ACIT, CIRCLE - 52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. PREMLATA SHROFF, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No.808/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2005-06 ACIT, Circle-52, Kolkata Vs. Smt Premlata Shroff Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin Suvarn Apartment, Flat No.5 2, Gariahat Road(S) Kol-07 94, N.S.C. Bose Rd., Kolkata-40 (PAN: ARRPS 7570B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 25.08.2015 Date of pronouncement: 30.09.2015 For the Appellant: Shri Amitabh Choudhuri, Addl.CIT,DR For the Respondent: Shri S.P.Choudhury Advocate & Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate ORDER Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM: This appeal by Revenue is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-XXXIII, Kolkata in appeal No. 210/CIT(A)-XXXIII/Cir-52/07-08 dated 29.01.2008. Assessment was framed by DCIT, Circle-52, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) vide his order dated 28.12.2007 for assessment year 2005-06.

2 ITA No.808/K/2010 Smt. Premlata Shroff AY 2005-06 transaction in shares, and it sent the statement of the said SSKI Securities Pvt. Ltd wherein a sum of Rs.14,01,448.65 paisa was payable by them to the assessee as on 31/03/2004.The AO also noticed the following amounts having been shown by them as receipts by cheques on various dates as mentioned below: 10/05.2004 Rs.6,00,000/- 17/05/2004 Rs.6,00,000/- 21/05/2004 Rs.3,25,000/- Rs.15,25,000/-

The assessee was asked to explain the above transactions. In reply to the same the assessee claimed that the said amount is reflected are the corrected balance sheet and P&L A/c. filed on 22/11/2007. But the AO observed from statement of account of UCO Bank, which was a tampered one and some entries were willfully changed in photocopy. According to AO, this is evident from copy of original bank statement obtain from UCO Bank, Southern Avenue Branch, Kolkata on 28/05/2007 and comparison of the same with the bank statement submitted by the assessee. The assessee pleaded that the bank statement which was submitted vide letter dated 12/04/2007 was illegible and was not correct But the AO made addition on the basis that the balance is not shown in the balance sheet and therefore he added a sum of Rs.14,91,448/- Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under:- “4.1.2 I have gone through the Assessment order, submission of the A/R and evidences. The reason given for addition by the AO is that the ledger a/c. obtained from the Broker M/s. SSKI Securities Pvt. Ltd., showed an amount of Rs.14,91,448/- as payable to the assessee on 01/04/04 but the same was not reflected in the Balance Sheet of the assessee as receivable as on 31/03/04. The A/R has explained that the difference in on account of cheque received at the fag-end from the Broker in year ending 31/03/04 and accounted by the assessee in its accounts in that year itself. It was submitted that the Bank balance for the year ending 31/03/04 was increased by that amount and the Debtor A/c (i.e Broker SSKI Securities Pvt. Ltd. A/c) was reduced. However the said cheque was returned to the Broker on 01/04//04 and the entry reversed by the same amount. In support the A/R submitted the Ledger A/c. of Broker in the books of the assessee, balance sheet as on year ending 31/03/04 and bank statement. From the Bank Statement it is seen that the Bank Balance as on 31/03/04 was more than the actual balance in the Bank A/c. The Ledger A/c. of the Broker in the assessee’s book shows that the account was debited by payment of Rs.14,91,448/- on 01/04/04 bringing the balance outstanding in the books of the Broker and the assessee on same footing. Hence the account stands reconciled and there was no difference which could have been considered as undisclosed investment. The difference arose only due to accounting entries passed by the parties to the

3 ITA No.808/K/2010 Smt. Premlata Shroff AY 2005-06 transaction differently and have been reconciled by the assessee. The addition was unwarranted and therefore deleted.” Aggrieved, revenue is in second appeal before tribunal. 5. Before us it was argued by Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the AO has added a sum of Rs.14,91,449/- on the ground that the balance is not shown in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2004 on the reasoning that there is difference in the photocopy of bank pass book produced by assessee and that of the same was obtained via notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. The Bank balance in the balance sheet as on 31.02.2004 is shown as Rs. 15,25,283/- which includes this balance. If AO could have applied his mind with regard to difference in opening balance of SSKI Securities (P) Ltd vis-à-vis difference in opening balance of UCO Bank, the same could have been explained. The ledger copy of Bank account and effect of Bank Reconciliation is enclosed now filed in the assessee’s paper book. The difference in opening balance was never brought to the notice of assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The addition is on account of alleged nondisclosure of the debit balance Rs.14,91,448/- appearing in the assessee’s ledger account in the books of the broker, SSKI Securities Pvt. Ltd. as on 01/04/04. The assessee in her books in the said broker’s personal ledger account shows no opening balance of that sum. The AO was under wrong belief that this receipt from the said party has been suppressed and he has thus made the addition. But it was explained to the AO that at the end of the earlier financially year the said party wrongly issued a cheque to the assessee for the amount which the assessee surrendered on the very opening day of the instant year vide our submitted ledger account. Therefore, in the assessee’s account this does not appear as opening balance. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate. Reference to earlier year’s ledger account of the broker account could have resolved the question not entailing any addition. It is an uncleared cheque received at the end of the earlier year and returned at the vey opening day of the year without any transmission of the value on either side. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and we confirm the same. This issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

4 ITA No.808/K/2010 Smt. Premlata Shroff AY 2005-06 6. The second issue in this appeal of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by AO on account of anomaly of bank deposits of Rs.12 lac and Rs.20, 72,715/-. For this, revenue has raised following ground no.2: “2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has flawed in drawing the conclusion that the anomaly of bank deposits of Rs.12,00,000/- & Rs.20,72,715/- detected by the AO by way of comparative study of the bank statement provided b the assessee with the one procured from the bank itself rests on documents segmental in nature. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that from the bank itself the AO collected that bank statement on the basis of which the addition in question was made. The bank statement collected from the bank ought to be considered more authentic and reliable.” 7. The facts regarding this issue are already dealt with in para 3 above, wherein the AO has gone into the difference in deposits of bank account at Rs.15.25 lac and Rs.20,72,715/- being a tampered statement of UCO Bank account and according to AO, some entries were willfully changed while producing photo copy of bank pass book. Accordingly, the AO on exactly identical facts made the addition of Rs.15.25 lac and also Rs.20,72,715/- by observing as under: “(iii) On comparing the two bank statements (the tampered one submitted by the assessee and the one obtained from the bank) it is seen that the following credit have been willfully suppressed from the original bank statement while submitting the copy of the same: 07/05/2004 Rs.12,00,000.00 10/09/2004 Rs.20,72,715.43 Thus it is clearly evident that the assessee had suppressed certain transactions representing undisclosed investment. The assessee had even tried to suppress the entire credits and investments by submitting a tampered bank statement. Accordingly I make the following additions.

Undisclosed investment in SSKI Securities Rs.15,25,000.00 Pvt. Ltd as discussed in Para (1)(ii) Undisclosed Credit in bank a/c as on Rs.20,72,715.43 10/09/04 as discussed in Para (1)(iii) (I have not considered Rs.12,00,000/- in the Bank a/c on 7.5.04 as income, since I have Already added Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- being utilization of the said Rs.12,00,000/- in the addition of Rs.15,25,000/-)

Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A).

5 ITA No.808/K/2010 Smt. Premlata Shroff AY 2005-06 “4.2.2 I have gone through the Assessment Order, submission of the A/R and the evidences. The AO has compared the segmental Bank Statement (or in AO’s word the tampered Bank Statement) with the ledger a/c of the assessee with the Broker and since the amounts of payments made by the assessee were not reflected in the segmental bank statement, the AO considered these as the undisclosed investments. In my opinion, the said action of the AO was not correct. The AO was aware that the Bank Statement was a segmental/incomplete statement. The AO should have compared the complete statement obtained from Bank and with the Ledger A/c of the assessee as obtained from the Broker and also the Bank Ledger A/c maintained by the assessee. Only if there was a discrepancy on such comparison, the AO should have made the addition. It is not material whether the said payments are reflected in the segmental statement. What is material is that the payment should be reflected in the complete Bank Statement and the transaction in Bank statement should be duly reflected in the Books. It is seen from the complete Bank Statement submitted that there are withdrawals by clearing of Rs.6,00,000/- each on 12/05/04 and 13/05/04. The source of the said payment is deposit of Rs.12,00,000/- on 07/05/04 which is from M/s. SSKI Securities Pvt. Ltd. and reflected in their ledger. All these entries are reflected in the Ledger A/c of Broker in the books of the assessee and assessee’s ledger with M/s. SSKI Securities Pvt. Ltd a copy of which was available with the AO. Therefore, the addition to the extent of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rs.6,00,0000 + Rs.6,000,000/-) was not warranted. However the same cannot be said about the remaining amount of Rs.3,25,000/-. The assessee has claimed that these credits were on account of share difference profit already accounted and not on account of any payment made by them to the Broker and would result in the same income being taxed twice. The Ledger account of M/s. SSKI Securities Pvt. Ltd. shows receipt of this amount by cheque. The said payments are not reflected in the complete Bank Account Statement. The A/R has not reconciled before me the earning from the share difference to show that above amount has been considered as income. It has not produced any evidence for certificates from the Broker that the entry has been incorrectly passed. The amount of Rs.3,25,000/- appears only as “To Sundry Creditors” in the book of a/cs. Of the assessee and therefor it appears that this has not been accounted as income. Since the entry is not reflected in the account of the assessee, it is considered as unexplained investment and addition to this extent is sustained. 4.3 This ground of the assessee is partly allowed. 5.1 I have gone through the submission of the A/R and the reason for addition made by the AO. The AO has made the addition not because this entry did not reflect in the Books of A/cs. of the assessee but because the entry did not appear in the segmental or tampered bank a/cs. statement. I am afraid that the said addition can be made only if the entries are not properly reflected in the Books of the assessee. IXT is not material whether these are reflected in the segmental statement or not. The fact is that the receipt of Rs.20,72,715/- is duly reflected in the actual & complete Bank Statement and also in the ledger account of M/s. SSKI Securities Pvt. Ltd. (Broker) in the Books of the assessee. The contra is reflected in the Ledger A/c of the assessee with M/s./ SSKI Securities Pvt. Ltd. Hence there was no reason for the addition as there is no difference in the Books of assessee and that of the Broker and the transaction is also reflected in the Bank Statement. The entry duly reflected in the Books and this addition is therefore deleted.” Aggrieved, revenue came in second appeal before Tribunal. 9. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that this addition of Rs.15,25,000/- is also based on the wrong allegation of bank account having been tampered. In fact, here also the AO

6 ITA No.808/K/2010 Smt. Premlata Shroff AY 2005-06 concentrated wholly on sectional part of the details called from the bank account to prove the basis of investment and for facility of correction with respective transactions in the bank account. The AO has failed to appreciate as in the other case that this particular document, as already said, is only a partial representation showing only this specific parameter of investment and varying of investment during the year. It is quite apparent that the original copy of the Bank account received from UCO Bank offers a complete tally with the copy of the Bank ledger account in the assessee’s books of account showing that there is no concealment of any payment/receipt. The payment of first cheque of Rs.6 lac appeared in the ledger copy against 10/05/2004. Therefore, the inference of the two payments being unaccounted for is on account of confused approach to the whole matter. The AO is singularly mistaken. The last sum of Rs.3,25,000/- appearing in the ledger account for the assessee in the books of accounts of the broker (SSKI securities Pvt. Ltd.) is the profit in share difference appearing in the assessee’s said personal ledger account in the sad broker’s books. This is evident from the ledger copy of the share difference account in the assessee’s book vide ledger copy of the submission. In the assessee’s share difference account Rs.3,25,000/- has been shown as profit from share difference on 21/05/2004- the same day the broker had credited the sum to the assessee. The only discrepancy is in the narration in the assessee’s ledger account in the broker’s books. It shows as the assessee’s credit through bank payment instead of credit for share difference profit. But the credit is in fact for profit. This amount, therefore, does not appear in the assessee’s account with UCO Bank. But the defective narration in the broker’s account is immaterial because this sum of Rs.3,25,000/- already stands included in the gross receipt on share difference account in the sum of Rs.3,25,000/- and therefore, also in the net profit in the sum of Rs.1,66,989/- after set-off of the share difference loss of the year, this is demonstrated from its entry in the ledger account of share difference transactions in the assessee’s books. So the addition of Rs.3,25,000/- as made by the ITO resulted in the same sum being twice included in the income, once by the assessee himself in his profit & loss account and also the profit and gain by the AO as undisclosed sum appearing in the broker’s account. So there is no ground for the addition for the mere clerical error in the broker’s account. Irrespective of the error, the inexorable

7 ITA No.808/K/2010 Smt. Premlata Shroff AY 2005-06 fact is that this very sum of Rs.3,25,000/- forms part of the assessee’s revenue receipt entering the profit and loss account. However, the CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.12 lac but sustained the addition of Rs.3.25 lac on the reasoning that this Rs.12 lac has been explained vis-à-vis the original bank pass book of Uco Bank and that the ledger account copy of the assessee’s books of account. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.3.25 lac being the profit of the assessee and assessee has not challenged the order of CIT(A) on this account. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 12 lacs is confirmed. This issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 10. The next aspect of this ground is with regard to the order of AO making an addition of Rs.20,72,715/- in respect of undisclosed credit in bank account. The reason of the AO for making the said addition has already been reproduced in Para 7, Page 4 of the order. We find that this addition of Rs.20,72,715/- made by AO in view of the fact that the assessee tampered bank statement and that the comparison of the same with the actual bank statement reveals particulars of two payments as follows: 07/05/2004 Rs.12,000.00 10/09/2004 Rs.20,72,715.43 Rs.32,72,715.43

Before us it was explained that the AO made this addition of Rs.20,72,715.43 as unexplained investment to the exclusion of the first sum. What AO alleged that the assessee has tampered bank statement is in fact a sectional view of the bank transactions to correlate the assessee’s transactions of investment in securities. The assessee prepared a chart explaining the investments with reference to the entries in the disclosed bank account as the source as well as the gains entering the bank account and the profit. It is demonstrably neither the full copy of the bank’s ledger account appearing in the assessee’s Books of account nor the bank statement received from the bank but the AO overlooked that the assessee suo motu also filed, in addition to this statement sowing particularized transactions called from the overall bank transactions, the copy of the full Ledger of the bank account in her Books of account wherein the receipt of Rs.12,00,000/- lakh on 03/05/04 is duly

8 ITA No.808/K/2010 Smt. Premlata Shroff AY 2005-06 reflected. Similarly, the receipt of Rs.20,72,715/-, the matter at issue, dully appeared in entry on 02/09/04.The AO’s action in addition Rs.20,72,715.43 betrays a strange dichotomy. He does not interfere with Rs.12,00,000/- but assails the other amount of Rs.20,72,715.43 branding it as the assessee’s undisclosed investment but on facts both the amount stand on a parity of situation. Despite having notice of both the sums as reflected in the assessee’s bank statement he picks only one amount and capriciously made the addition. Once the sums are duly reflect in the assessee’s bank account, there is no rhyme or reason for choosing one of them as suspect and liable to addition. Therefore, the allegation of undisclosed credit either of Rs.12 lakh or Rs.20,72,715.43 as unaccounted for in the assessee’s account is wholly contrary to the evidence on record, the bank statement as well as the bank ledger in the accounts of the assessee showing complete tally inter se, the assessee suo motu filed. The Ledger copy of the Bank account with UCO Bank reflecting the credits is available on record. The AO’s oversight of the copy of the said Ledger Account, caused a misapprehension of the assessee’s omission to credit the sum of Rs.20,72,715/-.So it is clear that the AO proceeded for a preconceived notion. For want of circumspection and for non-appreciation due to obsessive suspicion he failed to see that what he condemns as tampered bank account is, in fact, not the entire bank account but contains one parameter of the bank account related to investment in securities meant for correlation of assessee’s investment in securities with the force of the money in bank so invested and to prove that the investments are from within the assessee’s disclosed bank account. This segmented bank account being mistaken for the copy of the assessee’s full bank ledger, the adverse inference is drawn as to suppression of the receipts of Rs.20,72,715.43. Its remissness is too obvious when pitted against the bank ledger in the assessee’s accounts which discloses both the sums. There is no cause for any inference of suppression and the resultant error of adding the sum. The same is straightway wrongful disallowance in view of the patent state of accounts steering on the face. Accordingly, this addition has rightly been deleted by CIT(A) and we confirm the same. This issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

9 ITA No.808/K/2010 Smt. Premlata Shroff AY 2005-06 11. The next issue in this appeal of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by AO on account of gift of Rs.9,39,060/-. For this revenue has raised following ground no.3: “3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the donor of Rs.9,39,060/- as one who fulfilled the criterion laid down in section 56(2)(v) of the I.T; Act 1961 and therefore, qualifies to be the relative of the assessee. The Learned CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee was asked to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the donor concerned, but she failed to discharge her onus by doing so. 12. Briefly stated facts are that the AO made an addition of Rs.9,39,060/- as unexplained Cash Credit. The assessee had shown this amount as a capital receipt on account of gift received from brother-in-law (brother of husband) and therefore, claimed it as exempt u/s 56(2)(v) of the Act. From the details submitted by the assessee, the AO found that Rs.9,39,060/- shown as gift was received from one Mr. Ashok Shroff of USA who was claimed to be brother-in-law. The AO noted that a declaration of the donor is on a plain paper only and no documentary evidence to verify the genuineness of the gift as far Sec. 56(2)(v) of the Act is concerned, was produced. It was also noted by the AO that identity of person and creditworthiness has not been established. The AO therefore considered it as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 13. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of gift after taking remand report from the AO on the additional evidences and by observing as under: “These were forwarded to the AO in terms of Rule 46A(3) for documents after examination. In the Remand Report it was submitted by the AO that from the documents filed by the assessee it cannot be established that Dr. Ashok Shroff is a relative of the assessee as defined in Sec. 56. Though the AO has not mentioned as to how he has arrived at this conclusion, it is presumed that it is because the US Passport of Sri Ashok Shroff does not mention in the name of the father. In response to the comments of the AO in the Remand Report, the assessee submitted the Birth Certificate of Ashok Shroff issued by the Public Health Deptt. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vide Certificate No. 092379 dated 21/01/88 which clearly shows the name of father as Sri Basudev Shroff and Mother as Chandrakala Shroff. This when read with the Passport of Mr Jayant Shroff which shows the name of father as Sri Basudev Shroff and mother Chandrakala Shroff and spouse as Premlata Shroff, establishes beyond doubt that Dr. Ashok Shroff and Jayant Shroff are brothers and the assessee Premlata Shroff is the wife of Jayant Shroff. Therefore it is established that the donor is the brother-in-law of the assessee and therefore covered by the definition of Relative given in Explanation below Sec. 56(2)(v). The assessee has already given the source of the said credits and the AO had not recorded any objection in the Remand Report on this. The only objection of the AO was with regard to the donor not being covered by the definition of relative u/s.

10 ITA No.808/K/2010 Smt. Premlata Shroff AY 2005-06 56(2)(v). I has been established on the strength of the evidences filed by the assessee that the donor was a relative of the assessee. The addition made is therefore deleted as the amount is received as gift from a relative and the nature and source of these credits stand explained. This ground of the assessee is allowed.” Aggrieved, revenue came in second appeal before Tribunal. 14. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the assessee has received the following gifts from Dr. Ashok Shroff who was the brother of the husband of the assessee: Date Amount in US $ INR Bank 13/09/08 10,000 4,57,800 Key Bank, USA 15/10/04 5,500 2,51,560 Key Bank, USA 21/07/04 5,000 2,29,800 Key Bank, U(SA Total 20500 9,39,060 In support of its claim the assessee submitted a notarized declaration of gift from Dr. Ashok Shroff, copy of donor’s bank account with Key Bank, inwards remittance on Oriental Bank of Commerce, copy of Passport of Sri Jayant Shroff showing him to be son of Sri Vasudev Shroff and husband of the assessee and also copy of passport of Sri Ashok Shroff, donor. The said documents being in the nature of additional evidences were admitted as they had a material bearing on the case and could not be submitted earlier as not all of these were in the possession of the assessee at the time of assessment. In view of these documents, the CIT(A) concluded, after taking remand report from the AO, that the credit entries on account of gift received from Dr. Ashok Shroff are genuine and the identity and creditworthiness of Dr. Ashok Shroff is proved. Accordingly, he deleted the addition as made by AO by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, the same is confirmed. This issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

“4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment of Rs.5,00,000/-

11 ITA No.808/K/2010 Smt. Premlata Shroff AY 2005-06 since the assessee failed to furnish adequate information regarding the source of investment.” 16. The brief facts leading to the above issue are that the AO made an addition of unexplained investment of Rs.5,00,000/-. While making the said addition, the AO states that an unsigned confirmation of Shilpa Stock Broker (P) Ltd to whom the advance of Rs.5,00,000/- was given was filed without address and PAN No. Since no details were forth coming, the AO treated the advance as unexplained u/s. 69 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who deleted the additions by observing in para 7.2 as under :

“7.2 I have gone through the facts of the case. It is seen that the AO has made addition because proper confirmation of account was not field in respect of loan given to Shilpa Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- He made the addition u/s. 69. However at the Remand stage it was mentioned that addition was made not because confirmation was not filed but because the source of the investment was not explained. This stand of the AO is not reflected from the Assessment Order. In this case the arguments of the assessee that the said addition cannot be made u/s 69 has to be upheld as this transaction was recorded in the books and mentioned in the balance sheet of the assessee. Sec. 69 is applicable only when investment is made but was not recorded in the books of a/cs. The addition is therefore required to be deleted. Even otherwise on merits, the assessee deserves to win. The assessee has explained the source of investment by way of bank statement and confirmation of credits preceding the said advances. The nature and source of the said investment is stands explained. Therefore whichever way we look at it the addition made by the AO was not correct. The addition made u/s. 69 is therefore deleted. This ground of the assessee is allowed.” Aggrieved, revenue came in second appeal before Tribunal.

“What the assessee has filed is a confirmation dated 01/04/2006 from M/s Shilpa Stock Broker (P) Ltd. that they have received Rs.5,00,000/- from the assessee. However, the addition was made not because of the investment but because of the inability of the assessee to satisfy the undersigned in respect of source of investments.” The assessee, in their counter comments, submitted that the payment to Shilpa Stock Broker (P) Ltd was made by cheque from the Bank A/c and this is reflected in the Bank Statement and also mentioned in the confirmation filed. It was also

12 ITA No.808/K/2010 Smt. Premlata Shroff AY 2005-06 mentioned that in the confirmation the PAN No. of the party is also provided. It was submitted that since the payment was made through disclosed bank account and the investment was reflected in the balance sheet and thereby in the books of a/cs., the same could not be considered as undisclosed investment of the assessee. It was submitted that no addition could be made under these circumstances. It was further mentioned that the amount paid to Shipla Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. was out of loan of Rs.4,00,000/- received form Apeksha Jaggi and Rs.2,00,000/- received from SSKI Securities Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted that the amount was refunded to Apeksha Juggi along with interest. This interest has been claimed in the P & L a/c. and allowed by the AO. It was submitted that while making the assessment the AO never raised any doubt regarding the source. It was also submitted that the bank statement of Oriental Bank of Commerce was field with the AO. The assessee also filed confirmation from Apeksha Jaggi. Bank statement and I.T return of Apeksha Jaggi in support of its claim. In view of these facts, we find that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and we confirm the same. This issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 18. In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 19. Order is pronounced in the open court on 30/09/2015. Sd/- Sd/- (M. Balaganesh) (Mahavir Singh) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 30th September, 2015 *Dkp-P.S Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. APPELLANT – ACIT, Circle-52, Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin 2, Gariahat Road (S) Kolkata-700068. 2 Respondent –Smt. Premlata Shrooff, Suvam Apartment, 94, NSC Bose, Road, Flat No. 5E, Kolkata-40. 3. The CIT(A), Kolkata 4. CIT Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata /True Copy, By order, Asstt. Registrar.