Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA
Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi
आदेश /O R D E R
PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:-
This appeal by the Revenue is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIX, Kolkata dated 10.12.2010. Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-31(1), Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 14.12.2009 for assessment year 2007-08.
At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal of Revenue is delayed of 11 days and condonation petition has been filed explain the reasons for delay along with supporting affidavit. On query, from the Bench, Ld. counsel for the assessee has not opposed the condonation rather he conceded that delay can be condoned. In view of
ITA No.498/Kol/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 ITO Wd-31(1) Kol. vs. Smt. Rajshree Agarwal Page 2 the above, reasons given in the condonation petition and concession given by Ld. AR for the assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. Shri S. Jhajharia, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Satyajit Mondal, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue.
The grounds raised by the assessee per its appeal are as under:- “1. That the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions of Rs.9,99,900/-, Rs.89,600/- and Rs.10,19,000/-, made u/s. 68 of the IT Act, holding that ‘Çhaitali’& ‘Rajshree’ were one and the same person whereas in fact, the Balance Sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2006 has separate, independent entries in the names of ‘Chaitali’& ‘Rajshree’.
That the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,50,000/- being undisclosed investment by failing appreciate that the advance for land to the same extent was not reflected in the asset side of the balance sheet.
That the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.13,01,631/- being undisclosed income in view of the categorical finding given by the AO in the remand report that the said amount, paid to M/s RDB & Co. was not reflected n the books of account of the assessee.
That the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.16,22,427/-, being amount received purportedly from M/s Bakliwal Financial Services, relying on contract notes, despite the categorical finding given by the AO in the remand report to the effect that the transactions shown in the contract note did not match the sales register and hence either the sales register or the contract notes were fabricated.”
First issue raised by Revenue in this appeal is that ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs.9,99,900/-, Rs.89,600 and Rs.10.19 lakh made by the AO under section 68 of the Act.
The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and has shown its income from salary, rent and interest for the year under consideration. The assessee has filed its return of income on dated 31-07-2007 disclosing total income of Rs.1.07 lakh only. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly notices were issued u/s 143(2) r.w.s 142(1) of the Act.
ITA No.498/Kol/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 ITO Wd-31(1) Kol. vs. Smt. Rajshree Agarwal Page 3 5.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, AO observed that certain cash deposit entries were made in the cash book and bank account of the assessee. On question, the assessee submitted that there was sufficient cash balance on the last day of the immediate preceding year and these cash entries are reflecting from the opening balance of cash only. The assessee also submitted that the cash balance was shown in the name of ‘Chaitali’ for the sake of administrative convenience as the assessee was also having the residence in Mumbai as well. The accountant of the assessee accordingly has shown the cash-in-hand in Mumbai & Kolkata. In fact ‘Chaitali’ and the assessee-Rajshree Agarwal is one and the same person and accordingly no cash was received from any third party. Hence, the addition for the above stated amount is not at all warranted u/s 68 of the Act. However the AO disregarded the plea of the assessee by holding that if ‘Chaitali’ and the assessee are the same person then why the name of ‘Chaitali’ is appearing in the books of the assessee herself. Accordingly the AO concluded that this is all unaccounted money of the assessee which has been brought in the books of account in the guise of above stated facts. Therefore, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT(A) whereas assessee filed an affidavit stating that the nickname of the assessee is ‘Chaitali’. The assessee shifted to Mumbai after her marriage but the accounts were maintained in Kolkata. The accountant for the easy reference of the cash availability has recorded the same in different names which created this confusion. Now the assessee has started recording the cash balance under the single head as evident from the balance sheet for the year ended 31st March 2007. The assessee, in support of her claim, has also submitted Birth Certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay dated 20/06/1994 wherein the correction in the name of the assessee was made from ‘Chaitali’ to ‘Rajshree’. The assessee also submitted the cash flow statement reflecting all the entries of cash deposits. Accordingly, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:- “… …On careful consideration of the facts, I am of the opinion that by making such observations, it cannot be denied that the appellant was having opening cash balance as on 1.4.2006 at Rs.17,10,500/-. If, the said cash was appearing
ITA No.498/Kol/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 ITO Wd-31(1) Kol. vs. Smt. Rajshree Agarwal Page 4 in different heads in the balance-sheet and not under one head as cash in hand’, does it mean that the appellant was not having the opening cash balance as explained by her. Further, I find no logic in the submission of the AO that in the balance-sheet for AY 2005-06, there was no such cash kept in Bombay and Calcutta and during AY 2006-07, the assessee had no source to keep Rs.16 lakh at Bombay and Calcutta. I am of the opinion that the balance-sheet for AY 2005-06 has no relevance with the balance-sheet for AY 2006-07 was filed by the appellant along with the return of income wherein the cash at Bombay and cash at Calcutta are appearing. It is not known that when both the cash balances i.e at Bombay and Calcutta are appearing in the balance-sheets of the appellant, how the AO can conclude or have suspicion that the appellant had no source to keep such cash in hand. It is not the case of the AO that the aforesaid amount of cash is not appearing in the balance-sheet as on 31.3.2006 and the appellant has tried to explain the source of deposit in the bank from that amount. Further, I am of the opinion that the observation of the AO that if Chaitali and Rajshree is the same person, then, the name of Chaitali would have not appeared in the books of account, have not relevance to the facts of the case. It is observed that in the remand report, the AO has not furnished any comment on the cash flow summary submitted by the appellant and the consolidated cash book filed during the course of appellate proceedings and specifically forwarded to him for his comments. In the remand report, he has just tried to support the additions made by him in the assessment order by making reference to various other points which is, in my opinion, are not very relevant to decide the fact as to whether appellant was having cash in hand of Rs.17,10,500/- as on 1.4.2006. On verification of balance-sheet for the AY 2006-07, I am inclined to believe the submission of the appellant that as on 1.4.2006, she was having opening cash balance of Rs.17,10,500/- which were shown under various heads in the balance-sheet.
Further, on perusal of entries of cash flow statement, find that the appellant was having sufficient cash to make the deposits in the UCO Bank and HSBC Ltd. the observation of the AO that the appellant was not having cash in hand whereas she had made deposits in the bank account, is not correct. Under the circumstances, the AO is directed to delete the additions of Rs.9,99,999/-, Rs.89,600/- and Rs.10,19,000/- made by him. The ground nos. 3, 5 and 7 are allowed.”
Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us.
Before us ld. DR submitted that identity of Chaitali is to be verified and therefore it should be restored before AO for further verification and he vehemently relied on the order of AO.
ITA No.498/Kol/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 ITO Wd-31(1) Kol. vs. Smt. Rajshree Agarwal Page 5 On the other hand, Ld. AR before us filed a paper book which is running pages from 1 to 65 and submitted that the name “Chaitali” is a nick name of assessee. Therefore, no cash was received from the third party and the cash shown in the books of account was belonging to assessee only. Ld. AR further supported of the said claim the birth certificate of daughter of assessee where the correction in the name of assessee was carried out said birth certificate is placed on page 22 of the paper book. Ld. AR very much relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that the opening balance of cash-in-hand for Rs.16 lakhs as reflected in the previous year’s balance-sheet i.e. 31-03-2006 has been accepted by the Department. Before us Ld. DR has not brought out anything contrary about the opening balance of the cash-in-hand. In our considered view, the opening balance, alone has been credited in the consolidated cash book of assessee. Therefore, the issue of making any addition on account of unexplained cash credit does not arise in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. Ld. AR has also submitted the amalgamated cash book and cash flow statement which are placed on page 8 and 19 respectively of the paper book. We find no defect in the aforesaid documents. Hence, we find no reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A). We hold accordingly and this ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Second issue raised by Revenue is as regards that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for the Rs. 3.50 lakh on account of undisclosed investment.
The assessee has shown advances for lands in the name of several persons for Rs.17.75 lakh as on 31.03.2006 and the same was reduced in the subsequent year to Rs. 14.25 lakh as on 31.03.2007 leaving the difference of Rs. 3.50 lakh. On question by the AO the assessee submitted that there was liability in the name of M/s Jai Sai Udhyog for Rs. 3.50 lakh as on 31.03.2006 but the same was inadvertently adjusted with the amount of aforesaid advances for land. Accordingly there is arising the said
ITA No.498/Kol/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 ITO Wd-31(1) Kol. vs. Smt. Rajshree Agarwal Page 6 difference of Rs. 3.50 lakh if compared with the previous year figure. However the AO disregarded the plea of the assessee by observing that the name of M/s Jai Sai Udhyog is not appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee and there was no financial transaction with the above stated party of the assessee. Accordingly, AO treated the same as undisclosed investment and added to the total income of the assessee.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT(A) whereas assessee stated that advance of Rs.17.75 lakh was appearing in the name of various persons in the assets side as stood on 31.03.2006, where the name of Manuvir Agarwal appeared twice in the liability side once for Rs.26000/- and other for Rs.3.50 lakh because the character of first deposit was different but in subsequent year, i.e. 31.03.2007 the amount of Rs.26,000/- was brought forward at Rs.3.50 lakh against the name of Manuvir Agarwal was shifted from the liability side and adjusted with Rs.17.75 lakh brought to advance in the assets side down to Rs.14.25 lakh. Assessee further stated that this book entry has no adverse effect or impact in the accounts on the revenue but AO has rightly reiterated that Rs.54.41 lakh was shown as advance from associates in the balance-sheet at stood on 31.03.2007. In the list of such advance from associates, the advance from Manuvir Agarwal for Rs.22.50 lakh was a fresh deposit which never appeared in the balance sheet as stood on 3.103.2006. Further assessee contended that said sum of Rs.3.50 lakh could easily be verified from cash book and bank book as were submitted before AO while framing assessment order where assessee categorically stated that said sum of Rs.3.50 lakh was neither refunded nor added with the fresh deposit of the year received from Shri Manuvir Agarwal. Considering the submissions and perused the assessment order together with the remand report submitted by AO, Ld. CIT(A) opined that as per the balance-sheet as on 31.03.2006 assessee had advanced sum of Rs.17.75 lakh to seven different persons against the purchase of land but in balance sheet as stood on 31.03.2007 the said sum of advance was reflected at Rs.14.25 lakh thus the reduction of Rs.3.50 lakh on the asset side of the balance-sheet as on 31.03.2007. Accordingly Ld CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:-
ITA No.498/Kol/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 ITO Wd-31(1) Kol. vs. Smt. Rajshree Agarwal Page 7 “.. … there is no dispute on the fact also that in the balance-sheet as on 311.3.2007 the liability of Rs.3,50,000/- is not appearing in the name of Manuvir Agarwal. The liability of Rs.22,50,000/- appearing in the name of Manuvir Agarwal as on 31.3.2007 was the fresh liability created during the year and the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was no included in the said sum of Rs.22,50,000/- Thus, I am of the opinion that there is no reasons to disbelieve that the amount of advance of Rs.3,50,000/- appearing in the liability side of the preceding year’s balance-sheet was adjusted against the advances of Rs.17,75,000/- given by the appellant as on 31.3.2007, simultaneously, the liability of Rs.3,50,000/- in the name of Manuvir Agarwal will also be required to be shown in the balance-sheet, and there will be no impact either on the balance-sheet or the income of the appellant. Moreover, when there is reduction in the asset side of the balance-sheet as observed by the AO, I am of the opinion that no addition can be made u/s. 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment as done by the AO. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that addition of Rs.3,50,000/- made by the AO is not correct and same is directed to be deleted. This ground no. 2 is allowed.”
Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us.
Before us ld. DR submitted that the name of M/s Jai Sai Udyog is not reflecting in the balance-sheet of assessee and he relied on the order of Assessing Officer. On the contrary, Ld. AR submitted that Jai Sai Udyog is a partnership firm and its partner is Manuvir Agarwal. The name of the partner is very much reflecting in the balance- sheet as on 31.03.2006 and in the subsequent year i.e. 31.03.2007 the name of the partner was not reflecting as it got adjusted with the amount of advances shown in the balance-sheet. In other words, the advance was shown net of loan taken from Manuvir Agarwal. Ld. AR in support of his claim has submitted the confirmation which is placed on pages 23 and 24 of the paper book. He very much relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. From the foregoing discussion, we find that advance shown in the balance- sheet as on 31.03.2007 was after adjusting the loan liability from Shri Manuvir Agarwal. We further find that it was a clerical error having no impact on the profitability of the assessee. As such, we find that there is no undisclosed investment on account of adjustment of liability with the amount of advances. Before us, Ld. DR
ITA No.498/Kol/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 ITO Wd-31(1) Kol. vs. Smt. Rajshree Agarwal Page 8 failed to bring anything contrary to the advance argument of Ld. AR in this regard. In this view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. This ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Third issue raised by Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for the Rs. 13,01,631/- on account of undisclosed income. The assessee during the year has made the payments to M/s RDB & Co. (HUF) through banking channel on different dates as detailed under:- “(iii)(c) Payments by transfer of Rs.2,75,000/- vide cheque number 104726 of UCO bank on 12.6.2006, Rs.8,01,631/- on 30.8.2006 vide cheque number 104372, Rs.50,000/- on 26.3.2007 vide cheque number 104736 and Rw.1,75,000/- on 31.3.2007 vide cheque number 104739 were made to CA- 10288 being the account maintained by RDB & Co.(HUF) was not reflected in the loan confirmation of account between the assessee and RDB & Co. (HUF) nor it has been shown in the balance sheet.”
The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the said payment has neither been shown in the balance sheet of the assessee nor matching with the loan confirmation received from M/s RDB & company (HUF). On question by the AO, the assessee submitted that Rs. 50,000/- was paid towards the rent to M/s RDB & Co. (HUF) and Rs.1.75 lakh was on separate account and both the payments were adjusted with the capital account of the assessee. However, the AO disregarded the plea of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee as undisclosed investment.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to learned CIT(A) whereas assessee submitted that he has taken loan from RDB & company (HUF) in the earlier year which is reflected in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2006 for an amount of Rs.11,26,631/-. From this amount, a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was transferred to the new housing loan account and assessee has further taken housing loan of Rs. 7.50 lacs during the year. On this total loan amount interest of Rs. 1,21,808/- was charged by the assessee which was not paid during the year. So the total loan is reflecting on account of Housing loan for Rs. 18,71,808/- as on 31.03.2007 for which the confirmation from the party was filed. Similarly, the assessee has taken moneys
ITA No.498/Kol/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 ITO Wd-31(1) Kol. vs. Smt. Rajshree Agarwal Page 9 through banking two times for Rs. 9.50 lacs and same was repaid by the payment of Rs. 2.75 lakh and Rs.8,01,631/- through banking channel respectively. Accordingly, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:- “(8.4) I have considered the submission of the appellant and perused the assessment order. I have also gone through the remand report, rejoinder to remand report and copies of ledger account of M/s. R.D.B. & Co. HUF. On perusal of balance-sheet of the appellant as on 31/3/2006, it is observed that there was loan of Rs.11,26,631/- from M/s R.D.B & Co. HUF. During the year under consideration, a on 1/4/2006 there was opening credit balance of Rs.11,26,631/-. Further, the appellant had received a sum of Rs.5 lakh on 14/2/07 and a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- on 23/3/07 from R.D.B. &Co. HUF. Thus, the total of credit side of the account comes to Rs.20,76,631/-. Out of the opening credit balance of Rs.11,26,631/-, sum of Rs.10 lakh was transferred as housing loan from R.D.B. & Co. HUF. The appellant had also given sum of Rs.2,75,000/- on 10/6/06 and Rs.8,01,631/- on 29/8/06 to R.D.B.& Co. HUF. In this manner, the total of debit side also became Rs.20,76,631/- and the loan account which was appearing in the balance-sheet as on 31/3/06 was squared off. The confirmation of this account was filed before the AO which, according to him, was filed by the appellant after detection of entries of payment by the appellant to the R.D.B.& Co. HUF. As mentioned above, the old loan account was square off, but during the year, a new account by the name R.D.B &Co. HUF (Housing Loan) was opened wherein the sum of Rs.10 lakh was transferred from the old loan account and the appellant has further received sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on 20th April, 06 and sum of Rs.5 lakhi on 6/1/07. Further, the amount of interest on housing loan of Rs.1,21,808/- was also added to the loan amount and as on 31/3/07, the amount of housing loan was Rs.18,71,808/- which is duly reflected in the balance-sheet as on 31/3/07.. Thus, I am of the opinion that the AO has failed to appreciate the two accounts maintained by the appellant and the two loan confirmations filed during the course of assessment proceedings. On perusal of ledger accounts, it is further observed that the sum of Rs.1,75,00/- was paid by the appellant to R.D.B & Co. HUF on account of current account and sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid as rent which is deducted from the capital as shown in the balance-sheet as on 31/3/07. Thus, in totality of facts and after perusal of various documents and balance-sheet, I am of the opinion that there is no undisclosed investment of Rs.13,01,631/- as held by the AO. In view of above, he is directed to delete the addition of Rs.13,01,631/-.The ground no. 6 is allowed.”
Being aggrieved by this order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us.
ITA No.498/Kol/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 ITO Wd-31(1) Kol. vs. Smt. Rajshree Agarwal Page 10 16. Before us ld. DR submitted that the confirmation filed by the assessee has not been cross-verified by AO, therefore, it should be restored back to the file of AO for verification. In rejoinder, Ld. AR submitted that assessee had brought forward loan which was duly reflected in the balance-sheet as on 31.03.2006 at Rs.11,26,631/- and which was different from the housing loan which was taken only during FY 2006-007 relevant to AY 2007-08 reflected at page 28 of the paper book and was at Rs.18,71,808/-. Ld.AR further stated that assessee had a current account during the year with the said concern and the balance stood as on 31.03.2007 which reflected at page 26 of the paper book. Lastly, Ld. AR submitted that assessee had paid rent which was shown part of the drawings in the capital account which reflected at page 25 of the paper book on reconciliation of the said document and the balance-sheet Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition and he prayed before Bench to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. From the foregoing discussion, we find that AO had made the addition for Rs.13,01,631/- on account of payment made to RDB & Co. (HUF) on the ground that this payment was not reflecting in the balance-sheet of assessee. However, we find that there was a opening loan liability for Rs.11,26,631/- which was adjusted by Rs.10 lakh by transferring the same to a new account with the name RDB & CO. (HUF) (housing loan). We find that assessee has shown this amount as housing loan in the current year and thereafter certain amount was also received through banking channel which was shown as housing loan. The old loan amount was repaid by assessee during the current year through banking channel. We further find all the repayment of loan and accepting the fresh loan has been made through banking channel. There was certain other movement of cash through banking channel on personal account of assessee also this was not shown in the loan statement of the party as it was adjusted with the capital account of assessee. The Ld. AR in support of its claim has placed the confirmation from RDB & Co. (HUF) which are placed on pages 25 to 28 of the paper book. Before us Ld. DR failed to bring anything contrary to the confirmation filed by
ITA No.498/Kol/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 ITO Wd-31(1) Kol. vs. Smt. Rajshree Agarwal Page 11 Ld. AR. In view of above facts and circumstances in the present case, we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A). This ground of Revenue is dismissed.
Fourth issue raised by Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for the Rs. 16,22,427/- on account of undisclosed income.
The assessee has received sum of Rs.16,22,427/- on account of sale of shares of several companies. The said sum was received from M/s Bakliwal Financial Services who is the share broker of the assessee. However the AO during the assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has used the services of the other brokers as well for the sale of the shares of same companies. Accordingly the AO opined that the aforesaid sum of money Rs.16,22,427/- received by the assessee does not represent the sale of shares but it is some other income from different sources of the assessee. Therefore the AO treated the same as income from undisclosed source and added to the total income of the assessee.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to ld CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:- “… … On careful consideration of the facts and on perusal of copy of contract note and the copy of ledger account of Bakliwal Financial Services in the books of appellant, I find force in the submission of the appellant that cheque of Rs.16,22,427/- was received by her from Bakliwal Financial Services against the sale of shares. In para 12 of assessment order, the AO has specifically mentioned that the appellant had enclosed a copy of ledger account of Bakliwal Financial Services in support of her claim that the amount of Rs. 16,22,427/- was received by her form the said party against the sale of shares. In the same para, the AO has specifically mentioned that the ledger account shows that Rs.16,22,339/- was received by the appellant on account of sale of shares of Dabur, Ganesh Fortgin,Gujarat Ammbuja, Indian Overseas, Mahindra & Mahindra, MRF, Orchid Chem, Reliance Industries, Satyam Computers and Tata Tea. Thus, on the basis of copy of ledger account of M/s Bakliwal Financial Services, it was concluded by the AO that the sum of Rs.16,22,339/- was received by the appellant form the said broker against the sale of above-mentioned shares. However, on verification of sales register, it was concluded by the AO that the appellant had sold shares worth Rs.1,00,112/- only through Bakliwal Financial Services and concluded that the cheque of Rs.16,22,427/- was received by the appellant from some other
ITA No.498/Kol/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 ITO Wd-31(1) Kol. vs. Smt. Rajshree Agarwal Page 12 source. I am of the opinion that the AO was not justified in holding that the sum of Rs.16,22,427/- was the income of the appellant from undisclosed sources. Though, in the sales register, the name of Vishant Leasing and Vir Alloy is written, but it not clear whether these names related to share broker or not. But the fact remains that as per the contract note and the copy of ledger account of Bakliwal Financial Services, the appellant had sold shares through said broker and received the sale proceeds of Rs.16,22,339/-. Under the circumstances, it is to be held that the sum of Rs.16,22,427/- was received by the appellant as sale proceeds of the shares and it was not appellant’s income from undisclosed sources as held by the AO. He is directed to delete the addition of Rs.16,22,427/-. The ground no. 8 is allowed.”
Being aggrieved by this order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us.
Before us ld. DR submitted that the sale proceed was received from the broker for an amount of Rs.1,00,112/- therefore the amount received from the broker for Rs.16,22,427/- does not represent the sale of shares. Hence, the cheque received for Rs.16,22,427/- from any other source which have not been disclosed by assessee. Ld. DR fairly conceded that the matter should be restored back to the file of AO for verification. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that in the assessment order, AO has mentioned that copy of ledger accounts of Bakliwal Financial Services was furnished and observed by him that sale of number of shares were mentioned which aggregated to Rs.16.22 lakhs Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that in the sale register name of Vishant Leasing & Vir Alloys all such facts itself cannot be criteria the addition and on consideration of the contract note issued by Bakliwal and the observation of AO in his assessment order Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that AO has made the addition on surmise and conjecture. He has not exercised his power by issuing notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the broker for ascertaining the nature and source of aforesaid receipts. Before us Ld. AR has submitted that the aforesaid receipts represents the sale proceeds of the said shares and in support of its claim has submitted the copy of the contract notes which are placed on pages from 41 to 45 of the paper book. In this view of the matter, we do
ITA No.498/Kol/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 ITO Wd-31(1) Kol. vs. Smt. Rajshree Agarwal Page 13 not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, we uphold the same. This ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 24/08/2016 Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.Viswanethra Ravi) (Waseem Ahmed) Judicial Member Accountant Member *Dkp �दनांकः- 24/08/2016 कोलकाता / Kolkata आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant-ITO, Ward-31(1), 10B, Middleton Row, 4th Floor, Kol-71 2. ��यथ�/Respondent- Smt. Rajshree Agarwal, 45, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata-13 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file.
By order/आदेश से, /True Copy/ उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता