$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 40. + ITA 761/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel. versus SHRI SURESH MONGA ..... Respondent Through: Mr S. Krishnan, Advocate. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 05.10.2015 1. In this appeal filed by Revenue against order dated 23 rd February, 2015 passed by ITAT in IT (SS) 118/DEL/2008 for block period 01st April, 1996 to 25th April, 2002, three issues are urged. 2. first concerns addition of Rs.6,08,000/- sought to be made by Assessing Officer being unexplained cash deposits made in bank account. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by order dated 31st January, 2006 allowed Assessee s appeal after being satisfied with explanations and documents produced by Assessee to show that there has been withdrawal from Assessee s own account prior to making deposits. ITAT has affirmed order of CIT (A) on facts. ITA No.761/2015 Page 1 of 3 However, ITAT has also relied upon decision of High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CIT v. Ram Sanehi Gyanchand (1972) 86 ITR 724 (P&H). 3. In considered view of this Court, question involved in Ram Sanehi Gyanchand (supra) did not arise in facts and circumstances of present case. Once CIT (A) has factually found that credible explanation has been offered by Assessee for credit entries, there was no need to rely on above decision to substantiate deletion and addition by CIT (A). No substantial question of law arises as far as this issue is concerned. 4. second issue pertains to further additions made by AO amounting to Rs.12,72,707/- and Rs.91,870/- being recorded figures during course of search. operation under Section 132 was conducted on 26th April 2002 in presence of Assessee. Certain documents containing sheets with figures and details were found. additions in respect of above figures in sum of Rs.12,72,707/- and Rs.91,870/- were made on substantive basis in hands of Assessee s wife and on protective basis in hands of Assessee. It is not disputed that additions in hands of Assessee were being cancelled after examination of merits. As result additions in ITA No.761/2015 Page 2 of 3 hands of Assessee got cancelled automatically. Court finds no error having been committed by ITAT in this regard. 5. third issue sought to be raised is whether Revenue should have been permitted to make additions under Section 292 C on basis that material found during search in fact belonged to Assessee and not anyone else. case of Revenue before AO was that writings in slip were by Assessee s wife and that is why additions were made to Assessee only on protective basis. 6. case of Revenue was that since Assessee s wife name was found in slip, additions were made substantively in her hands. That being case, question of making additions under Section 292C did not arise. No substantial question of law arises. 7. appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 5, 2015 neelam ITA No.761/2015 Page 3 of 3 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 v. SHRI SURESH MONGA