TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the undisclosed income for the period 1st April, 1996 to 19th Sept., 2002 were initiated. These proceedings were completed on 29th Sept., 2004, determining the undisclosed income at ₹ 2,32,84,835. Aggrieved by this order, appeal was filed before the CIT(A)-III, New Delhi. This appeal, bearing No. 227/2004-05, was disposed of on 31st March, 2005. In this order, undisclosed incomes of three individuals, Shri Gurdeep Singh, Shri Rajinder Singh and Shri Trilok Singh and two companies, R.T. Motors Spares (P) Ltd. and Rajdeep Vehicle Spares (P) Ltd., were held to be assessable in the hands of the Assessee for various reasons. In view of the factors that the rate of tax leviable on undisclosed income is same for all persons, and the associates of the Assessee preferred to contest the matter in a consolidated manner, the Assessee agreed for clubbing the undisclosed income of the aforesaid associates, assessed by the AO on a protective basis, in his own hands. With these remarks, the learned Counsel proceeded to discuss various grounds. 4. Ground No. 1 is that the learned CIT(A) reduced the rate of commission earned by the Assessee in respect of accommodation-entries busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total 21,53,90,869 86,15,633 4.2. Further, he referred to the finding of the learned CIT(A) in this matter recorded in para 4.10 on p. 17. It is mentioned that the AO applied the rate of 4 per cent on the basis of statement of Shri Jagpreet Singh recorded on 19th Sept., 2002. It was submitted before him that the statement of Shri Jagpreet Singh was misread by the AO. The intent of his deposition was that he used to charge 4 per cent commission against C Form. This statement was twisted by the AO to estimate commission income at 4 per cent in respect of accommodation-entry business. The learned CIT(A) found substance in this argument as it was borne out from facts on record that Shri Jagpreet Singh never stated that he was charging 4 per cent commission. It was further mentioned that it is a matter of common knowledge that accommodation bills are issued on consideration ranging between 0.5 per cent to 1 per cent of the bill amount. In these circumstances, it was held that the undisclosed income of the Assessee should be assessed at 0.75 per cent of the bill amount, being the mean of the aforesaid range of rate of pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Further, our attention was drawn towards the provision contained in Section 158B(a) which defines block period , whose income is to be determined, to mean the previous years relevant to six assessment years preceding the previous year in which search etc. was conducted and also includes the period upto the date of commencement of search etc. It was submitted that the search was conducted on 19th Sept., 2002. Therefore, the block period was made up of the period from 1st April, 1996 to 19th Sept., 2002. However, the AO computed the income for the period 1st April, 1996 to 31st March, 2003. 4.6. It was also argued that in absence of any search material found regarding the business of accommodation-entries, no undisclosed income could be determined in respect thereof. In this connection, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ravi Kant Jain (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 566 : (2001) 250 ITR 141 (Del), in which it was held that in the case at hand, undisclosed income is not on the basis of any search material but on the basis of change of opinion, particularly on the basis of report of the special auditors, who had given a different col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etected after search and seizure operations are carried out, the AO is required to determine the undisclosed income. In such cases additions are generally based on estimates. However, it does not mean that the AO can arrive at any figure without any basis. Therefore, it was held that the deletion of the addition of ₹ 3.40 crores by the Tribunal, being based on facts, was justified. No substantial question of law arose from such an order. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Dr. M.K.E. Menon (2001) 168 CTR (Bom) 184 : (2001) 248 ITR 310 (Bom). In that case, it was found in the course of search that fees recorded in the registration book was more than the fees recorded in the cash book. The Assessee offered undisclosed income of ₹ 75.60 lakhs for taxation. The AO computed the undisclosed income at ₹ 2.33 crores. It was held that the undisclosed income could not be estimated on an arbitrary basis and the Tribunal was right in concluding that the AO had adopted an arbitrary method in estimating the undisclosed income. In this case, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CST v. H.M. Esufali H. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom different parties including the Assessee, the same was deposited in different bank accounts and also given to other parties as per instruction of the Assessee. On p. 7 in para 4.4, it is mentioned that blank letterheads of M/s R.S. Enterprises, blank cheques signed by Shri Trilok Singh, proprietor of M/s G.T. Motors; photocopy of sales-tax registration of M/s Ekta Enterprises, proprietor Shri Gurdeep Singh; loose papers showing details of purchases from Raunaq Automative by M/s G.T. Motors Stores, M/s Ekta Enterprises and M/s Preet Traders and deposit slips of R.T. Motors (P) Ltd. were found from the residence of the Assessee. The case of the learned Counsel is that all these papers pertain to cheque and draft-discounting. However, the case of the learned Departmental Representative is that this could only be clarified in the course of assessment proceedings. We are of the view that the seizure of these and other documents and also statements of associated persons fairly lead to the conclusion that the Assessee was carrying on the business of cheque and draft-discounting, which was not hitherto disclosed to the Revenue. However, the evidence does not contain any material to sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se persons which may be either called salary or commission. No deduction has been given in respect of such expenditure. The other argument is that instead of taking the mean of 0.5 per cent and 1 per cent, he should have taken the income on the lower side at 0.5 per cent because of large turnover of the Assessee. As against the aforesaid, the Case of the learned Departmental Representative is that the learned CIT(A) erred in reducing the income from 4 per cent to 0.5 per cent. This issue has been taken in the cross-appeal also. It is his contention that the AO had rightly taken the income at 4 per cent of the turnover by relying on the statement of Shri Jagpreet Singh, an associate of the Assessee who was doing the same business. As against the aforesaid, the case of the learned Counsel is that the AO misread the statement of Shri Jagpreet Singh, as it was not in relation to accommodation-entry business but draft-discounting business. We have considered this matter carefully. The relevant portion of the statement of Shri Jagpreet Singh is contained on p. 33, which can be translated to the effect that the traders have the goods but they take the bill from us. We charge 4 per cent of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iving at the rate of 0.3 per cent. 5.1. The learned Counsel drew our attention to para 4.8 of the assessment order, in which it is mentioned that in the course of search, Shri Jagpreet Singh deposed that the income from draft-discounting business amounted to ₹ 50 per ₹ 10,000 (i.e., 0.50 per cent of the amount). In order to ascertain the volume of business conducted, bank statements were obtained in respect of various entities. The summary of the business conducted by various persons including the Assessee has been furnished on p. 13 of the assessment order. On the basis of the statement of Shri Jagpreet Singh, the income from this business was computed for various years @ 0.5 per cent of the amount involved in drafts and the aggregate of undisclosed income on this basis for various years amounted to ₹ 26,58,263. The details regarding the volume of business and undisclosed income are reproduced overleaf for ready reference: Year-wise summary of transactions related to draft-discounting 2Sl. No. F.Y. Personal Preet Traders Ekta Enterprises G.T. Motors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1999-2000 3,31,62,832 1,65,814 (v) 2000-01 3,62,99,891 1,81,499 (vi) 2001-02 13,10,32,694 6,55; 163 (vii) 2002-03 1,73,34,318 86,672 Total 53,16,52,652 26,58,263 5.2. Further, he drew our attention to para 5.4 of the order of the learned CIT(A), in which it is mentioned that Shri Jagpreet Singh deposed to the effect that commission was charged ranging between 0.35 per cent to 0.50 per cent of the draft/cheque amount. It is further mentioned that there was force in the arguments of the Assessee that the total deposits ascertained by the AO were required to be reduced by sales amount , which stands considered while working out undisclosed income. It is also mentioned that the gross receipts cannot be taken to be the income of the Assessee as expenses like bank charges, salary, conveyance, rent etc. are required to be reduced from the gross receipts. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of four persons amounting to ₹ 2,35,500, Therefore, it is held that this expenditure will have to be allowed to the Assessee in computing the profit. The other expenses regarding charges for early encashment of the demand drafts and demand drafts making charges have been worked out on estimated basis. It is seen that the Assessee had furnished evidence regarding payment of bank charges amounting to ₹ 18,147 in respect of early encashment and ₹ 14,448 in respect of obtaining bank drafts. It is seen that in the first case instances of amounts as low as ₹ 24 and ₹ 71 have been narrated and in the latter case, instances of amounts as low as ₹ 100, ₹ 200 and ₹ 400 have been mentioned. Looking to these factors, we are unable to understand as to why the Assessee could not give complete details of such expenses to the AO or to us. In absence thereof, we hold the expenses for commission amounted to ₹ 32,595 (₹ 18,147 plus ₹ 14,448). Thus, the income after allowing commission and salary works out to ₹ 6,81,522. Based upon these figures, we are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessee may be assessed at 0.10 per cent of the total turnover in this business. 5.5. In reply, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in reducing the net income from 0.50 per cent to 0.30 per cent. The Revenue has taken a ground in this behalf in its cross-appeal. It was, however, mentioned that the income in the case of Shri Inderbeer Singh has been assessed at 0.1742 per cent in the order (supra). However, his case was that the facts of that case are distinguishable. 5.6. We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. The AO had assessed the income from this business at 0.50 per cent. The learned CIT(A) made two modifications to the aforesaid order, namely, that - (i) the turnover in the business may be reduced by the sales amount, which already stood considered while working out the undisclosed income; and (ii) the net income may be taken at 0.36 per cent of the reduced turnover. We have deleted the addition made in respect of undisclosed income from the business of accommodation-entries on the express representation that no evidence regarding such business was found in the course of search. Therefore, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was not disclosed in the regular course. The bank account and returns before the ST authorities substantiate the conduct of such businesses. Obviously, these businesses were conducted clandestinely to earn income. In these circumstances, recovery of limited assets in the course of search cannot be the basis for coming to the conclusion that there was no undisclosed income. As we shall see later, the Assessee carried on the business of moneylending, which was also not disclosed to the Revenue. Therefore, we are not in a position to agree with the learned Counsel that no undisclosed income be computed in respect of this activity. 5.8. The learned CIT(A) estimated the gross income on the basis of the statement of Shri Jagpreet Singh, an associate, between 0.35 per cent to 0.50 per cent after giving discount for expenditure, he computed the net income at 0.30 per cent of the turnover. We are aware that some expenditure would have been incurred in respect of three natural persons, which can be attributed to this business. Therefore, we are of the view that the estimate of the rate of net income at 0.20 per cent of the turnover worked out by the AO shall be fair and just. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 250 on 15th March, 1999 to which 2,150 is added to arrive at 63,400. Page 135 mentions that interest account is clear upto 15th Oct., 1998 with total amount at 51,000. Page 136 starts with a figure of 24,00,000. To this, an amount of 7,20,000 is added in respect of 24 Peti at 3 per cent in respect of Departmental Representative taking the total to 31,20,000. Below this narration, there is mention of 20 Peti with the name of M. Singh with an amount of 20,00,000 to which 5,00,000 is added being 2.50 per cent for 10 months, taking the total to 25,00,000. Below this narration, there is a mention of K. Singh 7 Peti and 7,00,000 is added to 25,00,000 taking the total to 32,00,000. There is a deduction of 30,00,000 in respect of plot, leaving the balance at 2,00,000. Page 137 is in respect of Sohan Lalji with total at 40 Peti, interest at 110, tax at 105, form at 10. The account shows 42 Peti 25 thousand to be paid on the basis of account taken on 1st Aug., 1998 there is also narration of 20-3, 10-5, 10-6 on the right side of 40 Peti. 7.1. It was submitted that the AO considered these papers to be in relation to loans given by the Assessee to three persons. Therefore, principal amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he may be summoned Under Section 131 in the presence of the Assessee so that relevant facts such as the date of loan, repayment and the account in which drafts have been deposited may be verified. Such an explanation was furnished to the AO vide letter dt. 30th June, 2004 and the relevant portions are available on pp. 173 and 174 of the paper book. The AO did not summon Shri D.K. Goyal. Therefore, his deposition, made at the back of the Assessee, cannot be relied upon for the purpose of making assessment of the undisclosed income. In order to support the aforesaid contention, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (2007) 210 CTR (Del) 353 : (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Del). In that case, the finding of the Tribunal was that the AO was functioning as a quasi-judicial authority and was under an obligation to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Several requests were made by the Assessee, but Manoj Aggarwal was not made available for cross-examination. In absence of that, the block assessment was set aside. The Hon'ble Court mentioned that there is no doubt that the statement of Manoj Aggarwal had evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not identify the loans against which such cheques, found in possession of the Assessee, were pledged. He also identified page No. 2 of Annex. A-5, seized from the residence of Shri Jagpreet Singh, which bore the bank account number of M/s AKG Metals (P) Ltd. He identified the questioned documents found from the possession of the Assessee containing narrations of 10 Peti, 10 Peti and 4 Peti against D.K. with further narration of 5,6 and 6 with the total being at 24 Peti and the other amount being 134. He also identified another document making mention of 24 Peti with D.K., 3 per cent being 72,000-10 and the total amount at 31,20,000, being sums of 24,00,000 and 7,20,000. It was deposed that he had taken interest-bearing loan at 3 per cent for the purpose of his business. The aforesaid amount has been paid by way of cash and drafts. The drafts were purchased in cash. However, no amount was payable to the Assessee on the date of recording the statement. The books of account were not maintained. However, he could not identify two other persons, namely, Shri M. Singh and Shri K. Singh named in the questioned document. The case of the learned Counsel was that when the whole of the li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be unbelievable that the Assessee advanced such huge loans but no receipt etc. was found in respect of the loans or repayment thereof. 7.8. It was also argued that the AO had given a finding in para 6.4 that the Assessee was engaged in the business of moneylending on interest to various parties and the peak of such lending on 15th Oct., 1998 amounted to ₹ 51 lakhs. No such finding was given by the learned CIT(A) and Revenue has also not filed appeal against his order on this issue. In order to support this contention, reliance was placed on the discussion at p. 30 of the order of CIT(A), which furnishes the submissions of the Assessee to the effect that the AO had given the shape of interest-bearing loans to the usual transactions of encashment or discounting of drafts or cheques for which the facility might have been provided to Shri D.K. Goyal and Ors. We, however, find that in para 7.11 of the order of first appellate authority, the learned CIT(A) referred to the presumption Under Section 132(4A) and held that such presumption was rightly drawn by the AO against the Assessee. It was further held that the contents of the seized paper leave no doubt that these entries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment did not show that any such money was received from other 15 purchasers. It was also the case of the learned Counsel that the seized papers were not in the nature of books of account and, therefore, reliance could not be placed on them for making addition in absence of corroborative evidence regarding possession of such huge cash by the Assessee. 7.10. In reply, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Daya Chand v. CIT (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 446 : (2001) 250 ITR 327 (Del) for supporting the action of the lower authorities. In that case, books of account were seized in the course of search, which contained cash credits. The credits were added to the income of the Assessee by invoking the presumption contained in Section 132(4A). The Hon'ble Court held that the requirement of Section 68 has to be fulfilled even in a case where books were seized in the course of search as presumption Under Section 132(4A) was available to the Revenue and it was for the Assessee to satisfactorily explain the credits made in the books of account. His case was that the Assessee has taken contradictory stands on different ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 10 lakhs at 6 per cent per month and ₹ 4 lakhs at 6 per cent per month, leading to interest of ₹ 50,000, ₹ 60,000 and ₹ 24,000 aggregating to ₹ 1.34 lakhs. The mention of 20 Peti against M. Singh represents loan of ₹ 20 lakhs to Shri Mahender Singh @ 3 per cent per month. He has expired since then. The narration of 7 Peti against the name of K. Singh represents ₹ 7 lakhs lent to Shri Kulwant Singh Sachdeva s/o Shri Balbeer Singh @ 3 per cent per month, on which the total interest comes to ₹ 81,000. These amounts were lent in cash, the principal amount being ₹ 51 lakhs and interest of ₹ 21.50 lakhs. Page 136 shows lending of ₹ 24,00,000 to D.K. @ 3 per cent per month, on which interest amounted to ₹ 7.20 lakhs; ₹ 20,00,000 to Shri Mahender Singh @ 2.5 per cent, on which interest for 10 months amounted to ₹ 5 lakhs and ₹ 7 lakhs to K. Singh. Against the total amount of ₹ 32 lakhs, ₹ 30 lakhs were adjusted against the plot. Similar explanation was given in respect of page No. 137, which carries the name of Shri Sohan Lal. It was deposed that a sum of ₹ 40 lakhs was lent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cular person, are in that person's handwriting. Under this section, a rebuttable presumption may be raised that these documents belong to the Assessee and the contents thereof are true. Such presumption will also be available in respect of blank signed cheques of D.K. found from the Assessee. Thus, such presumption may be raised not only in respect of the books but also other documents found in search. By and large, the statement of the Assessee corroborate that these papers pertain to loans given to D.K., M. Singh and K. Singh, while there was contradictory statement in regard to loan to Shri Sohan Lal. Subsequently, statement of Shri Devender Kumar Goel was recorded, who corroborated the contents of pp. 40 and 44 insofar as they are concerned with his dealings. The learned Counsel has taken objection to his statement on two grounds, namely, that-(i) his statement was not recorded in the presence of the Assessee and (ii) certain defects in the statement show that his statement is not reliable. The deposition of Devender Kumar is the deposition of the third party and stands on the same footing as that of bank manager in the case of Kishanchand Chelaram (supra). Since the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter rejecting the explanation of the Assessee, sufficient circumstances exist in this case to hold appropriate amounts to be the income of the Assessee as unexplained loans advanced to others. It was also agitated that pp. 132 and 136 do not carry any date and thus, these are dumb documents. This view is also not acceptable for the simple reason that p. 131 gives the calculation of interest for a period of 10 months from 15th Oct., 1998 to 15th Aug., 1999, falling in asst. y₹ 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Page 40 is only further elaboration of the amount of ₹ 51 lakhs and p. 44 contains the calculation of interest individually in respect of three persons. Therefore, on combined reading of these three documents, it becomes clear that these papers deal with advance of ₹ 51 lakhs for the period mentioned above. It may be that p. 136 has some other narration also, such as plot of land, the import of which is not clear. But, there could be no denying the fact that these papers pertain to loan transactions and interest earned thereon. It was also the case of the learned Counsel that such huge loans could not have been advanced without passing receipts. This argument loses sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n on 1st Aug., 1998. This paper contains the name of Shri Sohan Lalji at the top. In the statement recorded in the course of search, it was deposed by the Assessee that Shri Sohan Lal is doing the work of stamping and staying in Subhash Nagar. 42 Peties of fan stampings belong to him for which ₹ 25,000 was payable to him, which has been paid. Each Peti costs between ₹ 5,000 to ₹ 10,000 and, thus, the total value of 40 Peties was between ₹ 3 lakhs to ₹ 4 lakhs. When it was pointed out to him that 40 Peties means ₹ 40 lakhs etc., it was explained that the stampings are still lying in the premises at C-44, Hari Nagar, Ghantaghar, as the Assessee had taken a room there on rent from Shri Sohan Lal. Thereafter, his statement was recorded on oath Under Section 131, in which it was deposed that 40 Peties means ₹ 40 lakhs. This version was changed in the statement itself, in which it was mentioned that Shri Sohan Lal stays at C-28, Mayapuri Phase-II and he had arranged loans to various persons from him. He received commission of 1 per cent on the transactions. It was further deposed that Shri Sohan Lal Dua had expired and, therefore, he is not in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with regard to the amount of loans, rate of interest etc. This statement of the Assessee was corroborated by Shri Devender Kumar Goyal when his statement was recorded Under Section 131 on 6th Jan., 2003. However, this statement remains untested and, therefore, it can at best act only as a kind of corroborative evidence. The Assessee changed his version in the affidavit when it was stated that he had arranged loans and earned only commission income. It may be mentioned that the decision in the case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) (supra) was rendered in regard to third party evidence used in assessment made Under Section 158BD of the Act. The Tribunal was of the view that since the Assessee was not allowed opportunity of cross-examination, addition could not have been made in its hands. In the case of D.N. Kamani (HUF) (supra), third party evidence was found regarding on-money received, on the basis of which an assumption was made that similar amounts were received from other purchaser in a situation where such an assumption could not be supported by enquiry in an assessment. In this case, the evidence is found from the Assessee and is admittedly written in his own handwriting. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on p. 136 in respect of Shri D.K. Goyal and Shri M. Singh. The latter paper further shows adjustment of ₹ 30 lakhs in the case of M. Singh and K. Singh against plot, which further supports the case of the Revenue. It is held accordingly and these advances and interest thereon are treated in the same manner as in the case of Shri D.K. Goyal. 8.6. From the conclusions drawn above, it is seen that the Assessee advanced loans aggregating to ₹ 51 lakhs to three persons on or about 15th Oct., 1998. At the relevant point of time he was in possession of the amount of ₹ 40 lakhs borrowed from Shri Sohan Lal, as the amount was payable even on 1st Aug., 1998. Therefore, it will be fair to conclude that out of advances of ₹ 51 lakhs, the sum of ₹ 40 lakhs stood explained by way of loan. Accordingly, it is held that a sum of ₹ 11 lakhs is taxable in the hands of the Assessee as unexplained advances. 8.7. It also becomes clear from aforesaid discussion that as on 1st Aug., 1998, the Assessee was under liability of interest amounting to ₹ 2.25 lakhs in respect of loan from Shri Sohan Lalji. As against that, there is a clear narration of receipt of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was not ma de by the Assessee, no amount could be added to his income. The learned CIT(A) considered the facts of the case and mentioned that the Assessee has failed to prove that the payments were made by Shri Tarsem Singh and Shri Narinder Singh. Thus, the Assessee failed to satisfactorily discharge the onus casts on him and, therefore, the action of the AO in adding this amount was upheld. 9.2. Before us, it was submitted that a letter addressed jointly by S/Shri Kulwant Singh, Narinder Singh and Tarsem Singh to Punjab Sind Bank was found from the residence of the Assessee regarding full and final out of Court settlement of the accounts of three firms. On enquiry, it was found that a total sum of ₹ 5.68 lakhs had been paid in pursuance of the settlement. The three persons had taken loans from the bank for which his father had stood guarantee as proprietor of M/s Sant Singh Kulwant Singh. On the death of his father, the Assessee stood by the guarantee given by his late father. However, the amounts were paid by the principal debtors and not by the Assessee, which can be verified by issuing summons to them. Since the money was not paid by the Assessee, it was argued t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounting business from 0.50 per cent to 0.30 per cent of the amount involved in the draft. In our order in IT(SS)A No. 255/Del/2005 (supra), the rate of net income has been fixed at 0.20 per cent. In view thereof, this ground is dismissed. 13. Ground No. 3 is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 32,97,073, made by the AO on account of peak of unaccounted investments in bank account. It was the common case of both the parties that this issue stands covered by the order of 'A' Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Inderbeer Singh in IT(SS)A No. 322/Del/2005, dt. 16th Feb., 2009, in which it was held that in the case of draft-discounting, the ownership in the drafts does not vest in the Assessee as they were received from third parties. Therefore, there could not be any question of determining the peak of unaccounted investments. Paras. 14, 15 and 16 of that order, dealing with the issue, are reproduced overleaf: 14. The learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted before us that a similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case (supra) and the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the Assessee while ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
