M/s Vishakha Builders Pvt Ltd, New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

CO 36/DEL/2009 | 1995-1996
Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 3620123 RSA 2009
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number CO 36/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant M/s Vishakha Builders Pvt Ltd, New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 14-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 14-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 13-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 13-04-2010
Assessment Year 1995-1996
Appeal Filed On 19-03-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1995-96 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(3) NEW DELHI VS. M/S. VISHAKHA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. 302 GD ITL NORTHEX TOWERS NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE PITAM PURA NEW DELHI C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 (IN ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1995-96 M/S. VISHAKHA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. 302 GD ITL NORTHEX TOWERS NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE PITAM PURA NEW DELHI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(3) NEW DELHI APPELLANT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.K. CHAND SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAMESH GOEL ADVOCATE O R D E R PER: C.L. SETHI J.M. IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 15.09.2008 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF AN ASSESS MENT MADE U/S. 143(3)/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) FOR THE A.Y. 1995-96 THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE:- ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 2 OF 19 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS. 34 08 000/- MADE ON THE BASIS SEIZED DOCUMENT (PAGE 4 OF ANN. A-1). 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISTURBING A FINDING OF FAC TS RENDERED BY TRIBUNAL THAT THE SUM IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI AMIT MODI EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR IN T HE CASE OF ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH WAS A FINDING BASED ON A MIT MODIS OWN ADMISSION AND THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTOR NEY DATED 06.04.1999 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF SHRI AMIT MO DI AS DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 3. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN SO FAR AS IT WAS NOT OPEN TO HIM TO QUESTION THE MERIT OF IMPUGNED SEIZE D DOCUMENT (PAGE 4 OF ANN. 1) WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED AS EVIDENCE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER D ATED 28.4.2006 ON THE BASIS OF AMIT MODIS OWN ADMISSION IN HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS NOT CLEARED THE COBWEBS SURROUNDING THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE POWER OF CIT (A) BEING COTERMINOUS WITH THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN NOT EXERCISING HIS POWERS IN DOING WHAT A O PRESUMABLE FAILED TO DO IN CLEARING THE ALLEGED COB WEBS SURROUNDING THE DOCUMENTS AND ACCEPTING THE ASSESSE ES CHANGED STANCE. 2. RELEVANT FACTS REGARDING GROUNDS RAISED BY THE R EVENUE AS EMERGING FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND MATERI AL ON RECORD MAY BE SET OUT IN BRIEF AS UNDER:- 3. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AGA INST ONE SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA ON 15.03.1999. SHRI KALRA WAS AN EMP LOYEE OF THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND WAS ALSO DEALIN G WITH CERTAIN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION COND UCTED AGAINST HIM CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THESE SEIZED DOCU MENTS INDICATED CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO DEALINGS IN IMMOVA BLE PROPERTIES. ONE OF THE ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 3 OF 19 DOCUMENTS SEIZED IS MARKED AS PAGE 49 OF ANNEXURE A -1. ON THIS PAPER NAME OF THE PROPERTY NAMELY B-38 TEACHERS COLONY WAS MENTIONED ALONGWITH CERTAIN AMOUNTS TOTAL OF WHICH AGGREGATI NG TO RS. 22 63 000/- WHICH WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE SUM OF RS. 36 00 000/-. THE CONTENTION OF SHRI KALRA WAS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION WE RE RELATED TO SRI AMIT MODI AND HE CARRIED OUT THE TRANSACTIONS ON HIS BE HALF MERELY AS A BROKER. ACCORDING TO SHRI KALRA THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURC HASED BY MR. MODI. SHRI MODI STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE PRESENT ASSESSEE FROM SHRI MADAN MOHAN VERMA AND GENERAL POWER OF ATTORN EY EXECUTED IN HIS NAME AS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. THE COMPANY LATER SOLD THIS PROPERTY TO ONE MR. SANDEEP KALRA SON OF SHRI T.D. KALRA. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA THE AO HAD TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY PURCHASED BY SHRI SANDEEP KAL RA NEPHEW OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA. THE AO THEREFORE ADDED THE SUM OF RS. 36 00 000/- IN THE HANDS OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA. 4. SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA THEN CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA BY HOLDING THAT ON PERUSAL OF POWER OF ATTORNEY FILED BY SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA IT WAS SEEN THAT AT NO POINT OF TIME SHRI S URAJ PRAKASH KALRA WAS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 4 OF 19 INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED EIT HER IN THE HANDS OF SHRI AMIT MODI IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR IN THE HAND S OF THE COMPANY NAMELY M/S. VISHAKHA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. (THE PRESE NT ASSESSEE BEFORE US). AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AN D THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 28.04.2006 DECIDED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVI NG AS UNDER:- WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED TE MATT ER CAREFULLY. THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS SHOWN THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED WERE IN RELATION TO THE PROPER TY AT B- 38 TEACHERS COLONY. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE TRANSACTION RELATED TO SHRI AMIT MODI. THE ASSESSE E PRODUCED THE GPA DATED 6.4.94 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF SHRI AMIT MODI. THE LATTER EXPLAINED THAT THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY VISHAKHA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND T HE GPA EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR WAS AS A DIRECTOR OF THE SAID COMPANY. THE DIFFERENT POWERS OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME PROPERTY AT ANY POINT OF TIME. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DELETION OF ADDITION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DIRECTION OF CIT(A) THAT THE ADDIT ION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE NAME OF SHRI AMIT MODI IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR IN THE NAME OF VISHAKHA BUIL DERS PVT. LTD. CANNOT BE CONSIDERED UNREASONABLE. THE SAME IS THEREFORE UPHELD. 5. IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS/FINDINGS/DIRECT IONS OF THE TRIBUNAL MENTIONED IN TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 28.4.2006 THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 26.03.2007 TO THE PRESENT ASSESSE E AND AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 20.12. 2007. IN THE ASSESSMENT AN ADDITION OF RS. 34 08 000/- BEING TH E DIFFERENCE OF RS. 36 00 000/- THE AMOUNT APPEARING IN THE SEIZED DOCU MENTS AND THE PURCHASE PRICE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1 92 000/- WAS ADDED TO THE ASSESSEES ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 5 OF 19 TOTAL INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED OWN MONEY PAID BY THE A SSESSEE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY NAMED B-38 TEACHERS COLO NY. WHILE MAKING AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS. 34 08 000/- THE AO HAS O BSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER:- IN RESPONSE TO THIS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FILED A LETTER DATED 19/12 /2007 CATEGORICALLY DENYING HAVING MADE PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF RS. 192000/- IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERT Y. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DISOWNED THE WRITINGS ON THE PAPE R SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALR A. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ADVANCE ANY EVIDENCE WITH RE GARD TO THE FACT THAT THE VALUED OF THE PROPERTY ON DATE OF PURCHASE WAS AT RS.192000/- ONLY. THE SIMPLE DENIAL ON ITS PART WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ESCAPE THE LEVY OF TAX O N THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PROPERTY & NOT HAV ING RECORDED THE FULL VALUE IN ITS BOOKS. I THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY TO THE E XTENT OF RS. 3408000/- IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH I S BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT 1961. IT IS HELD ACCORDINGLY. 6. ASSAILING THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 34 08 000/- IN THE ASSESSEES HANDS THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE VA LIDITY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 143(3) /148 OF THE ACT AS MADE WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 34 08 000/- ON ITS MERIT. 7. WITH REGARD TO THE GROUND DISPUTING THE AOS ACT ION IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 34 08 000/- IN ASSESSEES HAND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 6 OF 19 BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 34 08 00 0/- MADE BY THE AO IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- I. THE DOCUMENT MARKED ANNEXURE A-1 PAGE 4 WAS ADMITTEDLY SEIZED FROM THE POSSESSION OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA. THEREFORE THE ONUS WAS ENTIRELY ON SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF TRANSA CTIONS APPEARING IN THE SAID DOCUMENTS. THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENT NO WHERE REFERS OR INDICATES OUR NAME. THE SAID DOCUMENT REFERS NAMES LIKE SUBHASH SRK NARESH TDK/VLPIN MR. T.D.KA. MOREOVER THESE ARE ALL UNILATERAL ENTRIES MADE BY SHRI KALRA WHICH CAN NOT BE USED AGAINST ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT THESE TRANSACTIONS . THIS IS A WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION. THE SAID DOCUMENT N EITHER BEARS ANY SIGNATURE NOR ANY DATE. THEREFORE NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST US ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENT. II. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE EITHER ON RECORD OR OTHERW ISE TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT EVER PAID RS. 3600000/- TO SHRI S.P. KALRA FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION . III. THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO LINK THE APPELLANT WITH THE TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN THE DO CUMENT MARKED ANNEXURE A PAGE 4 WHICH WAS SEIZED FR OM THE POSSESSION OF SHRI S.P. KALRA. THEREFORE THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID DOCUMENT REMAINS UNCORROBORATED. IV. ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACT IS THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PREV IOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95. THE PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION MONEY WAS MADE BY CHEQUE O N 28.03.1994 AND THE POSSESSION WAS ALSO TAKEN ON THE SAID DATE. THE SAID PROPERTY IS DULLY REFLECTED IN THE OPENING STOCK AS ON 01.04.94. IN SUPPORT OF OUR ABOVE CONT ENTION WE ARE ENCLOSING HEREWITH COPY OF OUR BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.03.95 AND THE DETAILS OF THE OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK. (ANNEXURE U) AT PAGE 39 TO 48) V. THAT DESPITE OUR SPECIFIC REQUEST THE AO HAS NO T MADE AVAILABLE TO US ALL THE DOCUMENTS USED BY HIM WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT MORE PARTICULARLY THE STATEME NT OF ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 7 OF 19 SHRI AMIT MODI. THIS IS IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE AOS ORDER AND THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 34 08 000/- BY OBSERVING AND HOLDIN G AS UNDER:- 15. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE HONBLE ITAT ORDER DTD. 28-04-2006 PASSED IN THE CASE OF SHRI KALRA ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE B EFORE ME AND THE EXPLANATIONS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAREFULLY. 16. DURING THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PURCHASED PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS B-38 TEACH ERS COLONY FOR RS. 192000. THIS WAS DECLARED IN THE RE TURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID TROUGH CHEQUE. THIS WAS SHO WN ALSO AS STOCK IN TRADE. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO MONEY PAYMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE SEIZ ED DOCUMENT FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI S.P. KALRA. IN THE SAID DOCUMENT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3600000 WAS WRITTEN. THE AO CONCLUDED THIS IS THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PAID FOR THE SAID PROPERTY. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURE SHOWN SEIZED DOCUMENT AND THE FIGURE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE DIFFERENC E AMOUNT WAS RS. 3408000. THE ONLY LINK BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IS ONLY TH E DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. THERE ARE NO D ATES OF PAYMENT. THE ONLY REASON GIVEN BY THE AO WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ADVANCE ANY EVIDENCE WITH RE GARD TO THE FACT THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF PURCHASE WAS AT RS. 192000 ONLY. 17. THE AR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE AO. HE ARGUED THAT NO PROPER REASONS WERE GIVE N BY THE AO. THERE IS NO STRONG EVIDENCE AGAINST THE AS SESSEE. HE STATED FURTHER THAT THERE WERE MANY POWERS OF AT TORNEY SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI S.P. KALRA. HE HA S ALSO DRAWN MY ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT SHRI MODI IS IN VOLVED IN MANY TRANSACTIONS WITH SHRI KALRA IN MANY OTHER ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 8 OF 19 PROPERTIES. THESE ISSUES WERE SET ASIDE TO THE FIL E OF THE AO. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE PARAS 5 5.1 5.2 5. 3 AND PARAS 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HO NBLE ITAT ON 28-04-2006 IN THE CASE OF SHRI KALRA. 18. THE AO HAS NOT CLEARED THE COBWEB SURROUNDING T HE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DOCU MENT. VARIOUS AMOUNTS WERE SHOWN AGAINST THE VARIOUS NAME S AS STATED BY THE AR IN ITS SUBMISSIONS. 19. THESE WERE NOT VERIFIED BY THE AO. THERE IS AL SO PAYMENT OF RS. 2 25 000 BY CHEQUE. THE AO SHOULD H AVE VERIFIED FROM WHICH BANK ACCOUNT IT HAS GONE EITHER OF THE ASSESSEE OR SHRI MODI. THERE MAY BE A REASON TO EN TERTAIN DOUBT ABOUT THE UNRECORDED PART OF THE TRANSACTION. STRONG EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE ADDITION. 20. IT IS FURTHER SENT THAT MANY POWERS OF ATTORNEY WERE AVAILABLE FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH K ALRA. THE AO HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE CORRESPONDING POWER OF ATTORNEY WITH THE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION. THE SAID P ROPERTY WAS SOLD IN ASST. YEAR 1996-97 FOR RS.2 10 000 MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E. 15.-3-99 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE S EIZED DOCUMENT IS IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION ENTERED IN FR OM THE ANGLE WHETHER THE ON MONEY WAS PAID BY SHRI MODI IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR BY THE COMPANY SINCE SHRI MO DI IS INVOLVED IN MANY TRANSACTIONS AS SEEN FROM THE ITAT ORDER. THERE IS NO PIECE OF PAPER INDICATING THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS PAID ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE PRICE SHOWN IN THE DOCUMENTS WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD IN FINANCIAL YEAR 95-96 TO SHRI SANDEEP KALRA. 21. THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE MONEY WAS PAID IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 94-95 RELEVANT FOR ASST. YEAR 95-96. 22. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES T HE ADDITION OF RS. 34 08 000 IS HEREBY DELETED. ACCOR DINGLY THE GROUNDS NO. 7 & 8 ARE ALLOWED. 9. HENCE THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISING CERTAIN PRELIMINARY GROUND CONTENDING THAT THE ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 9 OF 19 NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S. 148 WAS WITHOUT JURISD ICTION AND BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 147 WERE NOT VALID AND THUS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE U/S. 143(3)/148 OF THE AC T WAS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO. 10. BEFORE PROCEEDINGS TO DECIDE THE VARIOUS GROUND S IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS WE FIND IT PROPER TO FIRST CONSIDER AND DECIDE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. CONSEQUENTLY WE PROCEED TO DECIDE AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS . 34 08 000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY NAMED B-38 TEACHERS COLONY. 11. THE LD. DR SHRI N.K. CHAND HAS POINT OUT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL GIVEN IN THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2006 IN TH E CASE OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA TO CONTEND THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING THE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IN THE HAND S OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE COMPANY VIZ. M/S. VISHAKHA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. HE FURTHER REITERATED THE VARIOUS REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER IN SUPPORT OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT IN PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 34 08 000/- IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESS EE FAILED TO ADVANCE ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF THE PURCHASE WAS RS. 1 92 000/- ONLY AND A SIMPLE DENI AL ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT OF RS. 36 00 000/- IS ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 10 OF 19 NOT SUFFICIENT AS IT IS MERELY A DEVICE TO ESCAPE T HE LEVY OF TAX ON UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PROPERTY. HE FURTHER SUPPOR TED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THEN CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FALLEN IN ER ROR IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAMESH G OENKA ADVOCATE HAS REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS THAT WER E MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW PARTICULARLY THE VARIOUS CONTENT IONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN THIS CONNECTION HE INVITED OUR ATTENTI ON TO THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE WRI TINGS FOUND IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IT IS VERY MUCH DIFFICULT TO DRAW INFEREN CES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 36 00 000/- IN THE PROPERTY NAMED B-38 TEACHERS COLONY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO ADEQUATE OR SUFFICIENT MATERIAL EITHER ON RECORD OR OTHERWISE TO SHOW AND ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EVER PAID RS. 36 00 000/- FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH ERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD TO LINK THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DO CUMENT SEIZED FROM THE POSSESSION OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA OR WITH THE TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN THE SAID DOCUMENTS. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE ON THIS COUNT IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED. ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 11 OF 19 13. RELEVANT CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE B EEN CONSIDERED. ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL ON RECORD HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY PERUSED. 14. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ADDITION OF RS. 34 08 000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT MARKED AS AN NEXURE A-1 SEIZED FROM THE POSSESSION ONE SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENT WHICH IS PLACED A T PAGE NO. 49 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS SEIZED DOCU MENT READS AS UNDER:- ANNEXURE A-1 B-38 TEACHERS 1. 2 00 000/- TO SUBHASH 2. 30 000/- BY SPK 3. 80 000/- BY SPK 4. 3 30 000/- BY NARESH 5. 1 60 000/- BY TDK/VIPIN 6. 2 25 000/- BY CHEQUE 7. 12 00 000/- CASH 8. 28 000/- TO HR. T.D.K. 22 53 000/- 10 000/- DUE 22 63 000/- 36 00 000/- 22 63 000/- 13 37 000/- 15. THIS AFORESAID DOCUMENT WAS INITIALLY CONSIDERE D IN THE HANDS OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA WHERE MATTER HAD TRAVELED UP T O THE APPELLATE STAGE ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 12 OF 19 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THIS ISS UE IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH BY OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER:- WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS SHOWN THAT T HE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED WERE IN RELATION TO THE PROPER TY AT B- 38 TEACHERS COLONY. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE TRANSACTION RELATED TO SHRI AMIT MODI. THE ASSESSE E PRODUCED THE GPA DATED 6.4.94 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF SHRI AMIT MODI. THE LATTER EXPLAINED THAT THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY VISHAKHA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND T HE GPA EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR WAS AS A DIRECTOR OF THE SAID COMPANY. THE DIFFERENT POWERS OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME PROPERTY AT ANY POINT OF TIME. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DELETION OF ADDITION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DIRECTION OF CIT(A) THAT THE ADDIT ION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE NAME OF SHRI AMIT MODI IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR IN THE NAME OF VISHAKHA BUIL DERS PVT. LTD. CANNOT BE CONSIDERED UNREASONABLE. THE SAME IS THEREFORE UPHELD. 16. IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA IT WAS SUBMITTED BY SHRI KALRA THAT TRANSACTION WAS RELATED TO MR. AMIT MODI AND HE HAD ENTERED THE TRANSACTION ON HIS BEHALF AS A BROKER FOR WHICH BRO KERAGE WAS PAID. HE ALSO PRODUCED FURTHER POWER OF ATTORNEYS SHOWING THAT TH E SAME PROPERTY HAD CHANGED HANDS AT DIFFERENT POINTS OF TIMES. HE PRO DUCED ON GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 06.04.1994 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF SHRI AMIT MODI. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF S HRI KALRA WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE REVENU UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BY OBSERVING THAT DELETION OF T HE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF SHRI KALRA AND DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE AD DITION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE NAME OF SHRI AMIT MODI IN THE IND IVIDUAL CAPACITY OR IN ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 13 OF 19 THE NAME OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE CAN NOT BE CONSID ERED UNREASONABLE. FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN THE CASE OF SHR I KALRA IT IS CLEAR THAT ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI KALRA WAS DELETE D WITH THE DIRECTION THAT ADDITION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI AMIT MODI IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR IN THE NAME OF THE PRESENT A SSESSEE. HOWEVER THERE IS NO FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE FINDING THAT THE ADDITION S HOULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. WHAT WAS THE DIRECTION GI VEN BY THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF SHRI KALRA HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE REASONABLE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE PRESENT AO CONSIDERED THE INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS O F THE PRESENT ASSESSEE AND THEN MADE THE ADDITION. WHILE MAKING THE ADDIT ION THE AO HAS GIVEN A REASON THAT PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE SEIZED PAPER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ADVANCE ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE FACTS THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF PURCHASE WAS RS. 1 92 000/- ONLY. 17. WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE P RESENT ASSESSEE THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY IOTA OF EVIDENCE OR MATE RIAL WHATSOEVER TO ESTABLISH ANY LINK OR NEXUS BETWEEN THE SEIZED DOCU MENT AND THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE SEIZED DOCUMEN T AS RELATING TO THE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT PROPERTY AT B-38 TEACHERS COLONY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESS EE DURING THE F.Y. 1993-94 WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD ACTUALLY PAID THE ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 14 OF 19 CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT RS. 36 00 000/- AS AGAINST RS. 1 92 000/- SHOWN IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR WHETHER THE TRANSACTION RECORDED I N THE SEIZED PAPER WAS IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE F.Y. 1993-94 OR WHETHER IT IS IN RESPECT OF SOME OTHER T RANSACTION RELATING TO THE SAME PROPERTY EFFECTED BY SOME OTHER PERSONS. FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE STATEMENT OF SHRI KALRA IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SAME PROPERTY HAD CHANGED SEVERAL HANDS AT DIFFERENT POI NTS OF TIMES. SHRI KALRA HAD PRODUCED NUMBER OF POWER OF ATTORNEYS IN RESPEC T OF THE SAME PROPERTY IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT HE WAS MERELY A B ROKER FOR EFFECTING THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTIES . THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF SHRI KALRA HAS BEEN DELETED PRIMARILY FOR THE REASON THAT AT NO POINT OF TIME HE WAS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF THE PROPER TY AS PER THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY WHICH WERE REGISTERED. FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS ULTIMATELY SOLD B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR RS. 2 12 000/- DURING THE F.Y. 1995-96 TO ONE SHRI SAND EEP KALRA S/O SHRI T.D. KALRA. IN OTHER WORDS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AFTER THE SAME WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 1995-96 WAS ONE SHRI SANDEEP KALR A. THE DOCUMENT WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 15.0 3.1999. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL WHATSOEVER TO ESTABLISH ANY LI NK BETWEEN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF SHRI S. P. KALR A ON 15.03.1999 WITH THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE F.Y. 1993-94. IT IS ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 15 OF 19 NOT CLEAR WHETHER THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT IS CONNECTED TO THE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE EFFECTED IN F.Y. 1933-94 OR WHETHER THE T RANSACTION OF SALE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN F.Y. 1995-96 OR WHETHER IT IS R ELATED TO THE SOME OTHER TRANSACTION EFFECTED AFTER F.Y. 1995-96. IT IS ALS O NOT CLEAR THAT WHO HAD WRITTEN THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT FOUND FROM THE POS SESSION OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA AND WHY THIS DOCUMENT CAME TO BE IN THE CUSTODY AND POSSESSION OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA. FROM THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA IT IS BEYOND ANY DOUBT TH AT SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA WAS INVOLVED IN MANY TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF LAND AND EVEN IN SEVERAL TRANSACTIONS EFFECTED FROM TIME TO TIME IN RESPECT OF SAME PROPERTY I.E. B-38 TEACHERS COLONY. IN THE SEIZE D DOCUMENT IT IS ALSO NOT INDICATED AS TO WHETHER THE AMOUNT WRITTEN IN THESE DOCUMENTS IS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY SOMEBODY OR IT WAS AMOUNT WHICH WAS PAI D BY SOMEBODY. IN THE DOCUMENT A SUM OF RS. 22 63 000/- IS AGGREGATE D BEING SUM OF DIFFERENT AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE SAID SEIZED PAPER AND TH EREAFTER THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS. 22 63 000/- WAS DEDUCTED FROM RS. 36 00 000/- LEAVING A BALANCE OF RS. 13 37 000/-. NEITHER ANY DATE NOR N AME OF ANY PERSON WRITING ALL THESE WRITINGS IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT I S MENTIONED. IN THE DOCUMENT SOME NAMES OF THE PERSONS ARE MENTIONED S UCH AS SUBHASH NARESH VIPIN SPK TDK ETC. AGAINST WHICH INDIVIDU AL AMOUNT BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD NOR ANY ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE TO ASCERTAIN THE IMPLICATION OR MEANING OF ALL THESE WRITINGS MENTIO NED IN THE SEIZED PAPER. ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 16 OF 19 IN THE SEIZED PAPER A SUM OF RS.2 25 000/- IS MENT IONED AS BY CHEQUE WHICH GOES TO SHOW THAT AGGREGATE TRANSACTIONS OF R S. 22 63 000/- EFFECTED BY ANY PERSON INCLUDES ALSO THE TRANSACTION OF RS. 2 25 000/- BY CHEQUE. HOWEVER NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW AND ESTABLISH THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 2 25 000/- WAS ACTUALLY PAI D OR RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPERTY NAMED B-38 TEACHERS COLONY SO AS TO CONNECT THE SAID SEIZED PAPER TO TH E ASSESSEE. HAD THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT BEEN CONNECTED OR RELATED TO THE TR ANSACTIONS EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE THE PAYMENT OF RS. 2 25 000/- BY CHEQ UE WOULD HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT NO SUCH MATERIAL OR EVIDENCES HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH T HAT THE WRITINGS IN THE SEIZED PAPERS ARE IN ANY WAY OR MANNER WHATSOEVER C ONNECTED OR RELATED TO THE AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE. TO SUM-UP IT COULD N OT BE SAID BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION THAT SEIZED DOCUMENT IS IN ANY WAY OR M ANNER CONNECTED OR RELATED TO THE TRANSACTION EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT B-38 TEACHERS COLONY PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS NOT FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE OR ITS DIRECTOR. IF ANY PRESUMPTIONS IN RESPECT OF THIS DOCUMENT FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF SHRI S.P. KALRA IN THE COU RSE OF THE SEARCH U/S. 132 CONDUCTED AGAINST HIM WERE TO BE DRAWN U/S. 292C WHICH SECTION HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2007 W.E.F. 01.10.1975 AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2008 W.E.F. 01.10.1975 IT CAN ONLY BE DRAWN AGAINST SHRI S.P. ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 17 OF 19 KALRA IN WHOSE POSSESSION OR CONTROL THE DOCUMENT WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE ACT. SHRI S.P. KALRA HAS MERELY STATED THAT HE WAS A BROKER AND THE TRANSACTION WAS RELATED TO SHR I AMIT MODI. SHRI KALRA NOR SHRI AMIT MODI HAS STATED THAT THE ACTUAL CONSI DERATION FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN F.Y. 1993-94 PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY WAS RS. 36 00 000/-. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT MERE BECAUSE SOME POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF SHRI AMIT MODI THAT BY ITSELF CANNOT BE A BASIS TO ESTABLISH A LINK OR NEXUS OF THE TRANSAC TION OR ENTRY RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WITH THE PRESENT ASSESSEE UNLESS SO METHING RELIABLE OR BELIEVABLE IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH A LINK BETWEEN THE ENTRIES RECORDED IN SEIZED DOCUMENT AND THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN F.Y. 1993-94. IN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI AMIT MODI RECORDED ON 26.03.2001 HE HAS NOWHERE STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 36 00 000 /-. THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED ON 28.03.1994 AND THE PAYMENT OF RS. 1 92 000/- WAS PAID TO MRS. PRABHAKARAN WIFE OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN VERMA. THE ST ATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN VERMA HAS NEITHER BEEN TAKEN NOR THEY W ERE EXAMINED. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD T O SHOW THAT IN HANDS OF SELLER THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS TAKEN AT RS. 36 00 000/-. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHY FURTHER OR PROPER ENQUIRY WERE NOT MADE FROM SHRI MADAN MOHAN VERMA OR HIS WIFE BEFORE MAKING ANY ADD ITION IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 18 OF 19 18. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AS NOTED ABOVE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE RE IS NO SUFFICIENT OR ADEQUATE MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT TO SHOW AND ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY INVEST ED THE SUM OF RS. 36 00 000/- TOWARDS PURCHASE OF PROPERTY PURCHASED IN THE F.Y. 1993-94 AND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO PURELY ON THE BASIS OF IMAGINATION AND SURMISES WITHOUT ESTABLISHING ANY L INK OR NEXUS BETWEEN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT FOUND IN THE CUSTODY OR POSSESSION OF ONE SHRI SURAJ PRAKASH KALRA DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH CONDU CTED AGAINST HIM U/S. 132 OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 34 08 000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOU NT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY PURCHASED DURING THE F.Y. 19 93-94. 19. IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISION TAKEN IN THE APPEA L FILED BY THE REVENUE WHEREBY ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 34 08 000/- HAS BEEN UPHELD THE VARIOUS ISSUES RELATING TO THE AO S JURISDICTION IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 OF THE ACT RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION HAS BECOME REDUNDANT. THEREFORE WE DO NOT PROCEED TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E BY TREATING THEM AS REDUNDANT AT THIS STAGE. THIS UNDERSTANDING WAS AL SO GIVEN TO BOTH THE PARTIES EVEN AT THE TIME OF HARING OF THIS APPEAL T HAT IN CASE THE ORDER OF THE ITA NO. 3454/DEL/2008 C.O. NO. 36/DEL/2009 PAGE 19 OF 19 CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS U PHELD BY US WE WOULD NOT ENTERED INTO THE MERIT OF THE VARIOUS ISSUES RA ISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS. 20. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED TO BE IN FRUCTOUS. 21. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 14 TH MAY 2010. SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (C.L. SETHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14 TH MAY 2010 *NITASHA COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT NEW DELHI. BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR