ITO,, Ludhiana v. M/s Marvel Home Constructions P.Ltd.,, Ludhiana

ITA 29/CHANDI/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 2921514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAECM4594N
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 29/CHANDI/2010
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant ITO,, Ludhiana
Respondent M/s Marvel Home Constructions P.Ltd.,, Ludhiana
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-08-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 05-05-2010
Next Hearing Date 05-05-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 07-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 29/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE I.T.O. VII(4) V M/S MARVEL HOME CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN: AAECM 4594 N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.S. KHEMWAL RESPONDENT BY: S/SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL & ASHOK GOYAL ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA JM THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II LUDHIANA DATED 6.10.2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A)-II LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 38 50 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A)-II LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 21 55 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN TH E PURCHASE OF LAND. 3 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A)-II LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE 2 ADDITION OF RS. 24 10 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. 4 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A)-II LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 30 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT. 5 THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 38 50 000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE R AISED UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 2.21 CRORES DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE CONFIRMATION FROM WHOM THE SAID LOANS W ERE RAISED. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 17.11.2008 FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE LOANS CREDITORS TOTALING RS. 1 82 50 000/- AS DETAI LED IN PARA 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ANOTHER LETTER DATED 23.12.2008 FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF THE BALANC E THREE CREDITORS TOTALING RS. 38 50 000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 3 HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 23.12.2008 AND THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID LETTER ARE INCORPORATED IN PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER OB SERVES THE ASSESSEE NOT TO HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE REQUISITIONED LETTER ISS UED ON 22.12.2008 AND THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE BALANCE UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 38 50 000/- AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY ADDITION OF RS. 38 50 000/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE EXPLAINED THE POSITION AND POINTED OUT THAT THE CONFIRMED STA TEMENT OF UNSECURED 3 LOANS IN RESPECT OF BALANCE THREE PERSONS WERE FILE D DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE COPIES OF THE CONFIRMA TION WERE ALSO FURNISHED DURING THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS. THE CI T(A) OBSERVED THE SAID PARTY TO HAVE ALSO FURNISHED THE PAN NOS. IN T HE CONFIRMATION STATEMENT AND AS THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE COM PLIED WITH THE REQUISITION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF FURNISHING THE CONFIRMED ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS ADDITION OF RS. R 38 50 000/- WAS DELETED. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID DELETION BY WAY OF GR OUND NO1. 4. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL RA ISED BY THE REVENUE IN VIEW OF THE CONFIRMATIONS BEING FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE THREE LOAN CREDITORS I.E. S/ SHRI DEEPAK MAHINDRA DR. MURIAI LAL AGGARWAL AND RAJINDER MOHAN SINGLA . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED ON RECORD THE CONFIRMATION OF THE AF ORESAID PARTIES AT PAGES 17 TO 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NON FURNISHING OF BALANCE CONFIRMATION OF LOAN CREDITORS. IN VIEW THEREOF WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY COMPLIED WITH T HE REQUISITIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THERE IS NO MERIT IN ANY DISALLO WANCE. WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 5. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND. DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LAND MEASURING 7 KANALS 17 MARLAS AT SUNET AS PER SALE DEED DATED 10.6.2005. THE PURCHASE CONS IDERATION WERE DECLARED AT RS. 2 15 90 000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTED THAT AS PER THE REGISTRATION DEED THE STAMP DUTY WAS LEVIED ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID LAND AT RS. 2 37 45 000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 21 55 000/- BEING THE UNDERVALUE SH OWN BY ASSESSEE IN 4 THE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THAT INFORMATION WAS CALLED FOR U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FROM THE SELLERS OF THE PROPERTY AND IN REPLY T HEY HAVE FURNISHED THE PROOF OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN WHICH THE TOTAL PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE SAID PERSONS FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SALE OF LAND WAS REFLECTED AT RS. 2 15 90 000/-. THE ASSESSMENT US/ 143(3) OF THE AC T WERE COMPLETED BY DIFFERENT OFFICERS AND COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER OF SHRI SUKHPATH WADERA RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ONE OF THE SEL LERS WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDIT ION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID SOM ETHING OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE REGISTRATION DEED . THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVEN IF STAMP DUTY IS SHOWN T O BE PAID AT A HIGHER AMOUNT BEING THE MARKET VALUE OF LAND IN QUESTION THE SAME MAY FORM BASIS FOR ENQUIRES BUT IN THE ABSENCES OF ANY EVIDE NCE NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASER. THE CIT(A ) HELD HOWEVER THERE MAY BE SOME GROUND FOR MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. FURTHER AS THE SALE PRICE OF THE SAID LAND HAD BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE HAN DS OF THE SELLER THERE IS NO CASE FOR MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 21 55 000/-. 6. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITO VS M/S NEW P. GRAND RESORTS JAGRAON (ITA NO. 526/CHD/2009 & CO NO. 40/ CHD/2009) VIDE ORDER DATED 26.11.2009 WHEREIN ON IDENTICAL GROUND S THE SIMILAR ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED. THE LEARNED DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD PU RCHASED A PLOT OF LAND FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2 15 90 000/-. HO WEVER THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID LAND WAS TAKEN AT RS. 2 37 45 000/- BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES. THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY HAD REFLEC TED THE SALE PRICE I.E. RS. 2 15 90 000/- IN THEIR HANDS AND THE SAME WAS ACCEP TED WHILE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE H AS FURNISHED ON RECORD THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF THE SELLER U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 20 TO 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT PRICE OF THE L AND AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED AND NOT THE MARKET PRICE HAS BEEN CON FIRMED BY THE SELLER IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DIRECTLY TO THEM. FURTHER THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF ANY AMO UNT OVER AND ABOVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 21 55 000/-. IN ANY CASE THE ADDITION IF ANY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ARE ATTRACTED IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE PUR CHASER. 8. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L IN ITO VS M/S NEW P. GRAND RESORTS JAGRAON (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 26 TH NOVEMBER 2009 HELD AS UNDER:- 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS NOTED BY CIT(A) THE STATEMENT OF THE SELLER OF THE PROPE RTY SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA WAS RECORDED ON 8.12.2008. IN THE ST ATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE SELLER ADMIT TED TO HAVE RECEIVED RS. 40 LAKHS AS SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF LAND AND BUILDING. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT ADMITTEDLY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AS PER WHICH THE A PPELLANT COULD BE SHOWN TO HAVE PAID TO THE SELLER ANYTHING OVER AND ABOVE THAT MENTIONED IN THE REGISTRATION DEED. THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER GIVEN A FINDING AFTER THE PERUSAL OF TH E ASSESSMENT 6 RECORD THAT THE ADDITION IN THE CASE HAD BEEN MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE DVO. THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD SPECIFICALLY MADE A REQU EST TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONFRONT IT WITH ANY MATERIAL IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DEPARTMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD BE SHOWN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ANYTHING OVER A ND ABOVE THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE REGISTRATION DEED. NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD AND THE SAID FACT WA S ALSO NOTED BY THE CIT(A) AND FINDS A MENTION IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. 7. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 B PROVIDES THAT WHE RE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN A FINANCIAL YEAR OR WAS FOUND TO BE OWNER OF ANY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALU ABLE ARTICLE AND IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS THAT TH E AMOUNT EXPANDED ON SUCH INVESTMENT / ACQUISITION EXCEEDS T HE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE SUCH EXCESS AMOUNT MAY BE DEEMED TO BE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR WHERE THE ASSESSE E OFFERS NO EXPLANATION OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NO T SATISFACTORY IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 8. THE BASIS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION U/S 69B OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US IS THE REPORT OF THE DVO WHICH IN TURN IS BASED ON THE MARKET RATES PRESCRIBED FOR TRANSFER OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN THE SAID AREA. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD DETERMINED THE ADDITION U/S 69B ON THE DIFFEREN CE BETWEEN THE VALUE DETERMINED BY DVO AND THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT NO EVIDE NCE HAD BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AGAINST THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE CONSID ERATION PAID FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WHICH IS ACCOUNTED FO R IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE A DEEMED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES FOR WORKING OUT THE VALUE OF STAMPS TO BE PAID IN THE CASE DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE STAND OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED A SUM HIGHER THAN TH AT DECLARED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SPECIALLY AS THE SALE CON SIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE SELLER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE SAI D SELLER BY WAY OF HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 9. WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE RATIO OF JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. NILOFE R L. SINGH WHERE ON SIMILAR ISSUE AS ARISEN BEFORE US H AD HELD AS UNDER :- WHEN A SALE OF PROPERTY TAKES PLACE THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF SUCH A TRANSFER HAS TO BE COMPUTED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. FROM THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED 7 WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER AS ALSO THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASS ET AND THE COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT THERETO HAVE TO BE DEDUCTED. THE EXPRESSION FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS HAVING REFERENCE TO THE MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET TRANSFERRED BUT ONLY MEANS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE TRANSFEROR IN EXCHANGE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TRANSFERRED BY HIM. IN HE CASE OF A SALE OF FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IS THE FULL SALE PRICE ACTUALLY PAID. FULL VALUE MEANS THE WHOLE PRICE WITHOUT ANY DEDUCTION WHATSOEVER AND IT CANNOT REFER TO THE ADEQUACY OR INADEQUACY OF THE PRICE BARGAINED FOR. NOR DOES IT HAVE ANY NECESSARY REFERENCE TO THE MARKET VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET WHICH IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF TH E TRANSFER. THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION DOES NOT HAVE ANY REFERENCE TO THE MARKET VALUE BUT ONLY TO THE CONSIDERATION REFERRED TO IN THE SALE DEEDS AS THE SALE PRICE OF THE ASSETS WHICH HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED. THEIR LORDSHIPS FURTHER HELD AS UNDER :- THE REFERENCE TO A VALUATION OFFICER UNDER SECTION 55A IS FOR THE OBJECT OF ASCERTAINING THE FAIR MARK ET VALUE OF A CAPITAL ASSET. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ASCERTAIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A CAPITAL ASSET IN SUCH CASES AS COVERED BY SECTION 45(4) OR SECTION 45(1A) THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A CAN BE INVOKED. 10. IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE PRESENT CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCES O F INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY DURING THE F INANCIAL YEAR AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND TO BE CONTRARY VIZ A VIZ PURCHASE PRICE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE THER E IS NO BASIS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION U/S 69-B OF THE ACT ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE DETERMINED BY DVO AND THE PURCHAS E PRICE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT ANY AMOUNT OVER THE ABOVE THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE R EGISTERED DOCUMENTS WAS RECEIVED BY THE SELLER NO ADDITION C OULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ESPECIALLY IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE EVIDENCE BEING THE STATEM ENT OF THE SELLER ACCEPTING THE SALE PRICE WAS AGAINST THE F INDING OF ASSESSING OFFICER. WE UPHOLD THE DELETION OF ADDIT ION OF RS. 1 87 CRORES BY THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 8 9. IN LINE WITH THE ABOVE SAID UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WE DISMISS THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 10. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.3 IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE STAMP DUTY PAID ON THE PURCHASE OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUISIT IONED TO PRODUCE THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS. 24 10 000/- OF STAMP DUTY ON THE PURCHASE OF LAND AS CONSIDERED IN THE EARLIER GROUND. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 24 10 000/- BEING UNEXPLAINED PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF STAMP DUTY FOR PU RCHASE OF LAND. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS T HAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF STAMP DUTY WAS PURCHASED BY WITHDRAWALS FROM THE CA SH IN HAND AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAI D BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE A SSESSEE FURNISHED ON RECORD THE PHOTOCOPY OF CASH BOOK CONFIRMING THE SA ID ENTRIES. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 24 10 000/- OUT OF ITS CASH DEBITED TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND COPIES OF RELEVANT PAGES OF CASH BOOK WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). T HE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH THE CASH BOOK O F THE ASSESSEE AND THE CREDIT RECEIVED BEING UNSECURED LOANS HAD OTHER WISE BEING CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 24 10 000/-. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION IN VIEW OF THE SOUR CE BEING ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE SAID STAMP DUTY HAS BEEN PAID OUT OF THE CASH AVAILABLE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCO UNT. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE HAD NOT CONTROVERTED THE FINDINGS O F THE CIT(A). IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY FINDINGS WE ARE IN CONFOR MITY WITH THE ORDER OF 9 CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 24 10 000/-. THE SOURCE OF CREDIT ALSO STANDS EXPLAINED BEING OUT OF THE UNSECURED LO ANS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN TURN WERE LOOKED INTO BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE CASH IN HAND AND ESTABLISHED THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 24 10 000/-. THE GROU ND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED 12. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.4 IS IN RESPECT OF THE D ELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1 30 000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE PERU SAL OF THE CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE FOUND THE AS SESSEE TO HAVE MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1 30 000/- DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO EXPLAINED WAS FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE REPLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AMOUNTS DEPOS ITED IN OBC BANK WERE EXPLAINED AS UNDER:- 15-05-2005 = 30000/- 21-10-2005 = 90000/- (RECEIVED FROM SHRI GULSHAN BY CHEQUE) 29.11.2005 = 10000/- TOTAL = 130000/- 13. THE SAID EXPLANATION WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AN D THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FURNISHED THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI G ULSHAN ARORA FROM WHOM A SUM OF RS. 90 000/- WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE A ND THE BALANCE RS. 40 000/- WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF CASH IN HAND AVAILAB LE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE PHOTOCOPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF CASH BOOK WA S FURNISHED ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 30 000/-. WE ARE IN 10 CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN A SUM OF RS. 90 000/- HAS BEEN REC EIVED VIDE CHEQUE FROM SHRI GULSHAN ARORA WHO IN TURN HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME. THE BALANCE RS. 40 000/- IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN CASH OUT OF THE CASH AVAILABLE WHICH IS EVIDENCED BY THE ENTRIES IN THE CASH BOOK. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY FINDING WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE RE VENUE. 14. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2010. SD/- SD/- (G.S.PANNU) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH AUGUST 2010 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR