IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-4602/Del/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08) Kamla Kansal, vs ITO, ED-79C, Pitampura, Delhi-110088. Ward-27(1), PAN-AAAPK6400A New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Sameer Kapoor, CA Respondent by Ms. Anima Baranwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 03.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement 17.10.2016 ORDER present appeal has been filed by assessee assailing correctness of order dated 16.06.2014 of CIT(A)-V, New Delhi pertaining to 2007-08 assessment year. Various grounds have been raised by assessee in present appeal. 2. However, at time of hearing, Ld.AR submitted that he would confine himself only to Ground Nos. 2 and 4 as Ground Nos. 1 and 3 are not being pressed. Accordingly Ground Nos. 2 and 4 are reproduced hereunder:- 2. Whether Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and circumstances of case in disallowing relief to assessee for addition of Rs.2,11,000/- on account of cash realized from petty Debtors. 4. Whether Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and circumstances of case in disallowing relief to assessee for addition of Rs.2,81,083/- on account of proceeds from cash business. 3. Addressing facts it was submitted that assessee returned income of Rs.80,922/- and said return was selected for scrutiny under CASS. It was his submission that assessee derived income from sale and purchase of garments and cloth which is Page 1 of 4 I.T.A .No.-4602/Del/2014 carried out by assessee for last 2- 3 years prior to present year record would show that assessee had older debts amounting to Rs.2,10,970/-. Assessing Officer required assessee to provide names and address of 20 parties from whom above recovery was claimed. On test check basis, he issued notice under section 133 (6) to 6 persons therefrom. Replies were received from Sunita Agarwal and Alka Aggarwal subsequently their ITRs and affidavits were also filed in Remand proceedings. notices sent to others ladies namely Radha, Manisha, Shakuntala and Bimla, it was submitted came back unserved. It was submitted these were domestic consumers living in villages thus for whatever reason notice was not served upon them cannot be ground to add entire amount in hands of assessee as these were 4 people out of 6 picked up by AO. Two had replied. fact that there was nominal income in hands of Sunita and Alka Aggarwal by itself does not detract from claim that amounts were outstanding. It has been submitted that remaining 4 persons were admittedly living villages having income which may not have been sufficient to necessitate return having been filed but fact remains that some have filed confirmation in response to notice under section 133(6). In circumstances, it was his prayer that how can entire amount be added in hands of assessee because if it all addition can be made it should have been limited to three person who have not responded namely Radha, Manisha and Shakuntala. 4. Ld. Sr.DR on other hand submitted that entire case of assessee is bogus as she has been coming out with different explanations at different times. However, Ld.Sr.DR was unable to defend how in case where there are 20 debtors and Assessing Officer cares to issue notice only to 6 parties then in facts where 2 have affirmed Page 2 of 4 I.T.A .No.-4602/Del/2014 how entire case can be said to be bogus. Considering overall factual matrix, Ld. AR agreed that part addition may be sustained and finally agreed that addition to extent of 25% may be sustained and 75% may be deleted. said prayer was not opposed by Ld.Sr.DR who considering overall facts and circumstances of case agreed that Ground No. 2 raised by assessee may be partly allowed. 4.1. Accordingly, in light of submissions of parties and considering facts on record, Assessing Officer is directed to restrict addition of Rs. 2,11,000/- to extent of 25% only. Ground No.2 is partly allowed. 4.2. Addressing addition made which is challenged by Ground No. 4, Ld. AR submitted that assessee has explained same as cash deposit as representing cash amount received from sundry debtors of home sales on credit which had been made in financial year 2006 07. Herein also assessee was held to have not filed sufficient supporting evidences. In circumstances, it was his submission that since evidence has been discarded on partial test check basis issue may be closed by way of identical estimate by restricting addition to extent of 25% and grant relief to extent of 75%. Ld.Sr.DR considering overall factual matrix did not oppose prayer. Accordingly in light of submissions of parties and facts partial relief is granted to assessee and addition is directed to be restricted 25% for want of evidence. above conclusion and estimates are based on peculiar facts of present case and it is made clear that they shall not be precedent for assessee in any future or subsequent assessment year. Page 3 of 4 I.T.A .No.-4602/Del/2014 5. In result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed. order is pronounced in open court on 17th October, 2016. Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Page 4 of 4 Kamla Kansal v. ITO, Ward-27(1), New Delhi