Shri U.K. Samal, Bhopal V. The ACIT, 3(1), Bhopal

CO 88/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8710 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K KARAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Valuation report; Assessment record; Documents seized
• Section: 80C; 142(1); 153A

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS) A NOS. 277 TO 282/IND/2012 & 360/IND/2012 A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2009-10 ACIT 3(1) BHOPAL :: APPELLANT VS U.K. SAMAL BHOPAL PAN ABKPS 1290F :: RESPONDENT CO NOS. 88 TO 93/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF IT(SS) A NOS. 277 TO 282/IND/2012 A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2008-09 U.K. SAMAL BHOPAL :: OBJECTOR VS ACIT 3(1) BHOPAL :: RESPONDENT 2 IT(SS) A NOS. 343 TO 348/IND/2012 A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2008-09 U.K. SAMAL BHOPAL :: OBJECTOR VS ACIT 3(1) BHOPAL :: RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY SHRI V.K. KARAN ASSESSEE BY SHRI SUMIT NEMA DATE OF HEARING 24.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.06.2013 O R D E R PER SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CRO SS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR THE A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2008-09 DATED 20 TH MARCH, 2012 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 1 43(3) OF THE ACT. 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPER ATION U/S 132(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI U.K. SAMAL, NUA PALAMI, NEAR TATA MOTORS, MISROD, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL. THE SEARCH WAS C ONDUCTED 3 ON 30.5.2008. SHRI U.K. SAMAL IS A RETIRED IAC OF M ADHYA PRADESH CADRE. SHRI U.K. SAMAL IS RESIDING AT NUA P ALAMI, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL. IN HIS FAMILY THERE IS W IFE AND TWO SONS WHO ARE MARRIED. SMT. DEEPTI SAMAL IS THE WIF E OF SHRI U.K. SAMAL. SMT. DEEPTI SAMAL IS RUNNING A BOUTIQUE BUSI NESS IN THE NAME OF LYSSAS SITUATED AT NEW MARKET, MALVIYA NAG AR, BHOPAL. CASH AND PAPERS RELATED TO INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES , AGRICULTURAL LAND IN HIS FAMILY MEMBERS NAME WERE FOUND DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH. SUMMARY OF SEARCH AND SURVEY OPERATION CARRIED OUT ON UK SAMAL HIS FAMILY MEMBERS IS AS UNDER :- (I) AT RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI U.K. SAMAL,NEW PALA MI, NEAR R.K. FARM, HOSHGANGABAD, BHOPAL. THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTD ON 30.5.2008 AT RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OFSHRI U.K. SAMAL, NEW PALAMI, NEAR R.K. FARM, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL. (II) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH STATEMENT OF SHRI U.K. SAMAL, AGE 61 YEARS, SMT. DIPTI SAMAL W/O SHRI U.K. SAMAL, AGE 57 YEARS, SHRI SIDDHARTH SAMAL S/O SHRI U.K. SAMAL, AGE 35 YEARS, SHYRI SANKALP SAMAL S/O SHRI U.K. SAMAL, AGE 31 YEARS RECORDED. DURING THE 4 COURSE OF SEARCH CASH FOUND AMOUNTING TO RS.18,350/ - AND JEWELLERY WAS FOUND VALUED AT RS. 3,37,651/-. (III) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT BANK, LOCKER NO. 189 , IDBI, TT NAGAR BRANCH, BHOPAL IN THE NAME OF DEEPTI SAMAL, REKHA SAMAL AND UMAKANT SAMAL (LOCKER OPERATION DATED 3.6.2008) JEWELLERY VALUED AT RS. 3,58,300/- WAS FOUND. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION STATEMENT OF FOLLOWING PERSONS WERE RECORDED :- 1. SHRI U.K. SAMAL 2. SMT. DEEPTI SAMAL W/O SHRI U.K. SAMAL 3. SHRI SIDDHARTH SAMAL, AGE 35 YEARS 4. SHRI SANKALP SAMAL, AGE 31 YEARS ASSESSEE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE SOURCE OF ABOVE MENTIO NED CASH AND JEWELLERY DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE SATISFACTORY ANSWER TO THE SOURCE OF THE SAME. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH AND GOLD FO UND AT HIS VARIOUS PREMISES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED VIDE QUEST IONNAIRE U/S 142(1) DATED 2.7.2010 AND 16.11.2010 AS FOLLOWS :- 5 (I) PLEASE EXPLAIN THE CASH OF RS.18,350/- FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT YOUR RESIDENTIAL PREMISES. (II) PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF GOLD WORTH OF RS. 1,15,816/- AND RS. 2,21,835/-AND TOTALLING RS. 3,37,651/- DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT YOUR RESIDENTIAL PREMISES (IV) PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF GOLD WORTH RS. 3,58,30 0/- FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT LOCKER NO. 189 IDBI BANK, TT NAGAR BRANCH, BHOPAL, ON 3.6.2008. (V) HE WAS ALSO ASKED OTHER QUESTIONS RELATED WITH THE DOCUMENTS FOUND, HIS BANKS ETC. TOP WHICH HE REPLIE D DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CASH OF RS. 18,350/- WAS FOUND. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE CASH OF RS. 1 8,350/- FOUND DURING THE SEARCH WAS OUT OF WITHDRAWALS AND SAVING S. HE FURTHER SAID THAT HE HAS FIVE EARNING MEMBERS IN HI S FAMILY AND THIS MONEY HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY VARIOUS FAMILY MEM BERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. HE HOWEVER FAILED TO DO SO CLAIMING THAT MEMORANDUM OF ASSETS FILED FOR EARLIE R YEARS REFLECTED THE CASH REQUIREMENT OF THE FAMILY. 6 5. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 3,37,651/- WAS FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE AND JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 3,58,300/- WAS FOUND IN LOCKER NO. 189. IT WAS STATED THAT AL L THIS JEWELLERY HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN FILED IN 1991 AND CURRENT VALUE OF SUCH GOLD JEWELLERY AS PER THE WEALTH TAX RETURN WOULD BE MORE THAN RS. 22 LACS. HOWEVER, TH E AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND ADDED THE AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF 69A SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF JEWELLERY, FOUND AT HIS PREMISE AND BANK LOCKER NO. 189. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE IN POSSESSION OF AND AS SUCH THE OWNER OF GOLD AND JEWELLERY FOUND. ACCORDINGLY, AS PER THE PROVISION S OF IT ACT, THE VALUE OF SUCH JEWELLERY FOUND IS DEEMED TO BE UNEXPLAINED AND HENCE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 6,95,951/- IS BEING ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2009-10. AN ADDITION OF RS. 6,75,050/- WAS ALSO MADE ON ACCO UNT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS U/S 69A IN THE A.Y. 2009-10. 6. THE AO ALSO PREPARED STATEMENT OF CASH DEPOSIT I N THE BANK AND ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE A.YS. 2003-04 TO 200 9-10. THE DETAILS OF SUCH BANK ACCOUNT, DATE OF DEPOSIT, ETC. HAD BEEN NARRATED BY THE AO AT PAGES 7, 8 AND 9 OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. 7 BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY EXPLANATION FOR VARIOUS CASH DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK WAS ADDED TO T HE ASSESSEES INCOME. 7. WITH REGARD TO HOUSE AT BHAVANESHWAR, THE ASSESS EE IN HIS LETTER DATED 14.12.2010 MENTIONED THAT THE CONSTRUC TION OF HOUSE HAS STARTED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 AND WAS COMPL ETED IN 2005-06 AT THE COST OF RS. 7,40,000/- FOR WHICH A L OAN OF RS. 5,00,000/- HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM HUDCO. HE MENTIONED THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,40,000/- HAS BEEN SPENT FRO M SAVINGS AND EARNINGS DURING THE PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION. 8. AFTER DISCUSSING THE ISSUE AT PAGES 10, 11AND 12 , THE AO MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS :- 9. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE PERIOD OF CONSTRUCT ION FROM F.Y. 2002-03 TO F.Y. 2005-06 THE TOTAL COST OF CONS TRUCTION IS DIVIDED OVER THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS EQUALLY. AS S UCH THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER YEAR = 25,00,000/-. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PROPER TY FOR VARIOUS YEARS. HOWEVER, TILL THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSION. ACCORDINGLY, VARIOUS 8 AMOUNTS WERE ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS BELOW :- A.Y. UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE 2003-04 2500000 2004-05 2500000 2005-06 2500000 2006-07 2500000 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO OWNS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT KHASRA NOS. 209, 201 AN D 211 AT NUA PALAMI, MISROD, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH YEARWISE BREAK UP OF EXPENDITU RE INCURRED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AND WAS ALSO ASKED TO PRODUCE THE SOURCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN VARIOUS YEARS ALO NGWITH PROOF. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS LETTER 14.12.2010 MENTIONED THA T THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE HAS STARTED BEFORE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 AND WAS COMPLETED AT THE COST OF RS. 37.60 LACS. HE CLAIMED THAT RS. 7 LACS WAS INCURRED BEFORE THE BLOCK PERIOD AND DURING THE PERIOD UNDER SCRUTINY ONLY RS. 30.60 LACS WAS SPENT ,. HE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE PROOF OF HAVING SPENT RS. 7,00,000 /- BEFORE F.Y. 2002-03. AS PER THE AO, NO SUCH PROOF WAS SUBMITTE D TILL THE END OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO FURTHER OBSER VED THAT THE 9 ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT SUBMIT YEARWISE EXPENDITURE S TATEMENT ALONGWITH THE SOURCE OF EXPENDITURE. 11. TO ASCERTAIN THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION THE SAID PROPERTY WAS REFERRED BY THE AO TO THE VAL UATION OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BHOPAL ON 22.7.2010. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE DVO MENTIONED VIA LETTER AND VARIOUS TELEP HONIC CONVERSATION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVIDING VA RIOUS DETAILS RELATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AS REQUIRED BY HIM. HENCE, HE WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE A VALUATION REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT TILL THE EN D OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NO REPLY FROM THE DVOS OFFICE COULD B E OBTAINED DUE TO NON COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. AFTER OBSERVING AS ABOVE, THE AO ESTIMATED THE COST OF HOUSE AT RS. 3 CRORES. ACCORDINGLY, THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS WERE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT Y EARS :- A.Y. AMOUNT 2003-04 6000000 2004-05 6000000 2005-06 6000000 2006-07 6000000 2007-08 6000000 10 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHR I U.K. SAMAL AT KHASRA NO. 210 AT NUA PALAMI, NEAR TATA MOTORS, MISROD, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, THREE PAD BOOKS WERE FOUN D AND SEIZED AND ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE PS 1/11, LPS 1/12 AN D LPS 1/13. THESE PAID BOOKS CONTAINING WRITTEN PAGES 1 TO 8, 1 TO 5 AND 1 TO 19 RESPECTIVELY, WHEREIN DATEWISE ENTRIES OF EXPENDITURES/INVESTMENT OF CONSTRTUCTION OF BUNGALO W AT KHASRA NO.210 AT NUA PALAMI, NEAR TATA MOTORS, MISROD, HOS HANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL, PURCHASE OF NSC, ISBI FLEX, ICICI FLE X ETC. THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE MOSTLY IN CASH. WHEN ASKED DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABL E TO EXPLAIN THE VARIOUS ENTRIES MENTIONED IN THE PAID BOOKS. 13. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAD E PAYMENT OF LIC PREMIUM . ACCORDINGLY, AS PER PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT, THE AMOUNTS OF ANNUAL PREMIUM PAID TOWARDS LIC POLICIES ARE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. S.NO. A.Y. POLICY NO. 351511615 POLICY NO. 352678799 TOTAL (RS.) 1 2003-04 22246 - 22246 2 2004-05 22246 - 22246 3 2005-06 22246 - 22246 4 2006-07 22246 - 22246 5 2007-08 22246 50000 72246 11 6 2008-09 22246 50000 72246 7 2009-10 22246 50000 72246 14. THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVEST MENT IN FDRS. THE FOLLOWING WAS THE PRECISE OBSERVATION IN THIS REGARD :- SOME OF THE FDRS WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN INVESTED INTO PRIOR TO THE BLOCK PERIOD. DESPITE TH E SOURCE OF THOSE FDRS BEING UNEXPLAINED THEY WERE NO T ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF IT ACT. ACCORDINGLY, AS PER THE PROV ISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, SUCH INVESTMENT CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR VARIOUS RELEVANT YEARS :- A.Y . AMOUNT 2003-04 239438 2004-05 253212 2005-06 265994 2006-07 279040 14A. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT(A) DELETED TH E ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY AT BHUVANESHWAR AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION S :- 4.3 I HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE. IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED THAT HE IS DOING THE ESTIMATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION SINCE DVOS VALUATION REPORT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE THE ASSESSMENT RECORD S WERE EXAMINED. IT IS FOUND THAT THE DVOS REPORT IS AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. IT IS FOUND THA T THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS DONE BY THE DVO, KOLKATA. IN HIS REPORT DATED 14.12.2010, THE DVO HA S VALUED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT RS.1165182/- THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 740000/-. THIS SHOWS THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS 12 SUPPRESSED BY RS.425182. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT IT IS HELD THAT THEJ APPELLANT HAS MADE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF RS. 425182/- IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY HENCE THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IS CONFIRMED BY THE SAME AMOUNT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. IN THE RESULT TH E ADDITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS REDUCED FROM RS. 2500000/- TO RS. 425182/-. THE ADDITION OF RS. 2500000/- EACH FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2006-07 ARE DELETED . 15. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF CIT(A), BOTH THE AS SESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 16. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PE RUSED. WE FIND THAT THE VALUATION OF HOUSE WAS REFERRED BY TH E AO TO THE DVO. THE DVO VIDE ITS REPORT DATED 14.12.2010 VALU ED THE SAID PROPERTY AT RS. 11,65,182/- AGAINST WHICH THE ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 7,40,000/-. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 4,25,182/- WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) IN THE A.Y. 2003-04. THE ADDITION MADE IN THE A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2006-07 W AS DELETED BY THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED T HE ADDITION WITH RESPECT TO THE VALUATION ARRIVED AT BY THE DVO IN EXCESS OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIN D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO REBATE OF 10% ON ACCOUNT OF SELF SUPERVISION. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION S USTAINED BY CIT(A) SUBJECT TO ALLOWING 10% CREDIT FOR SELF SUPE RVISION. 13 17. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED WHEREAS GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. 18. THE CIT(A) PARTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE AT MISROD AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 5.3 I HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED THAT HE IS DOING THE ESTIMATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION SINCE DVOS VALUA TION REPORT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED. IN ORDER TO VERIFY TH E FACTS OF THE ISSUE THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE EXAMINED. IT IS FOUND THAT THE DVOS REPORT IS AVAIL ABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. IT IS FOUND THAT THE VALU ATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS DONE BY THE DVO, KOLKATA. IN HI S REPORT, THE DVO HAS VALUED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT RS.5236000/- THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.37,60,000/- THIS SHOWS THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS SUPPRESSED BY RS. 1476000/- IN VIEW OF THIS FACT IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HA S MADE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF RS. 1476000/- IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY. THE AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IS TO BE DIVIDED BETWEEN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. THE ADDITION PER YEAR COMES TO RS. 295200/- IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION FOR DIFFER ENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS REDUCED AS UNDER: A.Y AMOUNT OF ADDITION AMOUNT OF ADDITION CONFIRMED 2003-04 6000000 295200 2004-05 6000000 295200 2005-06 6000000 295200 2006-07 6000000 295200 2007-08 6000000 295200 14 19. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF CIT(A), BOTH THE AS SESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 20. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND F IND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 37,60,000/-. HOWEVER, THE DVO VALUED THE PROPERTY AT RS. 52,36,000/- WHICH GIVES RISE TO DIFFERENCE OF RS. 1 4,76,000/-. THE CIT(A) DIVIDED THIS DIFFERENCE IN COST OF CONST RUCTION BETWEEN A.YS. 2003-04 TO 23006-07 WHICH GIVES RISE TO THE A DDITION OF RS. 2,95,200/- IN EACH YEAR. THUS, AS AGAINST THE ADD ITION OF RS.60 LACS CONFIRMED BY THE AO IN EACH YEAR, THE CIT(A) R EDUCED THE SAME TO RS.2,95,200/-. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION ARRIVED AT BY THE DVO WHICH WAS IN EXCESS OF COST O F CONSTRUCTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE SUBJECT TO ALLOWING REBATE OF 10% ON ACCOUNT OF SELF SUPERVISION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW FURTHER RELIEF OF 10% ON ACCOUNT OF SELF SUPERVISION. IN THE RESULT, THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) IS FURTHER REDUCED BY 10% ON ACCOUNT OF REBATE FOR SEL F SUPERVISION. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED, WHEREAS GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. 15 22. THE AO DISCUSSED THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS MARKED A S LPS FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AT PAGES 14 TO 23. AS P ER THE AO, THE SOURCE OF SUCH PAYMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL THE END OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. TH E UNEXPLAINED ENTRIES ARE BEING LISTED OUT YEARWISE AND LPS WISE AS BELOW: A.Y. LPS NO. AMOUNT 2003-04 LPS-1/11 46500 2003-04 LPS-1/12 269838 2003-04 LPS-1/13 595498 911836 2004-05 LPS-1/11 622257 2004-05 LPS-1/12 536455 2004-05 LPS-1/13 1491847 2650559 2005-06 LPS-1/11 529445 2005-06 LPS-1/12 31705 2005-06 LPS-1/13 1479940 2041090 2006-07 LPS-1/11 71000 2006-07 LPS-1/13 2263341 2334341 2007-08 LPS-1/13 1994865 2008-09 LPS-1/13 1800000 23. ACCORDINGLY SUCH PAYMENTS WERE TREATED AS UNEXP LAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR VARIOUS YEARS IN WHICH SUCH PAYMENTS H AVE BEEN MADE BY HIM AS FOLLOWS :- 16 A.Y. AMOUNT 2003-04 911836 2004-05 2650559 2005-06 2041090 2006-07 2334341 2007-08 1994865 2008-09 1800000 24. THE ADDITION OF MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AC COUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE NARRATED IN THE SEIZED MATE RIAL WAS PARTLY DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AFTER HAVING THE FOLLO WING OBSERVATIONS :- 6.4 I HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE. ON EXAMINATION OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IT IS FOUND THA T THE SEIZED PAPER CONTAIN MAINLY THE DESCRIPTION OF PAYMENT TO VARIOUS PERSONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE. THE BANK ACCOUNTS DESCRIBED IN THE SEIZED PAPER ARE DISCLOSED ONE. IN PAGE 10 OF LPS-1/13 SOME DEPOSITS IN STATE BANK OF INDORE ARE MENTIONED WHICH ARE DONE ON THE PERIOD COVERED IN THE SUBJECT APPEALS. THE SOURCE OF FOLLOWING CASH DEPOSITS ARE NOT EXPLAINED . 2.08.02 CASH 17,400/- 05.11.02 16,739/- 14.12.02 CASH 14210/- F.Y. 2002-03 TOTAL DEPOSIT 48349/- 22.09.03 CASH 14,480/- 15.11.03 CASH 19,100/- F.Y. 2003-04 TOTAL DEPOSIT 33580/- 24.03.05 CASH 30,000/- F.Y.2004-05 TOTAL DEPOSIT 30,000/- 17 14.05.05 15,000/- 31.12.05 CASH 17,500/- 06.02.2006 7,000/- F.Y.2005-06 TOTAL DEPOSITS 39,500/- 19.06.06 8,610/- 08.07.2006 7,200/- 05.08.2006 6,820/- F.Y.2006-07 TOTAL DEPOSIT 22630/- 6.5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y . 2002-03 TO 2007-08. IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER EXPENSES IT IS FOU ND THAT ON PAGE 16 TO 19 OF LPS-1/13, THE APPELLANT HAS TOTALED UP PAYMENTS MADE FROM SBIJ AND IDBI AT RS.4061818/- THE BALANCE AMOU NT OF RS. 1800000/- ARE LOAN FROM IDBI AND, HUDCO. THE DVO HA S VALUED THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.5236000/-AS PE R DVOS REPORT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS NO ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED RECORD IS JUSTIFIED EXCEPT FOR THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT DESCRIBED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITION FOR VARIOUS YEARS ARE REDUCED AS UNDER AND ADDITIONS OF RS.18,0 0,000 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IS DELETED. A.Y. AMOUNT OF ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AMOUNT OF ADDITION CONFIRMED 2003-04 911836 48349 2004-05 2650559 33580 2005-06 2041090 30000 2006-07 2334341 39500 2007-08 1994865 22630 2008-09 1800000 NIL 25. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 18 26. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FI ND THAT A SEIZED DOCUMENTS REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INDICATED PAYMENTS MADE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AT MISROD, HOSHANGABAD. HOWEVER, SEPARATE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THIS HOUSE HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ALSO INDICATED VARIOUS DEPOSITS OF CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. AT PAGE 10 OF LPS 1/13 SOME DEPOSI TS IN STATE BANK OF INDORE WERE MENTIONED. AFTER HAVING HIS OB SERVATION AT PAGE 6.4 THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN RESPE CT OF CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A .YS. 2002-03 TO 2007-08. BY REFERRING TO PAGES 16 TO 19 OF LPS 1/13, THE CIT(A) STATED THAT PAYMENT MADE FROM STATE BANK OF INDORE AND IDBI IS NARRATED. WE FIND THAT LPS 1/11CONTAINS WR ITTEN PAGES FROM 1 TO 8 WHEREIN DATEWISE ENTRIES OF DEPOSITS AN D EXPENDITURE WERE MAINTAINED FROM THE A.YS. 2001-02 TO 2005-06. THE AO HAS GIVEN DATEWISE DEPOSIT OF AMOUNT IN THE BANK AS WEL L AS HOUSING BOARD AND ALSO GAVE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE NOTED AT PAGES 1 AND 2 IN THE A.Y. 2001-02 TO PAGES 2 AND 3 IN THE A.Y. 2002-03, PAGES 3 AND 4 IN THE A.Y. 2003-4, , PAGES 5, 6 AND 7 FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 AND PAGES 7 AND 8 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06. THE TOTAL OF SUCH DEPOSITS WORKS OUT TO BE RS. 14,65,083/-. AFT ER ANALYSING 19 THE SAME, THE AO MADE ADDITION IN THE RESPECTIVE YE ARS. SIMILARLY, LPS 1/12 CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 5 INDICAT ED ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO CERTAIN PARTIES. THE TO TAL OF SUCH PAYMENTS AS NARRATED BY THE AO AT PAGE 17 WORKS OUT TO BE RS. 12,91,812/-. SIMILARLY, LPS 1/13 CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 19 INDICATED TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS. 58,61,818/-. THE AO HAS GIVEN BREAK UP OF SUCH PAYMENTS DATEWISE. HOWEVER, THE C IT(A) HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE RECEIPT AND PAYMENT EN TRIES AS NOTED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THUS, WITHOUT CONTRO VERTING THE FINDINGS OF THE AO WITH RESPECT TO EACH AND EVERY P AYMENT, THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED PART OF THE ADDITION. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, CIT DR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS PAYME NTS HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS FOUND RECORDED IN LPS 1/11 TO 1/13, SOURCE OF WHICH COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FOUND THAT BEFORE DELETING THE ADDITIONS, CIT(A) HA S ALSO NOT RECORDED HIS FINDING BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. WE ALSO FIND THAT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK A CCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WA S REJECTED BY HIM AND PART OF THE ADDITIONS WAS CONFIRMED. THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GI VEN BY THE CIT(A) BEFORE SUSTAINING PART ADDITION IN RESPECT O F ENTRIES FOUND 20 IN LPS 1/11 TO LPS 1/13. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS REJECTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY STATING THAT THESE WERE NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE TO SUBSTANTIATE VARIOUS AMOUN TS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK, IN ALL FAIRNESS THESE DOCUMENTS REQUIR E EXAMINATION BEFORE REACHING TO THE FINAL CONCLUSION. IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE RESTORE THIS GROUND OF ADDITIONS MOSTLY DELETED BY THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE NARRATED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECID ING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. WHILE DECIDING AFRESH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD KEEP INTO ACCOUNT THE RESPECTIVE PAYMENTS MADE FOR HOUSE AT HOSHANGABAD FOR WHICH SEPARATE ADDITION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT FULL OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH. 27. IN THE RESULT, GROUND TAKEN BOTH BY THE ASSESSE E AND REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 28. THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LIP PREMIUM WAS DEL ETED BY THE CIT(A) AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIO NS :- 7-4 IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE EXAMINED. ON 21 EXAMINATION OF RECORDS IT IS FOUND THAT THE MATERIA L SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. A.O. CLEARLY SHOW THAT TH E LIP PREMIUM IS PAID FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS DEPOSITING HIS SALARY. THE BANK ACCOUNTS THROUGH WHICH THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE ARE DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE TH AT IN THE RETURNS FILED U/S 139(1) WELL BEFORE THE SEA RCH THESE LIP PAYMENTS WERE SHOWN AND REBATE U/S 88 / DEDUCTION U/S 80C WAS DULY CLAIMED. THESE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT ALL PAYMENTS OF LIP PREMIUMS ARE ACCOUNTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE FOLLOWING ADDITION ARE INVALID HENCE THE SAME ARE DELETED . S.NO. A.Y. POLICY NO.351511615 POLICY NO.352678799 TOTAL (RS.) 1 2003-04 22246 - 22246 2 2004-05 22246 - 22246 3 2005-06 22246 - 22246 4 2006-07 22246 - 22246 5 2007-08 22246 50000 72246 6 2008-09 22246 50000 72246 29. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 30. FROM RECORD WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING HAS BE EN RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) AT PARA 7.4 TO INDICATE THAT LIP PREM IUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 139(1) AND FOR WHICH DEDUCTION HAS ALREADY BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 88/80C MUCH BEFORE THE SEARCH. THUS, T HE LIP PREMIUM PAID WAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR DELET ING THE ADDITION 22 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LIP PREMIUM AFTER RECORDING DETA ILED FINDING AT PARA 7.4. 31. THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF FDRS WAS ALSO DELETE D BY THE CIT(A) AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 8.4 I HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE. ON EXAMINATION IT I S FOUND THAT ALL FDRS SUBJECT OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N WERE RENEWAL OF FDRS TAKEN IN THE PERIOD PRIOR TO T HE YEARS IN APPEAL. THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED DETAIL S OF OLDER FDRS AND THEIR RENEWALS BEFORE THE A.O. TH E APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED A LETTER FROM THE BANK CERTIFYING THAT THE FDRS SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ADDI TIONS WERE RENEWAL. THE A.O. IGNORED THESE EVIDENCES AND WRONGLY HELD THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE F DRS WERE NOT EXPLAINED. IT IS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE INVESTMENT IN FDRS WERE NOT MADE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. IN APPEAL. IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT FOLLOWING ADDITIONS ARE I NVALID HENCE THE SAME ARE DELETED. A.Y. AMOUNT 2003-04 239438 2004-05 253212 2005-06 265994 2006-07 279040 32. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FINDING RECORDED BY CIT(A ) THESE THESE FDRS WERE RENEWAL OF OLD FDRS WHICH WERE PREP ARED PRIOR TO THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE DETAILS OF O LD FDRS AND THEIR RENEWALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO ALONG WITH BANK CERTIFICATE. SINCE THE FDRS SO FOUND WERE RENEWAL O F OLD FDRS, IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN PARA 8.4, WE DO NOT FIND ANY 23 INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER FOR DELETING THE ADDITION MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF THESE FDRS. IT(SS) A NO. 360/IND/2012 : A.Y. 2009-10 33. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 16.5.2012 FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. 34. IN GROUND NO. 1 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED DEL ETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 18,350/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND D URING COURSE OF SEARCH IS CHALLENGED. THE A.O. MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION AFTER GIVING FINDING THAT SOURCE OF CASH FOUND IS N OT EXPLAINED. IN VIEW OF THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR IN APPEAL AND EARLIER YEARS THE SOURCE OF CASH FOUND I S HELD TO BE EXPLAINED HENCE ADDITION OF RS. 18,350/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND IS DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY I NFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 18 ,350/- 35. IN GROUND NO. 2 DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 6, 95,951/- ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING COURSE OF SEARCH IS CHALLENGED. THE A.O. HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN SATI SFACTORY EVIDENCE OF SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF JEWELLERY HENC E HE MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 24 36. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDIT ION AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 4.2. I HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE. THE FACTS OF THE CASE SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT IS RESIDING IN A JOIN T FAMILY INCLUDING HIS WIFE, TWO SONS, TWO DAUGHTERS IN LAW AND ONE GRAND DAUGHTER, HE HAS RETIRED IN THE RANK OF CHIEF SECRETARY TO STATE GOVT. AS PER A.O. TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND WAS 1612.01 GRAM. AS PER THE APPELLANT THE TOTAL JEWELLERY WAS 1353.02 GRAM. IN ANY CASE THE JEWELLERY FOUND IS LESS THAN THE QUANTUM ALLOWABLE AS PER CIRCULAR NO. 1961 ISSUED BY CBDT WHICH WORKS OUT TO 2050 GRAM FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY. IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR AND THE ECONOMIC STATUS OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY IT IS HELD THAT THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND IS EXPLAINED HENCE ADDITION OF RS. 6,95951/- IS DELETED. 37. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FI ND THAT JEWELLERY FOUND WAS LESS THAN THE QUANTUM ALLOWABLE AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 1961 WHICH WORKS OUT TO BE 2050 G MS FOR WHOLE FAMILY. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIR MITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE SAME AFTER RECORDI NG DETAILED FINDING AT PARA 4.2 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER. 38. IN GROUND NO. 3 THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED FOR DE LETION OF RS.6,75,050/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS. THE F ACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HOUSEHOLD GOODS TOTALLY VALUED AT RS. 6,75,050/- WAS FOUND. T HE A.O. HELD 25 THAT THE INVESTMENT IN HOUSEHOLD GOODS IS NOT EXPLA INED SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR PURCHASE OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND HAS ALSO NOT SUBMITTED C ONFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM THAT SOME GOODS WERE RECEIVED A S GIFT. 39. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITI ON AFTER HAVING MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 5.3 I HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE. THE COMBINED TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBER DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 TO 2008-09 IS RS. 1,76,69,401/- AS PER THEIR RETURN OF INCOME. THE COMBINED WITHDRAWAL DURING THE PERIOD IS RS. 47,86,566/-. THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN ANY HOUSEHOLD IS ACQUIRED IN A LONG PERIOD. PEOPLE NORMALLY DO NOT MAINTAIN BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF PURCHASE FOR HOUSEHOLD GOODS HENCE THE SOURCE OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED DUE TO THE REASON THAT BILLS AND VOUCHERS ARE NOT PRESENTED. IN VIEW OF THE COMBINED WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY IT IS REASONABLE TO HO LD THAT THE SOURCE OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS ARE EXPLAINED. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITION OR RS. 675050/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IS DELETED. 40. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FI ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE HOUSEHOLD ITEMS IN VARIOU S YEARS. BY OBSERVING THAT DURING F.Y. 2002-03 TO 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN AT INCOME OF RS. 1,76,69,401/-, TH E CIT(A) DELETED 26 THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,75,050/-. THE FINDING RECORD ED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 5.3 HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE BY BRINGING ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR DE LETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,75,050/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD ARTICLES. 41. IN GROUND NO. 4 THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED FOR DE LETION OF RS.72,246/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LIP PREMIUM. THE FACTS O F THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE PAYMENT OF LI FE INSURANCE PREMIUM (LIP) OF RS. 22,246/- FOR POLICY NO 3515116 15 AND OF RS. 50,000/- FOR POLICY NO. 352678799 ISSUED BY LIC. TH E A.O. TREATED THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT AS UNEXPLAINED ASSIGN ING THE REASON THAT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO EXPLAIN THE SO URCE WERE NOT PRODUCED. 42. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDIT ION AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER IN PARA 7.3 OF HIS APPELLATE ORD ER :- 7.3 IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE EXAMINE BY ME. IT IS FOUND THAT THE BANK STATEMENT AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS PAYMENT OF LIP. THE PAYMENTS OF LIP ARE DULY DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE IS DISCLOSED TO THE APPELLANT. IN 27 VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE ADDITION OF R S. 72,246/- IS INVALID HENCE THE SAME IS DELETED. 43. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FI ND THAT ALL THE LIP PREMIUMS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PROPERLY INDICATED IN HIS BANK STATEMENT AND ALSO SAME WERE CLAIMED IN TH E REGULAR RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NO T FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE A DDITION AFTER RECORDING THE FINDING IN PARA 7.3. 44. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AND THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED IN PART IN TERMS INDICATED HERE INABOVE. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.6 .2013. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3.6.2013 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE DN/-3031 28