IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  03.08.2011 
.
 Present: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. 
 Ms. Poonam Ahuja, Advocate for the respondent. 
.
.
 +ITA 922/2011 
.
 The assessee had filed return for the Assessment Year 2006-07 declaring 
 an income of `1,29,860/-.  The return was processed and notice was issued 
 to the respondent/assessee.  Pursuant thereto, her representative 
 appeared on 29.08.2007.  However, thereafter he did not appear.  The 
 Assessing Officer made ex-parte assessment under Section 144 of the Act. 
 The Assessing Officer found that in the bank statement furnished by the 
 Punjab National Bank, where the assessee was maintaining her account, the 
 assessee had declared total cash/cheque receipt of `1,53,80,213/-.  The 
 assessee had declared gross receipts of `24,92,158/- in the income tax 
 return. On this basis the Assessing Officer formed the view that the 
 assessee had not declared the remaining receipts in the sum of 
 `1,28,47,023/- (i.e. `1,53,80,213 (-) `25,33,190/-) and made the addition 
 of the aforesaid amount to the income of the assessee as ?income from 
 undisclosed sources?. 
 The assessee preferred appeal thereagainst before the CIT(A).  Before 
 the CIT(A), the assessee also moved an application under Rule 416 of the 
 I.T. Rules for additional evidence.  Her explanation was that her 
 representative, who was a Chartered Accountant and who had appeared on 
 29.08.2007 before the Assessing Officer, did not appear thereafter 
 without informing the assessee in this behalf.  The assessee?s 
 explanation was, thus, that she had given all the papers and documents to 
 the said Chartered Accountant and remained under the impression that her 
 Chartered Accountant was representing her and had she known about the 
 non-appearance of the Chartered Accountant, she would have taken steps 
 herself in this regard.  This explanation was found justified by the 
.
.
 CIT(A) who admitted the additional evidence.  In the additional evidence 
 given by the assessee, she had mentioned that though there were receipts 
 in her bank account in the sum of `1,53,80,213/-, the Assessing Officer 
 did not look into the entries of the withdrawal side.  She also explained 
 that the she was in the business of travel agency and was making bookings 
 for customers on behalf of M/s.J.K. Tourism Dev Corp.  She used to 
 receive 100% advance from the customers and was passing on approximately 
 85% thereof to M/s. J.K. Dev Corp. and was retaining balance 15% for 
 incurring office and related business expenses.  Thus, the entire receipt 
 of `1,53,80,213/- was not her income and she had disclosed her income 
 properly treating gross receipts of `24,92,158/- and commission of 
 `41,032/-.  From this she had deducted expenses incurred by her and thus 
 income was declared at `1,29,860/-.  The CIT(A) looked into all these 
 aspects and satisfied himself about the correctness/veracity of the 
 aforesaid stand on the basis of books of accounts and business bills etc. 
 produced by the assessee.  He, thus, deleted the addition made by the 
 Assessing Officer. 
 The ITAT confirmed the aforesaid order. 
 The entire case rests on the facts found by the two authorities on the 
 basis of evidence produced. No question of law arises. 
 The appeal is hereby dismissed. 
.
.
 A.K. SIKRI, J. 
.
 M.L.MEHTA, J. 
 August 03, 2011 
 Awanish 
.
 #41