DCIT, Agra v. Smt. Shashi Gupta, Aligarh

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH AGRA BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI P.K. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.643 644 & 645/AGR/2008 ASST. YEARS: 1999-2000 2000-01 & 2001-02 RESPECTI VELY DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE VS. SMT. SHASHI GU PTA AGRA. 7 DEV NAGAR AGRA. (PAN : ABCPG 3893 L) C.O. NOS.91 90 & 89/AGR/2008 (IN ITA NOS.643 644 & 645/AGR/2008) ASST. YEARS: 1999-2000 2000-01 & 2001-02 RESPECTI VELY SMT. SHASHI GUPTA VS. DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR CLE 7 DEV NAGAR AGRA. AGRA. (PAN : ABCPG 3893 L) (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) REVENUE BY : SHRI S.K. MISHRA SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAKESH JAIN C.A. ORDER PER BENCH : ALL THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OB JECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 11.08.2008. SINCE ALL THESE APPEALS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AND THE GROUNDS ARE ALSO CO-RELATED THERE FORE THESE ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS (C.OS.) THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE THREE YEARS TAKEN THE LEGAL GROUND WHICH READS AS UNDER :- 2 THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ACCEPTIN G THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 153A BY THE LD. A.O. & CONSEQUENTL Y VALIDATING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ALONGWITH COPY OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET. THE FULL PARTICULARS PERTAINING TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) AND THE TRANSFER OF THE SHARES WERE REFLECTED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. ALL INVESTMENTS IN IMMOVABLE PROP ERTY BUILDING WERE ALSO REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. INCOME FROM LTCG WAS DULY SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE RETURNS WERE DULY ACCEPTED UNDER SECTION 143(1). THERE HAD BEEN SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16.09.2004. SEVERAL DOCUMENTS AND THE LOCKER OF TH E ASSESSEE WERE SEIZED. ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A WERE INITIATED BUT N O INCOME WAS ASSESSED BASED ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS OR MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH. THE ASSESSMENTS FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE COMPLETED BY THE A.O. UNDER S ECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A IN THE A.Y. 1999-2000 & 2001-02. THE ADDITION WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE SUM OF RS.10 36 760/- AND RS.11 04 825/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES TREATING THE LTCG SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN TO BE THE BOGUS TRA NSACTION WHILE DURING THE A.Y. 2000-01 A SUM OF RS.10 86 742/- WAS ADDED ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT IN BUILDING ON THE BASIS OF VALIDATION MADE UNDER SECTION 142A EVEN THOUGH THE INVESTMENTS WERE DULY SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN EACH OF THE A.Y. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON MERIT. 4. BEFORE US THE LD. A.R. VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THA T NOTHING INCRIMINATING WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON THE BASIS OF WHICH T HE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN EACH YEAR. 3 THE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153A RELATES ONLY TO THE ADDITION MADE TO THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. SECTION 153A DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE A.O. TO MAKE A DENOVO ASSESSMENT. IT IS ONLY THE PENDING ASSESSMENT WHIC H CAN BE ABATED AND NOT THE ASSESSMENT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED. THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE CAPITAL GAIN AND THE INVESTMENT IN THE BUILDING RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED. THEREFORE THE A.O. WAS NOT HAVING ANY JURISDICTION TO MAKE THESE ADDITIONS. R ELIANCE WAS PLACED IN THIS REGARD ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- A) LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. DCIT KOLKATA E BEN CH 119 TTJ (KOL) 214 B) MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.2855 TO 2860 IN THE C ASE OF ANIL P. KHIMANI VS. DCIT. 5. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONTENDED THAT BASIS OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A IS DIFFERENT FROM THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS AS RELIED BEFO RE US. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE NOTED THAT THE MUMBAI BENCH I N THE CASE OF ANIL P. KHIMANI IN RESPECT OF THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A HAS HEL D AS UNDER :- A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN ALL THESE CA SES CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SOLE ADDITION IN QUESTION IS ON ACCOUNT OF LOW WITHDRAWALS. THIS HAD NOT BEEN MADE BASED ON ANY MATERIAL FOUND EITHER DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE EXAMINE THE LEGAL POSITION. THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ANIL KUMAR BHATIA VS. ACIT HELD AS FOLLOWS : 4 S.153A PROVIDES THAT WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED U /S 132 THE AO SHALL ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREV IOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE. THE FI RST PROVISO STATES THAT THE A.O. SHALL ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SUCH SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS WHILE THE SECOND PROVISO STATE THAT THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSES SMENT RELATING TO THE SAID SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 SHALL ABATE. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE SEARCH ACTION WAS INITIATED AND ASSESSMENTS UNDER S.153A WERE FRA MED FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE NOT TENABLE AS REGULAR RETURNS HAD B EEN FILED WHERE THE PARTICULARS RELATING TO THE ADDITIONS HAD BEEN DISC LOSED AND THE SAME HAD BEEN ACCEPTED U/S 143(1) AND ALSO THAT NO MATERIAL HAD BEEN FOUND DURING THE SEARCH TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONS. THE REVENUE C LAIMED THAT THE EFFECT OF THE PROVISOS TO S.153A WAS THAT ALL ASSESSMENTS ABA TE AND THERE HAD TO BE A DE NOVO ASSESSMENT IN WHICH THE A.O. WAS NOT CONF INED TO THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. HELD REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE. (I) S.153A DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE MAKING OF A DE NOVO A SSESSMENT. WHILE UNDER THE 1 ST PROVISO THE AO IS EMPOWERED TO FRAME ASSESSMENT F OR SIX YEARS UNDER THE 2 ND PROVISO ONLY THE ASSESSMENTS WHICH ARE PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH ABATE. THE EFFECT IS THAT COMPLETE ASSESSMENTS DO NOT ABAT E . THERE CAN BE TWO ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SAME ASSESSMEN T YEAR. ASSESSMENTS WHICH ARE NOT PENDING BEFORE THE A.O. ON THE DATE OF SEAR CH BUT ARE PENDING BEFORE AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY WILL SURVIVE. (II) AN ASSESSMENT CAN BE SAID TO BE PENDING ONLY IF THE AO IS STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO DO SOMETHING FURTHER. IF A S.143(2) NO TICE HAS BEEN ISSUED THE ASSESSMENT IS PENDING. HOWEVER THE ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF A RETURN PROCESSED U/S 143(1) IS NOT PENDING BECAUSE THE AO IS NOT R EQUIRED TO DO ANYTHING FURTHER ABOUT SUCH A RETURN. (III) THE POWER GIVEN BY THE PROVISO TO ASSESS IN COME FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS TO BE CONFINED TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH AND CANNOT INCLUDE ITEMS WHICH ARE DISCLOSED IN THE ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . (IV) ON FACTS AS THE RETURNS HAD BEEN PROCESSED U/ S 143(1) THE ASSESSMENTS WERE NOT PENDING AND AS NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND DUR ING THE SEARCH THE ADDITIONS COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE DELETE ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE AND ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 7. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE PROFITS ON THE SALES OF SHARES AS WELL AS THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY SHOWN IN THE RESPECTIVE A.YS . THE RETURNS WERE PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1). THUS THE ASSESSMENTS WERE NOT PENDING WHIC H COULD HAVE BEEN ABATED AS PER SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A. ALL THE THREE A.YS. I.E. 1999-2000 2000-01 & 2001-02 HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. THUS THESE A SSESSMENTS WERE NOT ABATED. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE MUMBAI BENC H HOLD THAT NO ADDITION UNDER SECTION 153A COULD BE MADE BY THE A.O. IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS . 8. NOW COMING TO THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE A.YS. 1999-2000 AND 2001-02 THE COMMON ISSUE RELATES TO THE DELETION OF THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE A.O. UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS ACCOMMODATIO N ENTRIES. FOR DISPOSING OF THIS COMMON ISSUE WE ARE TAKING FACTS RELATING TO THE A.Y. 199 9-2000 AS BOTH THE LD. D.R. AND THE LD. A.R. AGREED THAT THE FACTS INVOLVED IN BOTH THE YEARS AR E COMMON. 9. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALES OF THE SHARES AT RS.10 36 760/- AND TREATED THE SAID INCOME AS INCOME FROM LTCG. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EA. THE A.O. TREATED THE SAID INCOME TO BE THE I NCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBSTANTIATED HIS CLAIM AND IN OTH ER CASES ALSO SHARE TRANSACTIONS THROUGH M/S YADAV & COMPANY WERE HELD TO BE BOGUS AND THE LETTE R SENT TO THE BROKER WAS RETURNED UN- SERVED. THE A.O. FURTHER ADDED THE COMMISSION OF R S.20 735/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CONTE NDED THAT THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED IN THE EARLIER A.Y. WHICH WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BALAN CE SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 1998-99 AND STANDS ACCEPTED IN THAT A. Y. THE PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION WAS 6 RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE EVIDENCES FO R THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WERE DULY FILED. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVIN G AS UNDER :- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND DOCU MENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE FOL LOWING EVIDENCES WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD :- A) COPY OF SHARE BROKER BILL FOR SALE OF SHARES B) COPY OF SHARE BROKER BILL FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES C) COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOKS OF YADAV & CO. D) BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.1998 SHOWING OWNERSHIP OF SHARES. THE AFORESAID EVIDENCES WERE NEITHER CONTROVERTED N OR ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD AND CONFRONTED WITH THE APPELLANT. HENCE THE ASSERTIONS OF THE A.O. DO NOT HAVE ANY SUBSTANTIVE VALUE. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW BY THE DECISIONS REPO RTED IN 26 ITR 776 (SC) 37 ITR 288 (SC) 63 ITR 449 (SC) AND 1 SOT 90 (MUM) (SUPRA) THAT SUSPICION HOW SO EVER STRONG CAN NOT TAKE PLACE OF THE CHARAC TER OF EVIDENCE. IN THIS CASE IT IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT BROUGHT ON RECORD ALL POSSIB LE EVIDENCES AS IS EXPECTED IN THESE TRANSACTIONS HOWEVER THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DISPROVE THE EVIDENCES AS ADDUCED BY THE APPELLANT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE SREELEKHA BANERJEE AND OTHERS VS. CIT 4 9 ITR 112 HAS HELD BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT REJECTS SUCH EVIDENCE IT MUST EITHE R SHOW AN INHERENT WEAKNESS IN THE EXPLANATION OR REBUT IT BY PUTTING TO THE ASSES SEE SOME INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE WHICH IT HAS IN ITS POSSESSION. THE DEPAR TMENT CAN NOT BY MERELY REJECTING UNREASONABLY A GOOD EXPLANATION CONVERT GOOD PROOF INTO NO PROOF. THE AO HAS BASED HIS CONCLUSION ON UNFOUNDED PRESUM PTION AND SURMISES. THIS ALSO CANNOT BE APPROVED. RELIANCE IS PLACED TO THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF UMACHARAN SHAW & BROS. VS. CIT 37 ITR 271. THUS IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE IT IS FAIRLY ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE SHARE TRANSAC TION WAS VALID AND THE APPELLANT HAS SUFFICIENTLY DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON HER. AOS ACTION IS NOT WELL FOUNDED IN POSITION OF LAW IN ADDING THE AMOUN T OF SALE OF SHARES AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ADDITION OF RS.10 57 495/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 7 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONGWITH THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CIT( A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL/EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. NEITHER ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL WAS PRODUCED BEFORE US NOR ANY COGENT MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT TO OU R KNOWLEDGE BY THE LD. D.R. WHICH MAY COMPEL US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. UNDER THESE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE THEREFORE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE SHARE TR ANSACTION MADE IN THE A.YS. 1999-2000 & 2001-02. 11. COMING TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.10 86 742/- IN THE A.Y. 2000-01 WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED A PROPERTY IN THE A.Y. 1996-97 1997-98 & 2000-01. THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN THE A.YS. IS R S.12 09 758/-. THE A.O. REFERRED THE PROPERTY TO THE D.V.O. UNDER SECTION 142A AND ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.22 96 500/-. THEREFORE THE A.O. ADDED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.10 8 6 742/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL AND CONTENDED BEFORE THE CI T(A) THAT GROUND FLOOR AND BASEMENT OF THE PROPERTY WERE CONSTRUCTED IN THE EARLIER YEAR WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONGWITH RETURN FOR THE A.YS. 1996-97 1997-98 & 1 998-99. THE INVESTMENT IN THE A.Y. 2000- 01 WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2001 AT RS.11 39 550/-. THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01 WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3). T HE YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING WAS FROM 1995-96 TO 1999-2000 AND THEREFORE THE ADDIT ION CANNOT BE MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE ONLY CONSTRUCTED SECON D FLOOR DURING THE YEAR BY INVESTING A SUM OF RS.4 45 301/-. THE CIT(A) AFTER PROCURING THE REM AND REPORT FROM THE A.O. DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 8 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE PAP ER BOOK THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THE REMAND REPORT AND OTHER MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRSTLY REGARDING THE QUESTION OF MAKING A REFERENC E U/S 142A TO THE DVO I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE A. O. BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC.142A OF THE ACT. NO FORCEFUL S UBMISSIONS REGARDING THE REFERENCE TO DVO HAS BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT EVE N IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION THEREFORE I HOLD THAT THE REFERENCE TO DVO HAS BEE N CORRECTLY MADE BY THE A.O. THERE IS NO DENYING OF THE FACT THAT THE INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY HAS BEEN MADE IN A.Y. 1996-97 1997-98 AND 2000-01. THEREF ORE IN NO CASE THE ENTIRE ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN ONE YEAR PARTICULARLY WHEN THE EVIDENCES OF INVESTMENT MADE IN EACH YEAR IS AVAILABLE FROM THE BALANCE SHE ET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE A.O. THE CONSTRU CTION IS MADE IN TWO PARTS AS IT EVIDENT FROM RECORDS. IN FIRST PART THE BASEMEN T AND THE GROUND FLOOR WAS CONSTRUCTED AND IN SECOND PART THE FIRST FLOOR WAS CONSTRUCTED. THIS FACT WAS SUBSTANTIATED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE EVIDENCE FR OM AGRA NAGAR NIGAM MAHAPALIKA WHICH WAS ALSO PLACED BEFORE THE AO IN T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE SAID EVIDENCE HAS NEVER BEEN CONT ROVERTED BY THE A.O. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT A PPERTAINING TO EARLIER YEARS CAN BE MADE IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION. REGARDING THE INVESTMENT MADE IN FIRST FLOOR THE AP PELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THE VALUATION REPORT FROM THE REGISTERED VALUER TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4 45 301/- AGAINST WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE INVESTMEN T OF RS.4 53 550/- (11 39 550-6 86 000) AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THIS COUNT BECAUSE THE R EPORT OF THE DVO CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE VALUATI ON OF THE FIRST FLOOR AND THE REPORT FURNISHED BY THE REGISTERED VALUATION BY APP ELLANT HAS NEVER BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE A.O. THEREFORE THERE IS NO MER IT IN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. THE ADD ITION OF RS.10 86 742/- IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 12. BEFORE US THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER WHILE THE LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS ALONGWITH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION IT IS NOT A FIT CASE WHICH WARRANT OUR INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY SUBMITTED THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENTS BEING MADE 9 FROM A.Y. 1996-97. THEREFORE THE ADDITION CANNOT B E MADE IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY CARRIED OUT IN THE EARLIER YEARS. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4 53 55 0/-. THE D.V.O. HAS NOT GIVEN BREAK-UP OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR . UNDER THESE FACTS WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION. 14. IN THE RESULT APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED WHILE THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT AS STATED ABOVE. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.05.2010) . SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (P.K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: AGRA DATE: 25 TH MAY 2010. PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT BY ORDER 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 5. DR ITAT AGRA BENCH AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA TRUE COPY