Rakesh Bansal, Barnala V. ACIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

ITA 110/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9488 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHAN KUMAR
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Condonation of delay; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 80C; 201; 69A; 207; 69; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH B, CHANDIGARH .., ! '# #$ %, & '( BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, J M ITA NO. 110/CHD/ 2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SHRI RAKESH BANSAL S/O SHRI BANARSI DASS BANSAL C/O BARNALA FILLING STATION DHANUALA ROAD, BARNALA THE ASSTT. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, CHANDIGARH PAN NO: ABMPB5910H APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE #!' REVENUE BY : SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR, CITDR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 28/08/2019 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/09/2019 ')/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 13/02/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-2, GURGAON. 2. THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY 258 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONA TION OF DELAY STATING THEREIN AS UNDER: I). THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) WERE RECEIVED ON 2 3.03.2018. II). THE APPEALS WERE DUE TO BE FILED ON OR BEFO RE 22.05.2018. III). THE APPEALS WERE FILED AS PER ABOVE NOTICE ON 04.02.2019. 2. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE, THE AP PEALS WERE PREPARED ON 10 TH OF APRIL 2018 AND EVEN THE FEE FOR FILING THE APPEA LS WERE DEPOSITED ON 16.04.2018, BUT THE APPEALS WERE INADVERTENTLY FILE D IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT, PR ON 2 17.04.2018 AS PER NECESSARY EVIDENCE BEING ENCLOSED HEREWITH IN THE FORM OF RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT THE APPEALS WERE F ILED ON 17.04.2018 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(DR) ITAT. 3. HOWEVER, WHEN NO NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E FROM THE REGISTRY AND THE ABOVE SAID MISTAKE WAS NOTICED BY THE UNDER SIGNED, WE IMMEDIATELY PREPARED ANOTHER SET AND FILED THE REQUISITE APPEAL S ON 04.02.2019 IN THE OFFICE OF ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH. 4. THEN, WE MOVED AN APPLICATION TO THE CIT(DR), IT AT, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH VIDE APPLICATION, DATED 15.02.2019 AND, THEREAFTER, THE SAID ORIGINAL APPEALS AS FILED BEFORE THE CIT (DR) WERE RETURNED BACK TO US AS PER NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD BEING ENCLOSED HEREWITH. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE APPEALS WERE PREPARED IN TIME AND EVEN THE PRESCRIB ED FEES WERE ALSO DEPOSITED IN TIME, BUT THE SAID APPEALS WERE FILED ON 17.04.2018 INADVERTANTLY IN THE OFFICE OF CIT (DR), ITAT, CHANDIGARH, DUE TO MIS TAKE ON THE PART OF THE STAFF OF THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL AND WHICH HAS NOW BEEN CONFI RMED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CIT (DR) AND, AS SUCH, THE DELAY OF 258 IS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE BONAFIDE MISTAKE IN FILING THE APPEALS IN THE OFFICE OF CIT( DR), IS HIGHLY REGRETTED AND THE SAME, MAY, PLEASE, BE CONDONED AND OBLIGE. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTS OF THE AFORESAID APPLICATION AND FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED THE REQUISITE FEE OF RS. 10,000/ - ON 16/04/2018 AND THEREAFTER THE APPEAL MEMO WAS FURNISHED BY MISTAKE IN THE OFF ICE OF CIT ITAT, 1 & 2, CHANDIGARH. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION PHOT OCOPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF CIT ITAT 1 & 2,CHANDIGARH A ND COPY OF CHALLAN FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT IN THE STATE BANK OF INDIA WERE FURNISHED WHICH ARE PLACED ON THE RECORD. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT DUE TO BONAFID E MISTAKE THE APPEALS WERE FURNISHED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT DRS INSTEA D OF OFFICE OF ARS ITAT AND WHEN NO NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TH E REGISTRY OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR FIXATION OF THE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN A PPLICATION DT. 15/03/2019 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT DR, ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH AND THE APPEAL MEMO FILED IN THE SAID OFFICE WAS RETURNED BACK, CO PY OF THE LETTER DT. 13/02/2019 WRITTEN TO THE CIT (DR), ITAT, 1 &2 CHA NDIGARH WAS FURNISHED WHICH IS 3 PLACED ON RECORD. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A BONAFIDE MISTAKE IN NOT FURNISHING THE APPEAL IN THE OFFICE OF THE ARS ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCHES CHANDIGARH WHICH WRONGLY WAS FURNISHED IN T HE OFFICE OF THE CIT DR, ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCHES CHANDIGARH. 4. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSION ALTHOUGH THE LD. CIT(DR) OPPOSED THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, TT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID THE TRIBUNAL FEE OF RS. 10,000/- VIDE CHALLAN NO. 00598 ON 16/04/2018 IN THE SBI, HOWEVER, BY MISTAKE FURNISHE D THE APPEAL MEMO IN THE OFFICE OF CIT(DR) ITAT, 1 & 2,CHANDIGARH ON 17/04/2 018 VIDE RECEIPT NO. 58 ISSUED BY THE SAID OFFICE. ON REALIZING THE MISTAKE, THE A SSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION DT. 13/02/2019 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT (DR) ITAT, 1& 2, CHANDIGARH WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN THE SAID OFFICE ON 15/02/2019, THEREAFT ER, THE RELEVANT RECORD WAS RETURNED WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19/0 2/2019. ALL THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE WHICH ARE P LACED ON RECORD. WE THEREFORE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS A REASONAB LE CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEAL BELATED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS A PLAUSIBLE EXP LANATION. WE THEREFORE BY CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, CONDONE THE DELAY AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 6. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L. 1A) THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-2, GURGAON HAS ERRED IN CON FIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY AMOUNTING TO RS.59,59,890/- U/S 69A OF THE ACT AS PER GROUND NO. 2, PARA 5 OF HER ORDER. B) THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-2, GURGAON HAS FAILED TO APP RECIATE THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF POST SEA RCH ENQUIRIES THAT THE JEWELLERY WAS, IN FACT, ACQUIRED AFTER THE SEARCH A ND REDEMPTION OF GOLD BOND, WHICH WAS DISTRIBUTED BY HIS FATHER AMONG THE VARIO US FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE 4 SAME EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN REJECT ED ON FLIMSY GROUNDS. C) THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-2, HAS IGNORED THAT THE SAME JEWELLERY HAD BEEN DECLARED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS AND MERELY THAT SUCH RETURNS OF WEALTH WERE FILED AFTER THE SEARCH, BUT NEVERTHELESS, THE SOURC E OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH JEWELLERY HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED AT ALL AND HAS EVEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE SCRUTINY WEALTH ASSESSMENTS AS PER ORDER PASSED U/S 16(3) HAS BEEN IGNORED SUMMARILY. 2A) THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-2, GURGAON HAS ALSO ERRED I N CONFIRMING ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.5,29,320/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132 BY RESORTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A AS PER GROUND NO.3, PARA 5 OF HER ORDER. B) THAT THE CIT (A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE ASSESSE E'S PRELIMINARY STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SEARCH AND ALSO HAS NOT GIVEN THE B ENEFIT OF CASH BELONGING TO 'CITY FILLING STATION' AND CASH OF M/S SARVESH SPIN NERS PVT. LTD., WHICH IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. C) THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ITS OFFICE IN THE PREMISE S OWNED BY HIM, WHICH HAS GIVEN ON LEASE TO 'M/S CITY FILLING STATION' AND TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT IN LIEU OF THE MAINTENANCE OF THE OFFICE AT THE SAME PREMISES, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO LOOKING AFTER THE BU SINESS OF 'M/S CITY FILLING STATION' AND EVEN SOME OF THE NOTICES OF THE DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN SERVED AT THE ADDRESS OF THE 'CITY FILLING STATION' AND, AS SUCH, THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A)-2, IN NOT GIVING THE BENEFIT OF SUCH CASH OF 'CITY FILLING ST ATION' WITH THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DOUBTED AT ALL. 3. THAT THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS FILED DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 7. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO. 1( A) TO (C) RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS. 59,59,890/- MADE BY T HE A.O. UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S ACT) ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY. 8. FACTS OF THE CASE RELATING TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIE F ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL / BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 07/11/2013. TH E ASSESSEE THEREAFTER FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 28/11/2014 DECLARING AN INC OME OF RS. 11,92,740/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O . NOTICED THAT AT THE TIME 5 OF SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 07/11/2013, JEWELLERY WITH G ROSS WEIGHT 669.650 GMS VALUED AT RS. 15,92,977/- WAS FOUND FROM THE RESIDE NTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE LOCKER BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE JEWELLE RY INCLUDING GOLD BARS WITH GROSS WEIGHT OF 3349.800 GMS VALUED AT RS. 94,90,15 2/- WAS FOUND. HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF JEWELLERY. IN RES PONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF GOLD BARS FOUND IN THE LOCKER WA S THE REDEMPTION OF GOLD BOND SCHEME. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE SERIAL NUMB ERS OF THE GOLD BARS MENTIONED IN THE REDEMPTION CERTIFICATE WERE DIFFER ENT FROM ONE MENTIONED IN THE GOLD BOND PHYSICALLY FOUND FROM THE LOCKER AND AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OFFER ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION, THE JEWELLERY FROM THE LOCKER VALUING RS. 94,90,152/- WAS SEIZED. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE SOURCE AND YEAR OF PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: REGARDING YOUR HONOURS QUERY RELATING TO THE SOUR CE OF GOLD/GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND FROM THE LOCKER NO. AA00006 WITH PUNJAB NATIO NAL BANK, BARNALA VALUING RS. 94,90,152/- WEIGHING 3349.800 GRAMS, IN REPLY I T IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS FAMILY MEMBERS NAMELY SM T. KAVITA BANSAL, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE, HIS HUF STYLED AS RAKESH BANSAL (HUF) AND SH. MOHIT BANSAJ, SON OF THE ASSESSEE HAD GOLD BONDS UNDER THE GOLD BONDS 1998 A ND SBI GOLD BOND DEPOSIT SCHEME AND HIS WIFE DECLARED JEWELLERY WEIGHING 45 TOLAS IN HER WEALTH TAX RETURN. ALL THE GOLD / GOLD JEWELLERY COMES TO 5207 .726 GRAMS (DETAIL OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED ALONGWITH EVIDENCE), WHEREAS THE GOLD / GO LD JEWELLERY FOUND FROM HIS LOCKER WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, BARNALA IS MUCH L ESS. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS F AMILY MEMBERS HAD ALSO FILED WEALTH TAX RETURNS AS PER THEIR RESPECTIVE HOLDING OF GOLD / GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 16(3) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1956 BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS SUCH, T HE GOLD JEWELLERY / GOLD / BULLION IS OUT OF THE JEWELLERY OWNED BY THE ASSESS EE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ONLY. COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR A.Y.2011-12 ARE ENC LOSED ALONGWITH COPIES OF WEALTH TAX RETURNS FOR A.Y.2014-15 FILED BY HIM AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. SMT. KAVITA BANSAL AS PER GOLD BONDS 1998 532.000 GMS AS PER SBI GOLD BOND DEPOSIT SCHEME 996.000 GMS AS PER WEALTH TAX RETURN 450.000 GMS (45 TOLAS) 1978.000 GMS LESS GIFTED TO SHRI MOHIT BANSAL, SON F.Y. 2009-10 532.000 GMS BALANCE 1446.000 GMS (A) 6 RAKESH BANSAL (HUF) AS PER SBI GOLD BOND DEPOSIT SCHEME 900.000 GMS (B) RAKESH BANSAL (INDIVIDUAL) AS PER SBI GOLD BOND DEPOSIT SCHEME 896.000 GMS AS PER GOLD BONDS 1998 855.000 GMS AS PER WEALTH TAX RETURN 588.726 GMS 2329.726 GMS LESS GIFTED TO SHRI MOHIT BANSAL, SON F.Y. 2007-08 886.000 GMS BALANCE 1443.726 GMS (C) MOHIT BANSAL GIFT FROM FATHER, SH. RAKESH BANSAL F.Y. 2007-08 88 6.000 GMS GIFT FROM MOTHER, SMT. KAVITA BANSAL F.Y. 2009- 10 532.000 GMS TOTAL 1418.000 GMS (D) (A)+(B)+(C)+(D) = 1446+900+1443.726+1418= 5207.726 GRAMS FROM THE ABOVE EXPLANATION IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR TH AT GOLD AND GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH WAS FOUND FROM THE LOCKER AND HIS R ESIDENCE IS MUCH LESS THAN THE GOLD AND GOLD JEWELLERY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND HIS FAMILY MEMBER. THUS NO ADVERSE INFERENCE IS DRAWABLE ON THIS ACCOUNT' 8.1 HOWEVER THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE A.O. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I) NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF ITS FAMILY MEMBE RS WERE FILING THEIR WEALTH TAX RETURNS BEFORE THE SEARCH. WEALTH TAX RETURNS HAVE BEEN FILED ONLY BY RAKESH BANSAL (HUF) AND THAT TO UPTO THE A.Y.2002-03. THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS FILED THEIR WEALTH TAX RETURNS AFTER THE SE ARCH WAS CONDUCTED UPON UNEARTHING JEWELLERY / GOLD WITH GROSS WEIGHT OF 40 19.45 GMS. THE DETAILS OF FILING OF WEALTH TAX RETURN AS PER RETURNS ARE AS UNDER:- SR. NAME OF THE A.Y. GOLD DECLARED DATE OF FILING NO. PERSON IN WEALTH TAX WEALTH TAX RETURN RETURN 1. SHRI BANSAL RAKESH 2008-09 TO 2011-12 1444 GMS 11.12.2013 2012-13 & 2013-14 26.11.2013 2014-15 29.12.2014 2. SMT. BANSAL KAVITA 2008-09 & 2009-10 1978 GMS 11.12.2013 2010-11 & 2011-12 1446 GMS 11.12.2013 7 2012-13 & 2013-14 1446 GMS 26.11.2013 2014-15 1446 GMS 30.12.2014 3. SHRI MOHIT BANSAL 2008-09 & 2009-10 886 GMS 26.1 1.2013 2010-11 TO 2013-14 (EXCEPT 2009-10 & 2011-12) 1418 GMS.. 26.11.2013 2014-15 1418 GMS 30.12.2014 4. RAKESH BANSAL HUF 2008-09 TO 2011-12 900 GMS 10.12.2013 2012-13 & 2013-14 26.11.2013 2014-15 30.12.2014 THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS FOR THE FIRST TIME AFTER THE SEARCH OPERATION I.E. AFTER DETECTION OF POSSESSION OF UNRECORDED GOLD / JEWELLERY. AS IS APPARENT FROM THE DATE OF FILING T HE RETURN FOR THE A.Y.2008-09 TO 2013-14, ALL THE RETURNS WERE FILED AFTER 07.11.201 3 (THE DATE OF SEARCH). SOME OF THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS WERE FILED YEARS LATER THAN THE DUE DATE. THE ASSESSEE FILED THESE RETURNS AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT SO AS TO COVER UP THE JEWELLERY / GOLD FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. MERELY FILING OF WEALTH TAX RETU RNS DOES NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE ALONGWITH THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF JE WELLERY / GOLD. THIS REQUIRES TO BE SUPPORTED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF PURCHASE AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS. AS PER SECTION 69A OF THE IT. ACT, WHERE IN ANY F.Y . THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE OWNER OF ANY BULLION, JEWELLERY ETC. WHICH IS UNREC ORDED AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS NOT SA TISFACTORY IN THE OPINION OF THE AO REGARDING THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF ACQUISITION TH EN THE VALUE OF SUCH BULLION, JEWELLERY IS DEEMED TO BE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH F.Y. 9. THE A.O. POINTED OUT THAT THE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY AND GOLD BARS WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD N OT FURNISH ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF ACQ UISITION BUT MERELY HARPED ON THE FACT THAT WEALTH TAX RETURNS WERE FILED ALBE IT POST SEARCH. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE FI LED THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS FOR THE FIRST TIME AFTER SEARCH OPERATION MUCH BEYO ND THE DUE DATE. THE A.O. 8 SCANNED THE COPIES OF THE GOLD BONDS IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AND CERTIFICATE DATED 27/10/2004 REGARDING THE SBI GOLD DEPOSIT SCH EME REDEMPTION ON MATURITY IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE, IN THE PARAS 4.4 AND 4.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 31/12/2015, FOR THE COST OF RE PETITION THE SAME ARE NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN. THE A.O. MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDIT ION BY OBSERVING IN PARA 4.6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/12/2015 AS UND ER: 4.6 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, GOLD BARS WEI GHING 2241.9 GMS AND JEWELLERY / COIN WEIGHING 1777.55 GMS WERE FOUND. AS PER THE WEALTH TAX RETURN FILED BY SHRI RAKESH BANSAL (HUF) FOR THE A.Y.2002-03, THE HUF WA S IN POSSESSION OF GOLD WEIGHING 900 GMS, WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHANDIGARH. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS BEING ALLOWED THE CREDIT OF THE GOLD TO THE EXTENT OF 900 GMS BEING AVAILABLE WITH ITS HUF. TAKING INTO CONSI DERATION THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT REPORTED AT 371 ITR 201 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NARESH KUMAR KOHLI DATED 17.11.2014, WHEREI N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH IN WHI CH 400 GMS OF JEWELLERY HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS ISTRIDHAN RECEIVED AT THE TIME O F MARRIAGE FROM PARENTS AND ALSO HELD THAT APPELLANT CAN GET BENEFIT OF RS. 4 L ACS AS SAVINGS FROM HIS PAST INCOME AND THE BENEFIT OF SUCH SAVINGS HAS BEEN GIV EN FOR ACQUISITION OF THE JEWELLERY. THE REFERRED CASE PERTAINS TO A.Y 1987 T O 1997, TAKING THE GOLD RATE OF RS. 400 TO RS. 500 PER GM, THE SAVINGS OF RS. 4 LAC AT THAT TIME WOULD MEAN JEWELLERY WEIGHING APPROXIMATELY 800 GMS. HENCE, EF FECTIVELY THE HON'BLE COURT HAS ACCEPTED 400 GMS OF JEWELLERY AS ISTRIDHAN FOR WIFE AND 800 GMS OF JEWELLERY AS TO BE PURCHASED FROM ASSUME SAVINGS OF PAST OF H USBAND. THEREFORE, CREDIT FOR 1200 GMS IS GIVEN TO SMT. KAVITA BANSAL W/O THE ASS ES SEE AS HER STRIDHAN AND TO THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS, THE BALANCE GOLD WEIGHING 1919.45 GMS, WHICH IS VALUED AT RS.59,59,890/- (@ 3105 PER GRAM) THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY PROOF OF PURCHASE OF THE SAID GOLD AND THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED GOLD FOUND AND RS. 59,59,890/- IS TREATED AS ITS DE EMED INCOME U/S 69A OF THE IT. ACT, 1961. 10. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER: VIDE THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT IS AGITATING AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF R S. 59,59,890/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH U/S 132 ON 07.11.2013 BY RESORT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 9A OF THE ACT. THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE JEWELLERY FOUND, BOTH AT THE RESIDENCE AND L OCKER BEARING NO. AA00006 WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, BARNALA OF THE APPELLANT WEIGHING 669.650 GRAMS VALUED AT RS. 15,92,977/- AND JEWELLERY INCLUDING G OLD BARS WITH GROSS WEIGHT OF 3,349.800 GRAMS VALUED AT RS. 94,90,152/-, RESPECTI VELY. THUS, THE TOTAL JEWELLERY 9 FOUND COMES TO 4,019.450 GRAMS. THE SAME WERE DISCU SSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BODY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AT POINT NO. 4. THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAD FILED THEI R WEALTH TAX RETURNS, THOUGH AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH FOR VARIOUS YEARS I.E. FOR A.Y. 2008-09 TO 2014-15. THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE REGULARIZED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 17 OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1956 A ND THE ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED U/S 16(3) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1956 AND TH E RESPECTIVE OFFICERS FOR A. Y. 2008-09 TO 2011-12. IN ALL THE ASSESSMENTS, THE JEWELLERY / GOLD DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WAS DULY ACCEPTED. THUS, AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAD GOLD/GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 5,207.726 GRAMS AS ON 01.04.2007 RELEVANT TO FIRST YEAR OF AS SESSMENT I.E. A/Y 2008- 09. THIS FACT WAS DULY CONFIRMED BY THE WEALTH TAX ASSESSMEN TS FRAMED. THUS, THE JEWELLERY FOUND BOTH FROM RESIDENCE AND FROM LOCKER , IS OUT OF THE JEWELLERY DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS IN THEIR WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENTS AND IS HOLDING THE SAME PRIOR TO 01.04. 2007. COPIES OF WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENT ORDERS FROM AYS 2008-09 TO 2011-12 IN TH E CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE ENCLOSED FOR YOUR HONOUR'S R EADY REFERENCE ALONG WITH COPY OF WEALTH TAX RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT AN D HIS FAMILY MEMBERS FOR A.Y. 2014-15 AND 2015-16 EVIDENCING JEWELLERY OWNED. COP Y OF INCOME TAX RETURN FOR A.Y. 20015-16 AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF SH. MOHI T BANSAL IS ALSO ENCLOSED, WHERE THE FACTUM OF SALE OF JEWELLERY OWNED BY HIM IS DEPICTED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUN D FROM THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS IN ANY WAY UNEXPLAINED OR ACQUI RED DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AS DEEMED INCOME U /S 69A OF THE ACT. THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT DESERVES TO BE DELETE D. VIDE THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT IS A GITATING AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE CASH FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5,29,320/- AS UNACCO UNTED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS DEEDED INCOME U/S 69A. T HE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 24,78,045/- WAS- FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT OUT OF WHICH RS. 24,00,000/- WAS SEIZ ED BY ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH. HOW EVER, THE APPELLANT HAD DULY STATED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT THIS CASH IS OUT OF TH E CASH BALANCE OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S BARNALA FILLING STATION, COMPANY NAMELY M/S SARVESH SPINNERS PVT. LTD. IN WHICH HE IS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ALSO M/S CITY FILLING STATION AND DEHATI SEWA KENDRA IN WHICH THE APPELLANT IS SERVING AS MA NAGER. THE WORKS OFFICE OF M/S SARVESH SPINNERS PVT. LTD.IS SITUATED AT VILLAG E WAZIDKE, BARNALA-LUDHIANA ROAD AND HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT BARNALA WHERE THE HEA D OFFICE OF M/S BARNALA FILLING STATION AND WORKS OF M/S CITY FILLING STATI ON IS SITUATED I.E. AT DHANAULA ROAD, BARNALA. BEING MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY AND MANAGER OF M/S CITY FILLING STATION AND ALSO FOR THE SAFE CUSTODY, CASH BELONGS TO THESE TWO CONCERNS WERE ALSO LYING WITH THE APPELLANT AT HIS RESIDENCE . THE CASH FOUND IS DULY EXPLAINED AND IS AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF TH ESE THREE CONCERNS. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN CREDIT OF CASH AVAILABLE AS PER CASH BOOK OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S BARNALA FILLING STATION I.E. RS. 19,39,725/- AN D THE BALANCE OF RS. 5,29,320/- TREATED AS DEEMED INCOME U/S 69A OF THE ACT. THE AP PELLANT HAD SHOWN A 10 BALANCE OF RS. 2,27,282/- WHICH WAS AS PER CASH BOO K ( HEAD OFFICE ) OF M/S SARVESH SPINNERS PVT. LTD. WAS ALSO LYING WITH THE APPELLANT. AS STATED BY THE APPELLANT, THE SAME WAS BROUGHT BY HIM AT HIS RESID ENCE. OTHERWISE ALSO, EVEN A SINGLE PENNY WAS NOT FOUND FROM THE HEAD OFFICE OF T HE SAID COMPANY. DUE CREDIT OF THIS CASH BALANCE SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN. S IMILARLY, CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,51,728/- AS PER THE CASH BOOK OF M/S CITY FILLIN G STATION WAS THERE IN WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS A MANAGER. FOR THE SAFE CUSTODY OF TH E SAME, HE USED TO TAKE CASH AT HIS RESIDENCE FOR FURTHER UTILIZATION THE S AME IN THE MORNING HOURS. AN EVIDENCE TO THE FACT THAT THIS CASH WAS AVAILABLE H AD ALREADY BEEN FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. A COPY OF THE SAME IS ENCLOSED FOR READY REFERENCE ALONG WITH COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A /Y 2014-15 IN THE CASE OF SH. TARUN KUMAR GARG, PROPRIETOR M/S CITY FILLING STATI ON EVIDENCING THAT THE APPELLANT IS A MANAGER OF THAT CONCERN. THUS, THE T OTAL CASH IN ALL THE THREE CONCERNS INCLUDING CREDIT ALREADY ALLOWED BY THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER IS MUCH MORE THAN CASH FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE APPE LLANT. THUS, STANDS EXPLAINED. VIDE THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT IS AG ITATING AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80C AT RS. 1,00,000/- AND U/S 80TTA AT RS. 2,462/-. WHILE COMP UTING INCOME BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, IT APPEARS THAT THE FIGURE OF GRO SS TAXABLE INCOME HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS AGAINST NET TAXABLE INCOME AFTER ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE QUERY LETTER DATED 26.06.2015 (COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED), THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE NECESSARY EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAD DUTY REPLIED AND SUBMITTED EVIDENCE VIDE LETTER DATED 18 .09.2015, COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED ALONG WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE. REGARDING D EDUCTION U/S 80TTA, THE SAME IS ON ACCOUNT INTEREST FROM SAVING ACCOUNT, WHICH WAS DEC LARED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THE DEDUCTION MAY KINDLY BE ORDER ED TO BE ALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ABOVE, THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ADJUDICATED ACCORDINGLY. 11. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORD ER AS UNDER: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACT OF THE CASE, ASSESSING OFFICER CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. FROM THE ASSESSMENT O RDER, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE VERY COMPREHENSIVELY. THE AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE SAME HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY DECLARED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS FOR A.Y. 2008-09 TO 2014-15, WHI CH WERE FILED AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH. THIS CANNOT BE TAKEN TO EXPLAIN THE JEWELLE RY FOUND DURING SEARCH. IT IS CLEAR THAT, THE APPELLANT AS TRIED TO REGULARIZE TH E GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND DURING SEARCH BY FILING WEALTH TAX RETURNS. THE INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED, HAD THESE WEALTH TAX RETUR N BEEN FILED BEFORE THE DATE 11 OF SEARCH. HAD THE APPELLANT PRODUCED EVIDENCES REG ARDING ACQUISITION OF THE JEWELLERY IN FORM OF BILLS ETC. YEAR WISE, HIS EXPL ANATION COULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. I THEREFORE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CON CLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE OF APPELLANT AMOUNTING TO RS . 59,59,890/-THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 12. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 13. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH JEWELLERY WITH GROSS WEIGHT OF 669.650GMS WAS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND ANOTHER JEWELLERY WITH GROSS WEIGHT OF 3349.80 GM WAS FOUND FROM THE LOCKER IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESS EE. THUS TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND WAS TO THE TUNE OF 4019.45 GMS. IT WAS STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS DU LY EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID JEWELLERY BELONGED TO FOUR DIFFERENT HEADS I.E; THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF, HIS WIFE SMT. KAVITA BANSAL, HIS HUF AND HIS SON. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE COMPLETE BREAK UP WAS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO 5207.73 GMS OF GOLD (JOINTLY IN THE NAME OF FOUR PERSONS) AND THAT IT WAS DULY EXPLAINED THAT T HE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WAS HAVING GOLD BOND UNDER THE GOLD BOND SCHEME 1998, SBI GOLD BOND SCHEME AND THE REMAINING GOLD / JEWELLERY WAS DULY DECLARED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS WERE FILED AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH AND THAT THE SERIAL NUMBERS AS PER T HE MATURITY CERTIFICATE OF GOLD BOND SCHEME WERE NOT MATCHING WITH THE ACTUAL GOLD BARS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD DULY STATED DURING HIS STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF OPERATING THE LOCKER THAT THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF FILING THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS, A REFEREN CE WAS MADE TO PAGE NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS REGARDS TO THE MISMATCH OF THE SERIAL NUMBERS OF GOLD BARS, IT WAS STATED THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN GOLD BO ND/SCHEME WERE ALSO MADE 12 BY THE BROTHER AND FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE, SO AT TH E TIME OF MATURITY THE GOLD BARS MUST HAVE BEEN EXCHANGED. 13.1 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REPL Y TO THE A.O. EXPLAINED THE JEWELLERY AS PER FOLLOWING DETAILS: SI. NAME OF THE FAMILY MEMBER SOURCE OF GOLD/JEWELLERY WEIGHT IN GMS RELEVANT PG- NOS 1. KAVITA BANSAL GOLD BONDS 1998 532 PG-39-41 OF PB SBI GOLD BOND DEPOSIT SCHEME 996 PG-35-36 OF PB GOLD AS PER WEALTH TAX RETURN AY 1992-1993 450 PG-37-38 OF PB COPY OF WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER OF SMT. KAVITA BANSAL, WIFE OF THE APPELLANT FOR A/Y 2008-09 ALONG WITH COPY OF COMPUTATION AND WEALTH TAX RETURN PG-42-48 OF PB COPIES OF WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF SMT. KAVITA BANSAL, WIFE OF THE APPELLANT FOR A/Y 2009-1 0 TO 2011-12. PG-49-60 OF PB COPY OF WEALTH TAX RETURN OF SMT. KAVITA BANSAL, WIFE OF THE APPELLANT FOR A/Y 2015-16 ALONG WITH COPY OF COMPUTATION OF WEALTH. (WHEREIN 1446GMS HAS BEEN DISCLOSED AND DULY BEEN ACCEPTED AT PG-63) PG-61-64 OFPB 2. RAKESH BANSAL HUF SBI GOLD BOND DEPOSIT SCHEME 900 PG-67-68 OF PB COPY OF REPLY IN THE CASE OF THE RAKESH BANSAL HUF FOR AY 2011-12 AS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH RELEVANT PROOF OF GOLD BONDS AND WEALTH TAX RETURN FOR THE AY 2001-02 (REFERENCE OF 896.13 GMS AT PAGE-70) PG-65-72 OF PB COPY OF WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER OF RAKESH BANSAL HUF (HUF OF THE APPELLANT) FOR A/Y 2008-09 ALONG WITH COPY OF COMPUTATION AND WEALTH TAX RETURN FILED. (PG-77) PG-73-80 OFPB COPIES OF WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER OF RAKESH BANSAL HUF (HUF OF THE APPELLANT) FOR A/Y 2009-10 T O 2011-12. PG-81-92 OFPB COPY OF WEALTH TAX RETURN OF RAKESH BANSAL HUF (H UF OF THE APPELLANT) FOR A/Y 2014-15 ALONG WITH COPY O F COMPUTATION OF WEALTH, (WHEREIN 900 GMS HAS BEEN DISCLOSED AND DULY BEEN ACCEPTED-PG-94) PG-93-96 OF PB 3. RAKESH BANSAL (ASSESSEE) SBI GOLD BOND DEPOSIT SCHEME 896 PG-17OFPB GOLD BONDS 1998 855 PG-10-12 OF PB GOLD AS PER WEALTH TAX RETURN & GOLD BOND 588.726 PG-13-16OFPB COPY OF COMMON REPLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2008-09 TO 2011-12 AS FILED DURING THE COURS E OF WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALONGWITH RELEVANT PROOF OF GOLD BONDS. PG-9-17OFPB COPY OF WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE APPELLANT FOR A/Y 2008-09 ALONG WITH COPY OF COMPUTATION AND WEALTH TAX RETURN FILED, (WHEREIN 1444GMS HAS BEEN DISCLOSED AND DULY BEEN PG-18-23 OF PB 13 ACCEPTED-PG-20) COPIES OF WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF THE APPELLANT FOR A/Y 2009-10 TO 2011-12 PG-24-29 OF PB COPY OF WEALTH TAX RETURN OF THE APPELLANT FOR A/Y 2015-16 ALONG WITH COPY OF COMPUTATION OF WEALTH PG-30-33 OF PB 4. MOHIT BANSAL GOLD TRF FROM MOTHER AND FATHER AND DULY DISCLOSED IN WEALTH TAX RETURNS(REFERENCE PG-98) 1418 PG 97-102 OF PB 13.2 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. OUT OF THE TOTAL GOLD / JEWELLERY FOUND WEIGHING 4019.45 GMS, ACCEPTED 900 GMS GOLD I N THE HANDS OF SHRI RAKESH BANSAL HUF AND 1200 GMS GOLD IN THE HANDS OF SHRI KAVITA BANSAL AND THE REMAINING GOLD / JEWELLERY TO THE TUNE OF 1919.45 G MS HAD NOT BEEN ACCEPTED FOR THE REASON THAT THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS HAD BEEN FILED LATE AND SECONDLY THE SERIAL NUMBER OF GOLD BARS DID NOT MATCH WITH THE GOLD BONDS, BUT NOWHERE IT WAS STATED THAT THE GOLD AVAILABLE AS PER THE GOLD BONDS WAS NOT GENUINE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN TH E FORM OF GOLD BONDS AND THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE MATURITY OF GOLD BO NDS WERE DULY FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND EVEN OTHERWISE THE FACT REMAINED THA T THE QUANTITY AS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS LESS THAN THE QUANT ITY AS PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF GOLD BONDS AND WEALTH TAX R ETURNS, THEREFORE THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT HAVE REJECTED THE QUANTITY AVA ILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE ONLY BY HOLDING THAT THE SERIAL NUMBER OF THE GOLD BARS DID NOT MATCH AND EVEN IF THE GOLD BARS HAD BEEN EXCHANGED WITH SOMEONE TH E WEIGHT REMAINED THE SAME AND IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IGNORED. IT WAS FUR THER CONTENDED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD DULY ACCEPTED THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, THEREFORE, NO ADVERSE INFER ENCE COULD HAVE BEEN DRAWN IN THE WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENT. IT WAS STATED T HAT THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. CLEA RLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE GOLD WEIGHING 1444 GMS, 1446 GMS, 1418 GMS AND 900 GMS WAS ACQUIRED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TO 2010-11 OR EVEN PRIO R THERETO BY THE ASSESSEE, HIS WIFE, HIS SON AND HIS HUF RESPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, THE SOURCE OF THE SAME COULD 14 NOT HAVE BEEN DOUBTED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS STATED THAT THE GOLD / JEWELLERY WAS INVESTED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE GOLD BOND SCHEME, THEREFORE BENEFIT OF THE SAME WAS TO BE GIVEN FOR ALL AS HAD BEEN GIVEN IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAKESH BANSAL HUF. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF D IFFERENT BENCHES: A. SHRI RAJ KUMAR KAKRANIAVS DCIT IN ITA NO. 1397/DEL/ 2015 ORDER DT. 30/05/2018 (DELHI BENCH) B. MRS NAWAZ SINGHANIA VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 3979/MUM/20 17 ORDER DATED 22/12/2017 (MUM BENCH) C. SHALINI GUPTA VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 6103/DEL/2014 ORD ER DATED 28/06/2018 (DELHI BENCH) D. RADHA MITTAL VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 2810/DEL/2016 ORDE R DATED 09/07/2018 E. ROSHAN DI HATTI VS. CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC) 13.3 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CBDT IN THE INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 DT. 11/05/1994 VIDE PARA NO. (III) STIPULATES THAT STAT US OF THE FAMILY CANNOT BE IGNORED AT THE TIME OF GIVING BENEFIT OF JEWELLERY. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: A. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUSHILA DEVI VS. CIT IN WPC NO. 7620 OF 2011 DATED 21.10.2016 B. ITAT, DELHI TRIBUNAL , IN THE CASE OF SUNEELA SONI VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 5259/DEL/2007 DATED 16.3.2018 C. SH. VIBHU AGGARWAL VS DCIT IN ITA NO. 1540/DEL/2015 DATED 04.05.2018 (AS REPORTED IN 93 TAXMANN.COM 275 (DEL BENCH) D. RADHA MITTAL VS DCIT IN ITA NO. 2810/DEL/2016 ORDER DATED 09.07.2018 (DEL BENCH) E. ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. HAROONMOHD. UNNI IN ITA NO. 463/MUM/2012 DATED 31.1.2014 F. NAVEEN BANSAL (HUF) VS ITO 146 TTJ 207 (DEL) G. DR.SUSHIL RASTOGI VS DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION 1 28 TAXMAN 217 (ALL) 15 14. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR STRONGLY SU PPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, JEW ELLERY WEIGHING 669.650 GMS WAS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSE SSEE AND JEWELLERY WEIGHING 3349.80 GMS WAS FOUND FROM THE LOCKER BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, THUS THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND WAS 4019.45 GMS, WHILE THE A.O. HAD GIVEN BENEFIT OF 2100 GMS OUT OF THE AFORESAID JEWELLERY. THE BENEFIT GIVEN W AS FOR 900 GMS SHOWN BY THE HUF OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS AND 1 200 GMS BELONGING TO SMT KAVITA BANSAL WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF JE WELLERY PURCHASED IN PAST FROM SAVINGS AND AS ISTRIDHAN. THE A.O. MADE THE A DDITION FOR THE REMAINING JEWELLERY I.E; 1919.45 GMS FOR THE REASON THAT WEAL TH TAX RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BELATED AND THAT THE GOLD BARS FOUND DID NOT MATCH WITH THE NUMBER MENTIONED IN THE GOLD BONDS. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE A.O. ACCEPTED THE JEWELLERY SHOWN BY THE HUF OF THE ASSESSEE I.E; RAKESH BANSAL HUF BUT DID NOT ACCEPT THE JEWELLERY SHOWN I N THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS OF ANOTHER PERSONS BELONGING TO THE FAMILY OF THE ASSE SSEE. IN OUR OPINION WHEN THE FACTS WERE SIMILAR, THE CONTRARY STAND TAKEN BY THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED PARTICULARLY WHEN WEALTH TAX RETURNS EVEN FILED BEL ATED HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 16(3) OF WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT O RDERS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PAPER BOOK. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE A.O. ALS O DOUBTED THE GOLD CLAIMED TO BE AVAILABLE FROM MATURITY OF THE GOLD BONDS FOR TH E REASON THAT SERIAL NUMBER OF GOLD BARS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH DID NOT MATCH WITH THE SERIAL NUMBER MENTIONED IN THE GOLD BONDS. AS REGARD TO TH IS MISMATCH THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT GOLD BONDS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALL HIS FAMILY MEMBERS 16 INCLUDING HIS BROTHER AND FATHER WERE MATURED AND O N MATURITY THE GOLD BARS BELONGING TO DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY GOT EX CHANGED. THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REBUTTED BY BRIN GING ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND MOREOVER IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE GOLD BARS OBTAINED AFTER THE MATURITY OF THE GOLD B ONDS WERE UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ELSEWHERE, THEREFORE WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF THE GOLD DISCLOSED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS AND SBI GOLD BOND DEPOSIT SCHEME AS WELL AS GOLD BONDS 1998 THEN THERE WAS NO REASON TO MAKE IMPUGNED ADDITION PARTICULARLY WHEN TOTAL GOLD AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS SHOWN IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN AND OBTAINED ON MATURITY OF GOLD BOND SCHEME WAS WEIGHING 5208 GMS WHICH WAS MO RE THAN THE GOLD / JEWELLERY WEIGHING 4019.45 FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. WE THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 16. VIDE GROUND NO. 2(A) TO (C) THE GRIEVANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS. 5,29,320/- MADE BY TH E A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CASH UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE A CT. 17. FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION ON 07/11/2013 CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS. 24,78,045/- WAS FOUND, OUT OF WHICH CASH OF RS. 24,00,000/- WAS SEIZED. TH E ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH STATED THAT THE CASH FO UND AT HIS BUSINESS PREMISES BELONGED TO M/S CITY FILLING STATION, M/S BARNALA F ILING STATION, M/S DHIYATI FILLING STATION AND M/S SARVESH SPINNERS PVT. LTD. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODUCE TRIAL BALANCE UPTO 30/09/2013 OF M/S BARNALA FILLING STATION ONLY AND NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE CASH BELONGING TO OTHER PERSONS WAS FURNISHED THEREFORE THE CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 24,00,000/- WAS SEIZED. 17 17.1 THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE C ASH FOUND WITH ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDE R: ' REGARDING YOUR HONOUR'S QUERY RELATING TO THE SOURC E OF CASH FOUND AT RS.24,78,045/- AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ON THE RESIDEN TIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED MONTH WISE CASH BALANCES CONSIDERING CASH COLLECTION OUT OF SALES AND DEPOSIT OF CASH IN TO BANK ACCOUNTS TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH. PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS WILL REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RS. 19,48,725/- AS CASH IN HAND AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. BUT DUE TO C LERICAL MISTAKE THIS FIGURE WAS EARLIER REPORTED AT RS.20,81,525/-. IN ADDITION TO THIS, AS STATED EARLIER AND REPRESENTATION MADE BEFORE THE LD. D.I. FOR RELEASE OF CASH, THE ASSESSEE IS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S.SARVESH SPINNERS PVT. LTD. , AS PER ITS CASH BOOK OF THE SAID COMPANY, THERE WAS ALSO A CASH BALANCE OF RS.2 ,27,282/- WHICH WAS ALSO LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. FURT HER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ACTING AS MANAGER OF M/S CITY FILING STATION, THE C ASH BALANCE OF THIS CONCERN WAS ALSO LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS TO THE T UNE OF RS. 11,51,728/- AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGA RDS IS ALSO ENCLOSED. THE CASE AVAILABLE AS PER THE ABOVE ENTITIES IS MUCH MORE TH AN THE CASH FOUND FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES. AS SUCH, CASH FOUND AND SEIZE D IS AS PER THE CASH AVAILABLE IN BOOKS OF DIFFERENT CONCERNS AND THUS STANDS EXPL AINED.' 17.2 THE A.O. HOWEVER WAS NOT SATISFIED FROM THE EX PLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,29,320/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.3 THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEE N CONSIDERED AND ITS SUBMISSION REGARDING THE CASH BALANCE OF RS. 19,48,725/- AS ON 07.11.2013 AS PER ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE AND THEREFORE, R S. 19,48,725/- OUT OF THE CASH FOUND OF RS.24,78,045 OUT OF WHICH CASH OF RS. 24,0 0,000/- WAS SEIZED STANDS EXPLAINED. HOWEVER, REGARDING THE SUBMISSION THAT T HE BALANCE CASH PERTAINED TO M/S SARVESH SPINNERS PVT. LTD. AND M/S CITY FILI NG STATION, THE SAME IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO KE EP THE CASH OF M/S SARVESH SPINNERS PVT. LTD. WITH HIM. ALSO, HE WAS NOT AN EM PLOYEE OF M/S CITY FILING STATION AND HAS NOT SHOWN ANY REMUNERATION FROM THIS CONCER N IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. IF HAD ONLY GIVEN BUILDING ON RENT TO M/S CITY FILING STATION FOR WHICH RENTAL INCOME IS BEING REFLECTED BY IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. AS HE H AD NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER TO KEEP THE CASH OF M/S CITY FILING STATION OR M/S SAR VESH SPINNERS PVT. LTD., HIS REPLY ON THIS SCORE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BEING WITHOUT ANY B ASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NAMED THESE TWO CONCERNS AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT TO COVER UP T HE EXCESS CASH FOUND IN ITS RESIDENTIAL PREMISES. AS SUCH THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 5,29,320/- IS FOUND TO BE UNEXPLAINED AND TREATED AS ITS DEEMED INCOME U/S 69 A OF THE IT. ACT, 1961. 18. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 18 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELL ANT AND ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE TOTAL CASH FOUND DURING SEARCH AT APPELLANTS PREMI SES WAS RS. 24,78,045/-, OUT OF THIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN RS. 19,48,725/ - AS EXPLAINED AND GIVEN CREDIT FOR. THE BALANCE OF RS. 5,29,320/- WAS NOT ACCEPTED TO BE OUT OF THE CASH BOOKS OF M/S CITY FILING STATION OR SARVESH SPINNERS PVT. LTD. AND REMAINED UNEXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. SINCE APPELLANT WAS NEITHER AN EM PLOYEE NOR WAS DRAWING ANY REMUNERATION FROM CITY FILING STATION OR SARVESH SP INNERS PVT. LTD., THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT WAS CAST FROM THE BUSINESS , CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE THEREFORE ON FIRM GROUNDS AND AS PER THE FACTS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,29,320/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED CASH IS JUSTIFIED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 19. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 20. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH DULY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH FOUND B UT THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) DOUBTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AN EMPLOYE E IN THE TWO CONCERNS SO CASH BELONGING TO THE TWO CONCERNS COULD NOT BE FO UND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS DULY STATED THAT THE HEAD OFFICE OF M/S BARNALA FILLING STATION, CITY FILLING STATION AND M/S SARVE SH SPINNERS PVT. LTD. WAS AT DHANAULA ROAD, BARNALA. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NO. 106 TO 110 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF M/S CITY FILLIN G STATION FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15 IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFOR E THE DEPARTMENT IN THE CAPACITY OF MANAGER AND THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ALSO RECORDED THAT THE REGISTERED OFFICE ADDRESS OF M/S SARVESH SPINNERS P VT. LTD. WAS AT M/S BARNALA FILLING STATION AT DHANAULA ROAD BARNALA, THEREFORE THE CASH BELONGING TO THOSE TWO CONCERN WAS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF M/S BARN ALA FILLING STATION. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR IN M/S SARVESH SPINNERS PVT. LTD. AND THE SAID FACT WAS VERIFIABLE FROM THE RECORD OF REG ISTRAR OF COMPANIES. IT WAS 19 FURTHER STATED THAT THE BRANCH MANAGER OF PUNJAB NA TIONAL BANK, MAIN BRANCH BARNALA VERIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN AUTHORIZE D SIGNATORY IN THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF M/S CITY FILLING STATION SINCE 2012, THE REFORE IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING RESPONSIBLE POSITION IN M/S CI TY FILLING STATION AND M/S SARVESH SPINNERS PVT. LTD. AND HAD BEEN LOOKING AFT ER THE COMPLETE AFFAIRS OF THE SAID CONCERNS, THEREFORE THE CASH BELONGING TO THE SAID TWO CONCERNS WAS KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE. SO, THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO DOUBT THE SAME, AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 21. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR STRONGLY SU PPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE IT APPEARS THAT THE A.O. HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE CASH CLAIMED TO BE BELONGING T O M/S CITY FILLING STATION AND M/S SARVESH SPINNERS PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,29,320/-. HOWEVER, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE CASH BELONGING TO THE OTHER CONCERN NAMELY M/S BARNALA FILLING STATION AMOUNTIN G TO RS. 19,48,725/- WAS ACCEPTED. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE A.O. FOR NOT ACC EPTING THE CASH BELONGING TO M/S CITY FILLING STATION AND M/S SARVESH SPINNER S PVT. LTD. WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THOSE TWO CONCERNS. IN THE P RESENT CASE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE APPEARED AS A M ANAGER BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF M/S CITY FILLING STATION HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED. THE CASH IN HAND OF THE SAID CONCERN I.E; M/S CITY FILLING STATION AS ON 06/11/2013 WAS RS. 11,51,781.54 WHICH IS EVID ENT FROM PAGE NO. 127 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK I.E; THE COPY OF CASH BOOK O F THE SAID CONCERN, THEREFORE THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DOUBTING THE AVAILABI LITY OF THE CASH BELONGING TO M/S CITY FILLING STATION WITH THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS WORKING AS A MANAGER OF THE SAID CONCERN. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR OF M/S SARVESH SPINNERS PVT., LTD. SO THE CASH BELONGING TO THAT C ONCERN MAY 20 ALSO BE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKING A CONSISTENT STAND BEFORE THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) THAT HE WAS HOLDING POSITION OF DIRECTOR IN THE COMPANY NAMELY M/S SARV ESH SPINNERS PVT. LTD. AND NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT T HE SAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TRUE, THEREFORE THIS EXPLANATION O F THE ASSESSEE THAT CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,27,282/- WAS RETAINED BY HIM IN CAPACITY OF THE DIRECTOR OF M/S SARVESH SPINNERS PVT. LTD. CANNOT BE DOUBTED PA RTICULARLY WHEN THIS FACT WAS VERIFIABLE FROM THE RECORD OF REGISTRAR OF COMPANIE S. WE THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND, MADE BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DELETED. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/09/2019) SD/- SD/- #$ % .., (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAI NI) & '(/ JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 27/09/2019 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE