Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s) and the Revenue i s not i n appeal . So far as Rs.19,28,3 70/- as per page no. 167 Annexure A-1 i s concerned, he submi tted that the same i s a dumb document and no addi ti on shoul d have been made on the basi s of such dumb document.
14. So far as the addi ti on of Rs.15,60,197/- i s concerned, he submi tted that the documents were found from the premi ses of other pe rsons and the Assessi ng Offi cer coul d have assumed juri sdi cti on over the assessee only under the provi si ons of Secti on 153C or 147 of the Act as the case may be after taki ng proper course of acti on. Referri ng to provi si ons of Secti on 8 ITA No. 2586/Del/2016 Surya Kant Jaipuria 132(4A) of the Act, he submi tted that the sei zed documents are presumed that they bel ong to the person from whom they were found. Therefore, the Asse ssi ng Offi cer ought to have taken recourse of provi si ons of Secti on 153C i nstead of 153A of the Act i n the case of the other person . Referri ng to the deci si on of the Tri bunal i n the case of Ji ndal Steel s Vs ACIT reported i n 120 ITD 301, he subm i tted that the Tri bunal in the sai d deci si on has hel d that provi si ons of Secti on 153A and 153C of the Act are materi all y di fferent i n as much as the l ater requi res the recordi ng of sa ti sfacti on before assumi ng juri sdi cti on and Revenue cannot contend that Secti on 153C of the Act can be repl aced by Secti on 153A of the Act. Si nce, i n the i nstance case, no assessment for the i mpugned asse ssment year was pendi ng on the date of search and the documents were sei zed from the premi ses of the company and not from the resi dence of the assessee, therefore, no a ddi ti on i n the i nstant case i s call ed for.
15. Referri ng to the deci si on of Hon'bl e Del hi Hi gh Court i n the case of Pr. CIT Vs Subhash Khattar vi de ITA No. 60/2017, orde r dated 25.07 .2017, he su bmi tted that the Hon'bl e Hi gh Court i n the sai d deci si on has held that i f somethi ng rel atabl e to assessee has been f ound from some othe r pe rson then n o acti on i s permi ssi bl e u/s 153A of the Act, even i f, there i s a search i n the premi ses of the assessee. He submi tted that the assessee unde r mi sconcepti on of l aw and facts ha d offered a n amount of Rs.22 ,00,454/- i n hi s return of i ncome as a ddi ti onal i ncome on the basi s of those documents whi ch were found from the premi ses of the other person. However, the surrender wa s made i n order to avoi d unnecessary l iti gati on and that too a t 9 ITA No. 2586/Del/2016 Surya Kant Jaipuria the end of assessment proceedi ngs, whi ch means the assessee has not bl ocked the i nvesti gati on till the end and Revenue fail ed to corroborate i ts versi on wi th some i ndependent materi al . Referri ng to vari ous ot her deci si ons, he submi tted that i t i s settl ed proposi ti on of law that there i s no est oppel agai nst the statute and i f assessee has offered somethi ng under wrong assumpti on of facts a nd l aw then the same cannot be taxabl e i f the juri sdi cti on i s bad i n l aw.
16. So far as the addi ti on of Rs.19,28,370/- i s concerned, he submi tted that page 166 of Annexure A-1 i s a dumb document and therefore, no addi ti on can be made on the basi s of such dumb document. Further, wh en assessee gi ves some expl anati on, then such expl anati on has either to be accepted i n full or rejected i n full and i t i s not permi ssi bl e to accept part of the same as true and the othe r part as untrue. Fu rther, so fa r as the documents pe rtai ni ng to repai rs and mai ntenance of house i s concerned, the assessee has al ready surrendere d an amount of Rs.22,00,454/- i n assessment year 2007-08 and Rs.3,00,925/- in assessment year 2008-09. So far as the addi ti on of Rs.19,28,370/- i s concerned, he submi tted that i t i s a dumb document and there i s no date or si gnature of the author on thi s document and the Assessi ng Offi cer has never examined the author of the document before maki ng the addi ti on. Relyi ng on vari ous other deci si ons as menti oned i n the synopsi s, the l d. C ounsel for the assessee submi tted that no addi ti on i s call ed for on accoun t of both the addi ti ons.
17. The l d. Departmental Representati ve, on the other hand, heavily reli ed on the order of the Commi ssi oner of Income Tax 10 ITA No. 2586/Del/2016 Surya Kant Jaipuria (Appeal s) on account of va ri ous a ddi ti ons sustai ned by him. So far as the argument of the l d. Counsel for the assessee that no addi ti on can be made i n absence of any i ncrimi nati ng materi al found duri ng the course of se arch is concerned, the l d. Departmental Representati ve referri ng to the deci si on of Hon'bl e Keral a Hi gh Court i n the case of E .N. Gopakumar Vs CIT reported in 75 Taxmann.com 215 submi tted that assessment procee di ngs generated by i ssuance of a noti ce u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act can be concl uded agai nst i nterest of assessee i ncl udi ng maki ng addi ti ons even without any i ncri mi nati ng materi al bei ng availabl e agai nst the assessee i n search u/s 132 of the Act on th e basi s of whi ch noti ce was i ssued u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act. He submi tted that the Hon'bl e Keral a Hi gh Court while deci ding thi s i ssue has consi dered the deci si on of Hon'bl e Del hi Hi gh Court i n the case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawal a reported in 380 ITR 573 and vari ous other de ci si ons. Referri ng to the deci si ons of Hon 'bl e All ahabad Hi gh Court i n the case of CIT Vs Raj Kumar Arora reported i n 367 ITR 517 and i n the case of CIT Vs Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar Sahson Al l d. vi de ITA No. 270 of 2014, he submi tted that the Hon'bl e All ahabad Hi gh Court i n the above de ci si on has hel d that the Assessi ng Offi cer has powe r to rea ssess returns of a ssessee n ot onl y for undi scl osed i ncome found duri ng search operati on but also wi th regard to materi al avail abl e at time of ori gi nal assessment. She al so rel i ed on the foll owi ng deci si ons:
Ø CIT Vs St. Francis Clay Décor Tiles 385 ITR 624 Ø Smt. Dayawanti Vs CIT (2017) 390 ITR 496 Ø CIT Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493 Ø Filatex India Ltd. Vs CIT 49 taxmann.com 465 11 ITA No. 2586/Del/2016 Surya Kant Jaipuria
18. We have consi dered the ri val arguments made by both the si des, perused the orders of the authori ti es bel ow and the paper book fil ed on behalf of the assessee. We have al so consi dered the vari ous deci si ons ci ted before us. Before adjudi cati ng the grounds on meri t, we woul d li ke to adjudi cate fi rst the legal ground rai sed by the assessee. We fi nd from page no. 4 of the assessment order that the Assessi ng Offi cer has cl earl y menti oned that the documents are sei zed from the premi ses at 7, Aurangzeb R oad, New Del hi . Perusal of sei zed documents marked as page 166 of Annexure A-1 shows that i t contai ns cl ear cut amount wi th date and names of persons.
Therefore, the arguments of the l d. Counsel for the assessee that no search has taken pl ace in the premi ses of the assessee and that no i ncri mi nati ng materi al was found i s not correct and mi sl eadi ng. Therefore, the addi ti onal ground rai sed by the assessee i s di smi ssed bei ng devoid of any meri t.
19. So far as the addi ti on of Rs.15,60,197/- sustained by the l d. Commi ssi oner of Income T ax ( Appeal s) out of the a ddi ti on of Rs.80,55,783/- made by the Assessi ng Offi cer i s concerned, we fi nd the addi ti on was made on the basi s of sei zed documents found from the premi ses S-25, Mai n Market, Green Park, New Del hi as per para 4 of the assessment order. We find the Revenue i s not in appeal before the Tri bunal agai nst the reli ef granted by the l d. C ommi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s). So fa r as the addi ti on of Rs.15,60 ,197/- sustai ned by the l d. Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s) i s concerned, we fi nd the assessee duri ng the course of heari ng before th e l d. Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s) had expl ai ned that the vouchers pertai n to repai rs and mai ntenance of hi s 12 ITA No. 2586/Del/2016 Surya Kant Jaipuria resi denti al house at 7, Aurangzeb Road, New Del hi . The assessee had gi ven a tabul ar representati on of the entri es before the l d. Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s). Al though the l d. Commi ssi oner of Incom e Tax (Appeal s) had gi ven substanti al relief to the assessee out of the addi ti on of Rs.80,55,783/- by sustai ni ng Rs.15,60,197/- onl y, we find the addi ti on so sustai ned by the l d. Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s) i s not justi fied under the facts and ci rcumstances of the case. Assessee had categori ca ll y submitted that repai r and mai ntenance expenses i n the property at 7, Auran gzeb R oad, New Del hi was out of the drawings of the famil y members. Assessee had gi ven date wi se, i tem wi se expl anati on, whi ch the l d. Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s) has reproduce d i n the order and remand report of the Assessi ng Offi cer was al so obtai ned. Therefore, we fi nd meri t i n the argument of the l d. Counsel for the assessee that the addi ti on so sustai ned by the l d. Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s) on the ground that assessee coul d not expl ai n sati sfactoril y the amount of Rs.15,60,197/- i s not correct. We, therefore, set a si de the orde r of the l d. Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s) on thi s i ssue and di rect the Assessi ng Offi cer to del ete the addi ti on of Rs.15,60,197/-. The ground nos. 2 & 3 of the appe al are all owed.
20. So fa r as ground no. 4 of the appe al i s concerned, we fi nd the addi ti on was based on the basi s of sei zed document page 166 of Annexure A-1 found f rom 7, Aurangzeb R oad, Ne w Delhi . A perusal of the sai d seized document shows that i t contai ns date wi se recei pts and payments wi th cl ear cut amount and names. Therefore, the arguments of the l d.
13 ITA No. 2586/Del/2016Surya Kant Jaipuria Counsel for the assessee that it i s a dumb document i s not correct. Si nce, the assessee had not expl ai ned properl y the entri es appeari ng i n the sei zed document to the sati sfacti on of the Assessi ng Offi cer or the l d. Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s) or before us, therefore, the addi ti on so made by the Assessi ng Offi cer and sustai ned by the l d. Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s) i s justi fi ed. The ground no. 4 of the appeal i s accordi ngl y di smi ssed.
21. So far as the arguments of the l d. Counsel for the assessee that the documents were sei zed from the premi ses at S-25, Mai n Market, Green Park, New Del hi and therefore, i n vi ew of the deci si on of Hon'bl e Del hi Hi gh court i n the case of Subash Khattar (supra), Assessi ng Offi cer shoul d have taken recourse u/s 153C or 147 of the Act and not u/s 153A of the Act i s concerned, we fi nd the same i s not correct. In that case search & sei zure ope rati on was conducted i n Aerenes grou p of cases on 17.08.2011 and search operati on was conducted at the premi ses of the assessee on 10.02.2012. In other words, two searches took pl ace on di fferent dates. However, i n the i nstance case, the search took place on the same day on the resi dence as wel l as busi ness premi ses of the assessee. The documents sei zed from the busi ness premi ses of the a ssesse e whi ch were bel ongi ng to the assessee was not deni ed by hi m. The assessee ha d categori call y admi tted that the documents found from the busi ness premi ses were the bill s and vouchers for re pai r expenses of hi s resi denti al premi ses. On these ci rcumstances, the deci si on reli ed on by the l d. Counsel for the assessee that Assessi ng Offi cer coul d have taken recourse u/ s 14 ITA No. 2586/Del/2016 Surya Kant Jaipuria 153C or 147 of the Act and addi tion coul d not have been made u/s 153A of the Act i s not correct.
22. To sum up, out of the addi ti on of Rs.88,55,783/- made by the Assessi ng Offi cer, the l d. Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s) had sustai ned onl y an amount of Rs.15,60,197/- whi ch i s del eted. So far as the addi ti on of Rs.19,28,370/- sustai ned by the l d. Commi ssi oner of Income Tax (Appeal s) i s concerned, the same is uphel d. Si nce, the asse ssee ha d decl ared addi ti onal i ncome of Rs.22,00,454/- whi ch i s more than the amount sustai ned by us amounti ng to Rs.19,20,370/-, therefore, no further addi ti on i s call ed for and the Assessi ng Offi cer is di rected to accept the returned i ncome of Rs.65,37,410/-. The grounds ra i sed by the assessee a re accordi ngl y partl y all owed.
23. In the resul t, the appeal of the assessee i s partl y all owed. (Orde r Pronounced i n the Open Court on 01/07/2019) Sd/- Sd/-
(Kuldip Singh) (R. K. Panda)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated: 01/07/2019
*Subodh*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR