SMT CHETNABEN G. SHAH, V. THE DEPUTY CIT, CEN. CIRCLE -1(2),

ITA 1288/AHD/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9046 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2003
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AHD; SANJEEV KASHYAPDR ITAS NO
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARGAV KARIAAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 13; 147; 69; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM I.T.A. NO.1288/AHD/2003 - AY 1986-87 I.T.A. NO.1289/AHD/2003 - AY 1987-88 SMT. CHETNABEN J SHAH VS DCIT, CENT.CIRCLE-1(2) 20, PRATIMA SOCIETY AHMEDABAD NEAR VIJAY CHAR RASTA NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD [PAN : AINPS6753M] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.1494/AHD/2004 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986-87) SMT. CHETNA SHAH L/H D.C.I.T. CENT.CIRCLE-1(2) OF LATE SHRI J.K. SHAH VS AHMEDABAD 20, PRATIMA SOCIETY NEAR VIJAY CHAR RASTA, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD [PAN : NOT AVAILABLE] I.T.A. NO.1557/AHD/2004 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986-87) ITO, WARD-10(3) VS SMT. CHETNA SHAH L/H AHMEDABAD OF LATE SHRI JK SHAH AHMEDABAD I.T.A. NO.1287/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986-87) SHRI J.K. SHAH, HUF VS THE D.C.I.T. CENT.CIRCLE-1 (2) 20, PRATIMA SOCIETY AHMEDABAD NEAR VIJAY CHAR RASTA, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD PAN : NOT AVAILABLE I.T.A. NO.1429/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986-87) ITO, WARD-10(3) VS SHRI JK SHAH, HUF AHMEDABAD 20, PRATIMA SOCIETY NEAR VIJAY CHAR RASTA, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD PAN : NOT AVAILABLE ASSESSEES BY: SHRI BHARGAV KARIA,AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJEEV KASHYAP,DR ITAS NO.1287, 1288 & 1289/AHD/2003 & ITA 1494 & 1557/AHD/2004 & ITA NO 1429/AHD/2003. 2 O R D E R AN PAHUJA : THESE SIX APPEALS IN THE CASE OF THREE DIFFEREN T ASSESSEES AGAINST SEPARTE ORDERS DATED 24.1.2003 & 6.2.2004 O F THE LD. CIT(A)- XVI,AHMEDABAD, RAISE SIMILAR AND CONNECTED ISSUES I N THEIR VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ACCORDINGLY, THESE WERE HEARD SIMULTANEOUSL Y FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. AT THE OUTSET, GROUND NO.1 IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE LATE SHRI J.K.SHAH IN ITA NO.1494/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87 PERTAINI NG TO REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE US BY THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID GROUND IS DISMISSED. 3. ADVERTING NOW TO THE GROUND NO. 1 IN THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. CHETNABEN J SHAH IN ITA NO.1288/AHD/2003 FOR THE AY 1986-87, GROUND NO.2 IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE LATE SHRI J.K.SHAH IN I TA NO.1494/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87, GROUND NO.1 IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI J.K.SHAH,HUF IN ITA NO.1287/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87, GROUND NO. 1 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI J.K.SHAH,HUF IN ITA NO.1429/AHD/2003 FOR THE AY 1986-87 AND GROUND NO.1 IN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI J.K.SHAH IN ITA NO.1557/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87 RELATING TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN SHOP NO.17 OF ASHOKA SHOPPING CENTRE, MUMBAI, FACTS IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS THA T A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI JAGDISHCHANDRA K S HAH, ON 04-08-1993 U/S 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961[HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] AND CONSEQUENTLY A DISCLOSURE WAS MADE BY SHRI JK SHAH ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME. THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSE HAD ADV ANCED HUGE MONEY THROUGH CHEQUES AND IN CASH TO BUILDERS IN BOMBAY AND IN TURN THE ASSESSEE AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS WERE ALLOTTED FLATS/SHOPS. SINCE A NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF SMT. CHE TNA J SHAH FOR THE AY 1986- ITAS NO.1287, 1288 & 1289/AHD/2003 & ITA 1494 & 1557/AHD/2004 & ITA NO 1429/AHD/2003. 3 87. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SMT. CHETNA J SHAH DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN NOR FURNISHED DETAILS OF THEIR ORIGINAL RETURN, IF ANY. DESPITE SERVICE OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER[ AO IN SHORT] FOR REOPENING ON 24.3.1999, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNSH ANY EXPLANATION/REPLY TO TH E NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF ANNEXURE A-1 & A-4 OF THE SEI ZED MATERIAL IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE, SMT. CHETNABEN J SHAH ALONG WIT H FOLLOWING OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GROUP AND TRUSTS HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.27 LACS TO M/S PURI CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI IN CASH AND THROUGH CHEQUES ON 5.2.1986 TOWARDS SHOP NO.17 ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN ASHOKA SHOPPING COMPLE X : SHRI JAGDISHCHANDRA K SHAH, INDL SHRI JAGDISHCHANDRA K SHAH, HUF NIKHIL TRUST PANKAJ TRUST HETAL TRUST SANJAY TRUST GRAVITY TRUST CHETAK TRUST JAY TRUST NOVELTY TRUST PIONEER TRUST SAMIR & CO. OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT, SMT. CHETNA J SHAH HAD MA DE INVESTMENT OF RS.5,40,000/-. THE SEIZED MATERIAL REVEALED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIAL INCOME WHICH WAS NOT ACCOUNTED BY HER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SINCE NEITHER THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 5,40,000/ NOR INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 51,000/- RECEIVED IN CASH WAS ACCOUNTED FOR, THE AO ADDED T HESE AMOUNTS IN HER INCOME WHILE ATTRIBUTING THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT OF RS.27 LA KHS AMONGST THE THREE PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE ;SHRI JAGDISH K SHAH; AND SHRI JAGDISH K SHAH, HUF. ON THE SAME BASIS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 7,83,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN ITAS NO.1287, 1288 & 1289/AHD/2003 & ITA 1494 & 1557/AHD/2004 & ITA NO 1429/AHD/2003. 4 SHOP NO.17 WAS ADDED IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI J K SHAH AND RS. 13,77,000/- IN THE ASSESSMENT OF SHRI JK SHAH,HUF, 4. ON APPEAL, THESE ASSESSEES SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE SAID INVESTMENT OF RS.27 LAKHS IN THE SHOP NO.17 APPEARED IN THE LOOSE PAPER, IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT THIS AMOUNT REPRESENTED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT . THE NOTING AGAINST THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.27 LAKHS WAS JAGDISH AND CHETNA AND 12 PERSONS. IT WAS THEREFORE STATED THAT THERE WAS NO REASON FOR PRESU MING THAT THIS ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.27 LAKHS IS RELATED TO SHRI JAGDISH K SHAH, WIFE SMT. CHETNA J SHAH AND THE FAMILY. DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE MOU DATED 05-12-1 985 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IS 6% AND THAT OF SHRI JAGDISH K SHAH (SINCE EXPIRED) IS 4% AS ALSO OF JAGDISH K SHAH, HU F- 14%. WHILE REFERRING TO THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS : I) COPY OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 5.2.1986. THE DOCUMENT IS SIGNED BY 14 PERSONS; II) COPIES OF RECEIPTS OF STAMP DUTY PAID TO STATE GOVERNMENT DATED 26.4.1995; III) AGREEMENT OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY OF SHOP NO.1 7 BY 14 PERSONS EXECUTED ON 19.10.2001; IV) AGREEMENT OF SALE OF SHOP NO.17-A BY 14 PERSONS ON 14.12.2001; V) AFFIDAVIT OF SMT. CHETNA J SHAH DATED 11.12.2001 REGARDING THE SHARE OF HER HUSBAND VIS--VIS THE OTHER CO-OWNERS; VI) LETTER OF POSSESSION AND TRANSFER OF LETTER EXE CUTED BY CO-OWNERS IN DECEMBER, 2002. THE ASSESSEES SUBMITTED THAT PROPERTY IS OWNED BY 1 4 PERSONS WHILE THE INVESTMENT IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS IN THE NAM ES OF FOLLOWING PERSONS: I) SHRI JAGDISH K SHAH RS. 72,000 II) SMT. CHETNA J SHAH RS.1,53,000 III) SHRI JAGDISH K SHAH, HUF RS.3,83,000 ----------------- TOTAL RS.6,08,000 ITAS NO.1287, 1288 & 1289/AHD/2003 & ITA 1494 & 1557/AHD/2004 & ITA NO 1429/AHD/2003. 5 ----------------- 5. IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, THE LEAR NED CIT(A) CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS: 2.4 THE MATTER HAS BEEN GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATIO N. AS STATED ABOVE THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PAPER ISJAGDISH AND C HETNA AND 12 PERSONS-5.2.86-RS. 27,00,000/-.ALTHOUGH THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER RECOGNIZES THIS FACT BUT THE NUMBE RS MENTIONED THERE ARE 13 AND NOT 14.PRACTICALLY WHAT HAS BEEN S TATED BEFORE ME STOOD ALREADY STATED BEFORE THE AO.THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 5.2.1986 AND THE MOU DATED 5.12.1985 DULY REFER TO THE JOINT OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY AN WERE MENTIONED BY THE APPELLANT IN HER SUBMISSION BEFORE THE AO.THE CONSIDERATION REFE RRED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND THAT REFERRED TO IN THE SEIZE D PAPER TALLIES,NAMELY RS. 27LACS.THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR TH AT WHAT THE PAPER IS REFERRING TO IS GETTING REFLECTED IN THE AGREEMENT OF SALE. WHETHER SUCH INVESTMENT IS REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOK S OF ACCOUNT OR NOT AND WHETHER ANY ENTITY REFERRED TO IN THESE 14 CO-OWNERS IS A BENAMIDAR OF OTHERS NEEDED TO BE VERIFIED AND PROVE D BY THE A.O. MOST OF THE NAMES AS MENTIONED IN THE AQSSESSMENT O RDER OF THE CO-OWNERS DO NOT TALLY WITH THE NAMES IN THE M.O.U. THE SCRUTINY OF THE A.O. WAS INCOMPLETE IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESS MENT ORDER IS NOT CLEAR EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF THE INVESTMENT SHOW N BY THE APPELLANT IN HER BOOKS. ONLY IF THE A.O. HAD FOUND SOME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURES AS PER THE BOOKS AND THAT IN TH E PAPER / THE AGREEMENT TO SALE, IT COULD HAVE BEEN STATED THAT T HERE HAS BEEN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. SIMILARLY, IN SPITE OF CLE AR NOTING ON THE PAPER, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN ATTRIBUTING THE EN TIRE INVESTMENT OF RS.27 LAKHS TO THE THREE ENTITIES SEEMS WEAK, UNLES S THE A.O. HAD ALSO PROVED THE ARRANGEMENT TO BE SHAM OR THE ENTIT IES / TRUSTS ETC. TO BE BOGUS. NO SUCH ATTEMPT WAS MADE. IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THE OTHER CO-OWNERS WERE NOT THE TRUSTS FLOATED BY THE APPELLANTS FAMILY ABOUT WHOSE ROLE THERE IS A CONTROVERSY, FOR THE A. O. TO IMPLICITLY ASSUME SO. HENCE THE HARMONIOUS CORRELATION OF THE SEIZED PAPERS AND THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WOULD SHOW THAT THE PAPER RECORDED THE CORRECT AND DISCLOSED STATE OF AFFAIRS AS FAR AS THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED. 5.1 IN THE LIGHT OF HIS AFORESAID FINDINGS ,THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND IN THE CASE OF SMT. CHETNABEN J SHAH FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BE FORE HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENTS OF RS.1,08,000 IN AGGREGATE (RS.3 0,000 ON 18-02-1986; RS.58,000 ON 05-03-1986; AND RS.20,000 ON 05-04-198 6) WHEREAS THE ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE SHOP NO.17 WAS RS.1,62,000 AS PER AFFIDAVIT DATED ITAS NO.1287, 1288 & 1289/AHD/2003 & ITA 1494 & 1557/AHD/2004 & ITA NO 1429/AHD/2003. 6 11.12.2001. WHILE REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT OF LATE SHRI JAGIDSH SHAH RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE LD. CIT(A) INFERR ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN INVESTMENT OF RS.1,62,000 BUT HAD SHOWN THE SAME ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,08,000/- IN HER BOOKS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. C IT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.54,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE SHOP. 5.2 LIKEWISE, IN THE CASE OF LATE JK SHAH, THE CIT (A) FOUND THAT THE SHARE OF THE SAID ASSESSEE IN THE SHOP WAS 4% IN THE INVESTM ENT OF RS.27 LAKHS WHICH COMES TO RS.1,08,000 WHEREAS HE REFLECTED AN INVEST MENT OF RS.72,000 IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.36,000 WAS THUS HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHOP NO.17 AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITI ON TO THAT EXTENT WAS UPHELD.. 5.3 SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF SHRI J.K.SHAH,HUF T HE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 99,660/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 13,77,000, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,78,340/- HAVING BEEN EXPLAINED OUT OF SHARE OF 14 % TOTALING TO RS.3,78,000/-. 6. THESE THREE ASSESSEES ARE IN NOW APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT MENTIONED ABOVE WHILE THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAI NST REDUCING THE ADDITION. THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THESE ASSESSEES WHILE CARR YING US THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS REITERATED THEIR CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND ADDED THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVING NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION/REPLY OR DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO BEFORE CONCLUDING THE MATTER. ACCORDINGLY, HE ARGUED THAT MATTER NEEDS TO RESTORE D TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE.. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY REPLY NO R PLACED ANY DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BY THE AO. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE REFERRING TO AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 5.2.1986 AND MOU DATED 5.12.1985 FILED ITAS NO.1287, 1288 & 1289/AHD/2003 & ITA 1494 & 1557/AHD/2004 & ITA NO 1429/AHD/2003. 7 BEFORE THE AO OBSERVED THAT INSPITE OF CLEAR NOTIN G ON THE PAPER, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN ATTRIBUTING THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT OF RS .27 LAKHS TO THE THREE ENTITIES SEEMS WEAK, UNLESS THE A.O HAD ALSO PROVED THE ARRA NGEMENT TO BE SHAM OR THE ENTITIES / TRUSTS ETC. TO BE BOGUS. SINCE THE M ATTER IS MORE THAN 20 YEARS OLD WHILE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RECORDED HIS FINDINGS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE L D. DR THAT MATTER NEEDS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO, ESPECIALLY WHEN TH IS BEING A SEARCH CASE, THE ENTIRE SEIZED DOCUMENTS/BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE AVA ILABLE WITH THE AO , WHO HAD AMPLE TIME TO CONDUCT ENQUIRIES. SINCE THERE WA S NO MATERIAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NOR EVEN BEFORE US THAT INVESTMENT IN THE AF ORESAID SHOP NO.17 WAS MADE BY ONLY THE ASSESSEE, HER LATE HUSBAND AND J.K.SHA H, HUF, WE HAVE NO BASIS TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) . SIN CE THE AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT REDUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN AC COUNTED FOR BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES WHILE THE LD. AR DID NOT PLACE BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL REGARDING SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF THE REMAINING AMOUNT, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THESE ASSESSEES AND THE REVENUE. THEREFOR E , GROUND NO. 1 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. CHETNABEN J SHAH IN IT A NO.1288/AHD/2003 FOR THE AY 1986-87, GROUND NO.2 IN APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE LATE SHRI J.K.SHAH IN ITA NO.1494/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87, GROUND NO. 1 IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI J.K.SHAH,HUF IN ITA NO.1287/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87, GROUND NO. 1 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE C ASE OF SHRI J.K.SHAH,HUF IN ITA NO.1429/AHD/2003 FOR THE AY 1986-87 AND GROUND NO.1 IN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI J.K.SHAH IN ITA N O.1557/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87 ARE DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO. 2 IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. CHET NABEN J SHAH IN ITA NO.1288/AHD/2003 FOR THE AY 1986-87, GROUND NO.2 IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI J.K.SHAH,HUF IN ITA NO.1287/AHD/2004 FOR THE A Y 1986-87 AND GROUND NO.4 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE LATE SHRI J.K .SHAH IN ITA NO.1494/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87, RELATE TO ADDITION OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 51,000/- ITAS NO.1287, 1288 & 1289/AHD/2003 & ITA 1494 & 1557/AHD/2004 & ITA NO 1429/AHD/2003. 8 ,RS.51,000/- & RS. 59,534/- ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED PAPERS. ON THE BASIS OF PAGE 16 OF ANNEXURE-1, THE ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 51,00 0/- EACH IN THE CASE OF SMT. CHETNABEN J SHAH & SHRI J.K.SHAH,HUF AND RS.1,57,80 4/- IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI J.K.SHAH ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST . ON APPEA L, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BIFURCATION OF THE AMOUNT, IN THE CASE OF SMT. CHE TNA J SHAH AS FOLLOWS: CASH INTEREST 1) 8,119/- 2) 44,727/- 3) 6,361/- 4) 307/- ------------- 59,534/- ------------ ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THES E ITEMS CAN AGAIN BE CORRELATED TO VARIOUS CALCULATIONS DONE, GENERALLY MONTHWISE FOR THE MONIES ADVANCED. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 51,000/-, RS. 51,000/- AND RS. 59,534/- WAS CONFIRMED IN THE CASE OF SMT CHETNA J SHAH,J.K. SHAH,HUF AND LATE SHRI J.K.SHAH RESPECTIVELY. AS REGARDS AMOUNT OF RS.98, 370/- THROUGH CHEQUE IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI J.K.SHAH, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. . 9. THESE THREE ASSESSEES ARE IN NOW APPEAL BEFO RE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THESE ASSESSEES WHILE CARRYING US THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS REITERATED THEIR CON TENTIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AO WHILE THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE A O . 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF INTEREST RECEIVED IN CASH ON THE BASIS OF BIFURCATION SUBMITTED BY THESE ASSE SSEES ALONE IN THE LIGHT OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHILE NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US SO AS TO ENABLE ITAS NO.1287, 1288 & 1289/AHD/2003 & ITA 1494 & 1557/AHD/2004 & ITA NO 1429/AHD/2003. 9 US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER, WE ARE N OT INCLINED TO INTERFERE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 2 IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE S MT. CHETNABEN J SHAH IN ITA NO.1288/AHD/2003 FOR THE AY 1986-87, GROUND N O.2 IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI J.K.SHAH,HUF IN ITA NO.1287/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87 AND GROUND NO.4 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE LATE S HRI J.K.SHAH IN ITA NO.1494/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87 ARE DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN TH E CASE OF LATE SHRI J.K.SHAH IN ITA NO.1557/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87 PERTAINS TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.6 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED IN VESTMENT IN SHOP NO.93 IN ASHOKA SHOPPING COMPLEX, MUMBAI. THE AO FOUND TH AT SEIZED MATERIAL IN ANNEXURE A-1 & ANNEXURE A-4 REFLECTED INVESTMENT O F RS.6 LAKHS FOR SHOP NO.93 IN ASHOKA SHOPPING COMPLEX AND WAS PAID BY THE ASSE SSEE TO M/S PURI CONSTRUCTION, BOMBAY. AS IN THE CASE OF ADDITION RELATING TO SHOP NO. 17 CONSIDERED ABOVE, PAGE NO.30 OF ANNEXURE A-1 SHOWED THAT THE ABOVE SHOPS WERE PURCHASED ON 5.2.86 BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH 9 OTHERS. THE AO, FOR MORE OR LESS THE SAME REASONS, AS HAVE BEEN GIVEN M AKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN SHOP NO.17, ASHOK SHOPPING COMPLEX CONCLUDED THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.6 LAKHS WAS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT DO ES NOT REPRESENT UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAME REPRESENTS THE INVESTMENT BY HIM AND 9 OTHER PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DREW ATTENTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE WEALTH-TAX ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 93-94 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES SHARE HAD BEEN ADMITTED AT 8% ON THE BAS IS OF COPY OF MOU DATED 14.2.1986. THUS, IT WAS PLEADED THAT GOING BY THIS 8% SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, INVESTMENT AMOUNTS TO R S.48,000 ONLY WHEREAS THE RECORDED PAYMENT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PER THE WEALTH-TAX RETURN IS RS.62,400. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND MERIT IN THE C ONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE MATERIAL POSITION WITH RESPEC T TO THE SEIZED PAPER IS THE ITAS NO.1287, 1288 & 1289/AHD/2003 & ITA 1494 & 1557/AHD/2004 & ITA NO 1429/AHD/2003. 10 SAME AS FOR SHOP NO.17. THE MOU WAS FILED BEFORE T HE AO AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO PRESUME THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT OF RS.6 LAKHS WAS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NOT GONE IN TO THE ASPECTS OF CO- OWNERS OF SHOP NO.93. THE MOU CLEARLY SHOWED THAT BESIDES SHRI JK SHAHS FAMILY, HIS BROTHERS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS WERE ALSO THE CO-OWNERS. THE LEARNED CIT(A), DRAWING PARITY WITH THE MATERIAL PO SITION AND LOGIC APPLIED IN CASE OF SHOP NO.17, HELD THAT THE RECORDED VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT / PAYMENTS ARE MORE THAN THE SHARE AS PER THE MOU AND THEREFORE, N O UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. 13. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD . DR WHILE CARRYING US THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS OBSERVED BY US IN PARA 7 ABOVE IN RELATION TO IN VESTMENT IN SHOP NO. 17,SINCE THERE WAS NO MATERIAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NOR EVE N BEFORE US THAT INVESTMENT IN THE AFORESAID SHOP NO.93 WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ALONE, WE HAVE NO BASIS TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHARE OF ONLY 8% IN TERMS OF THE MOU SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A O AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL BEFORE US TO DOUBT THE VERACITY OF THE SAID MOU AN D THE ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE INVESTMENT AMOUNTS TO RS.48,000 AS AGAINST PAYM ENT RS.62,400/- FOUND TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE L D. CIT(A), WE HAVE NO BASIS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER. THUS, GROUN D NO.2 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI J.K.SHAH IN ITA N O.1557/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 15. GROUND NO. 3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I N THE CASE OF LATE SHRI J.K.SHAH IN ITA NO.1557/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87 PERTAINS TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 51,000/-. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF 51,000/- STYLED AS OTHER ITAS NO.1287, 1288 & 1289/AHD/2003 & ITA 1494 & 1557/AHD/2004 & ITA NO 1429/AHD/2003. 11 INCOME ESTIMATED AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID ADDITION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE OR SEIZED DOCUMENT. 16. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD . DR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED EITHER BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) OR EVEN BEFORE US IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID ADDITION, WE ARE NOT INCLINED T O INTERFERE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI J.K.SHAH IN ITA NO.1557/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87 IS DISMISSED. 17. GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE LATE SHRI J.K.SHAH IN ITA NO.1494/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87 PERTAINS TO AD DITION OF RS.2,47,000, INTRODUCED IN CASH IN SIX CONCERNS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE FAMILY. THE AO NOTICED THAT SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN PAGES 4 & 5 OF AN NEXURE A-1 REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CREATED 10 FAMILY TRUSTS /BOIS AND INV ESTMENTS WERE MADE IN THEIR NAMES. IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 1993-94 INCOME EAR NED BY THE SAID FAMILY TRUSTS HAVE BEEN TAXED SUBSTANTIVELY IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DETAILED REASONS MENTIONED THEREIN. THE ADDITION W AS REPEATED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 ALSO. FURTHER PAGE 15 OF ANNEXURE A-1 SHOWED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CREATED VARIOUS CONCERNS BY INTRODUCING CAPITAL IN CASH. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CASH INTRODUCED WAS AS UNDER: 1. DIPTI ASSOCIATES RS. 50,000 2. SAMIR & CO RS. 39,000 3. INDER CORPORATION RS. 36,000 4. ANAND CORPORATION RS. 35,000 5. PARUL ENTERPRISE RS. 37,000 6. JOLLY ENTERPRISE RS. 50,000 ----------------- ITAS NO.1287, 1288 & 1289/AHD/2003 & ITA 1494 & 1557/AHD/2004 & ITA NO 1429/AHD/2003. 12 TOTAL RS.2,47,000 ----------------- THE AO, THEREFORE, FOR THE VARIOUS REASONS MENTIONE D IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 AND 1995-96 HELD T HE ABOVE INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL IN CASH IN DIFFERENT NAMES AS THAT OF THE A SSESSEE, BY HOLDING THE ABOVE FIRMS AS BOGUS. 18. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ALL THE INVESTMENTS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AGAINST EACH OF THE CONCERN ARE DU LY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH CHEQUES. A DETAILED CHART GIVING THE CHEQUE NUMBERS AND DATES WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, TO A SPECIFIC QUERY BY THE LD. CI T(A) FOR PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE PLEA THAT THE MATTER IS VERY OLD AND THE BOO KS WERE NOT TRACEABLE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN VIEW OF SPECIFIC FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE MONEYS AMOUNTING TO RS.2,47,000 HAD BEEN INTRODUCED IN CASH, THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE SAM E SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BRING ON RECORD ANY SUCH EVIDENCE OR THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 19. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE L D. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THEIR CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) WHILE THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THE ASSESS EE DID NOT PRODUCE THE RELEVANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS EITHER BEFORE THE AO /L D. CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THEIR ASSERTION WHILE THERE IS NO MATERIAL BEFORE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER, WE HAVE NO REASON TO INTERFERE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 3 IN THE APPEAL THE ASSESSEE LATE SHRI J.K.SHAH IN ITA NO.1494/AHD/ 2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87 IS DISMISSED. ITAS NO.1287, 1288 & 1289/AHD/2003 & ITA 1494 & 1557/AHD/2004 & ITA NO 1429/AHD/2003. 13 20. GROUND NOS 1 TO 5 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E SMT. CHETNABEN J SHAH IN ITA NO.1289/AHD/2003 FOR THE AY 1987-88 PERTAI N TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,49,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTME NT BEING 20% OF RS.12.48 LAKHS IN SHOPS NOS 16, 17, 18 & 19 OF SATYAM SHOPPI NG CENTRE, BOMBAY. ON PERUSAL OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN ANNEXURES A-4 & A-1, THE AO NOTICED THAT A SUM OF RS.12,48,000/- WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER FAMILY TO M/S SARAL ENTERPRISES, BOMBAY FOR BOOKING IN SATYAM APARTMENT S. TO QUERY BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE DENIED HAVING MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN SATYAM SHOPPING CENTRE PREMISES AND REQUESTED TO DROP THE PROCEEDINGS. T HE AO ,HOWEVER, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,49,600 BY WAY OF UNEXPLAINED INVE STMENT IN THE PROPERTY SATYAM SHOPPING CENTRE , IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVID ENCE TO THE CONTRARY. 21. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE IMPU GNED PAPER DOES NOT CONTAIN THE NAME OF ANY FAMILY MEMBERS AGAINST THE AMOUNT OF RS.12.48 LAKHS NOR WAS ANY STATEMENT RECORDED. THE ASSESSEE DISOW NED ANY SUCH PROPERTY BEFORE THE AO AND FILED A CERTIFICATE FROM SATYAM C O-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE LOOSE PAPER IS NOT IN THE HANDWRITING OF SHRI JK SHAH, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, IN THE WE ALTH TAX ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 1992-93 IN THE CASE OF OF SHRI JK SHAH, THE AO A SSESSED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IN HIS HANDS .HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE WHILE IN THE WEALTH- TAX ASSESSMENT FOR AY 1987-88, THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY SUCH ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED .HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ADDITION IN THE FOLLOW ING TERMS: 5. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED CAREFULLY. THE A PPELLANT HAS FILED COPIES OF THE SEIZED PAPERS, VARIOUS STATEMEN TS RECORDED AND THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT ORDERS REFERRED TO, ALL OF W HICH HAVE BEEN PERUSED. 5.1 FIRST TO TAKE UP THE SEIZED PAPER NAMELY PG.30 & 31 OF A-4 ANNEXURE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAME APPEARS TO BE A FORM OF SUMMARY OF OVERALL INVESTMENT OF THE GROUP. THE PA PER HAS COLS.AS ITAS NO.1287, 1288 & 1289/AHD/2003 & ITA 1494 & 1557/AHD/2004 & ITA NO 1429/AHD/2003. 14 SOLD BY .. PURCHASED BY .. DATGES.. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT FOR A.Y. 87-88, THE APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE NOTING ON THIS PAGE. THE NO TING IN THAT REFERENCE WHICH APPEARED TOWARDS THE TOP OF THE PAP ER WAS WRITTEN AS JAGDISH CHETNA AND 12 PERSONS FOR RS.27,00,000 /-. THE ONLY OBJECTIONS THE APPELLANT GROUP RAISED WAS THAT THE SHARE OF THE APPELLANT, HER HUSBAND LATE SHRI JAGDISH SHAH AND J AGDISH SHAH (HUF) WAS ONLY 24%, REST BELONGING TO OTHER OUTSIDE ENTITIES AS PER A M.O.U. SIMILARLY APPELLANTS LAND AT PANCHMAHALS DECLARED IN W.T. RETURN FEATURE AT S.NO.13. IT IS AN ESTABLISH ED JUDICIAL PRINCIPLE THAT IN CASE A PART OF THE NOTINGS ON A PAPER ARE F OUND OR ADMITTED TO BE CORRECT, THE NATURAL PRESUMPTION IS ABOUT COR RECTNESS OF THE OTHER DESCRIPTION ON THAT PAPER, UNLESS REBUTTED. 5.2 THEREFORE IT IS A CASE OF PAPER WHERE THE DESCR IPTION IS VERY CLEAR AND A PART OF IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED AS CORRECT AND OWNED UP BY THE APPELLANT OR APPELLANTS FAMILY. IT IS THEREFO RE TO BE INFERRED THAT REST OF THE NOTINGS ALSO REPRESENTED THE TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS OVERALL. THE APPELLANTS LATE HUSBAND HAD ADMITTED IN THE ST ATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 29-8-93 (ST ATEMENT RECORDED AT 1`1.45 P.M.)THAT RS.13,00,000/- STOOD A DVANCED TO THE BUILDERS OF BOMBAY, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AND WHICH FINDS PLACE IN THE NOTINGS OF SEIZED PAPERS. (REFER ANSWERS TO Q.NO.7 AND 8). LATER ON IN A STATEMENT OF 4-10- 93 HE ADMITTED THAT THE PART OF THE PAPERS HAD BEEN WRITTEN BY HIM AND THE DISTINCTION OF C AS CASH AND CH FOR CHEQUE AS MARKI NGS EXISTED. THEREFORE THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT THE VERACITY AND ACCURACY OF THE NOTING. 5.3 HOWEVER, IT IS INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THE NOTI NG ON THE PAPER WAS. IT WAS SARAL ENTERPRISES SATYAM SHIVAM TOT AL EIGHT TRUSTS 29-10-86 12,48,000..16,17,18,19 BASEMENT. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO ANY TRUST OR INDIVIDUAL BUT F ROM ALL THE DISCUSSION AS ABOVE IT CAN BE AS GOOD AS TRUE THAT THE MONEY INVOLVED BELONGS TO THE FAMILY ONLY. INCOME TAX PR OCEEDINGS ARE BASED ON THE CONCEPT OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILIT Y AND NOT ON STRICT LAW OF EVIDENCE. LATE SHRI JAGDISH SHAHS S TATEMENTS ACCEPTING THE DEALING WITH VARIOUS BUILDER GROUP OF BOMBAY AND MAKING ADVANCES, SOME OUT OF THE BOOKS WOULD LEAD T O THE INFERENCE OF THIS BEING ONE OF SUCH ENTRIES OF INVE STMENT. 5.4 THE A.R. HAS RELIED ON A CERTIFICATE OF SATYAM APARTMENTS WHEREIN THE APPELLANT GROUPS OWNERSHIP OF ANY FLAT IS DENIED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE CERTIFICATE WHICH IS DATED 2-8-97 HAS BEEN ISSUED BY SATYAM OWNERS B & C WING CO-OP. PREMISES SOCIETY LT D. CLEARLY ITAS NO.1287, 1288 & 1289/AHD/2003 & ITA 1494 & 1557/AHD/2004 & ITA NO 1429/AHD/2003. 15 THE CERTIFICATE OF THE PRESENT SOCIETY OF THE FLAT OWNERS CAN HARDLY FORM A BASIS FOR ANY INFERENCE FOR OR AGAINST FOR A DEALING WITH BUILDERS IN 1986. THE CERTIFICATE REFERS TO THE PO SITION AS ON THE DATE OF ISSUE. 5.5 SIMILARLY THE TREATMENT GIVEN TO THE ISSUE IN T HE LATER YEARS FOR WEALTH TAX ASSESSMENT WOULD NOT BE CRUCIAL FOR CONSIDERING THE MATTER WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY U/S 69 OF I.T. ACT FOR THIS SPECIFIC YEAR. 5.6 THE APPELLANT GROUP HAS A LARGE NUMBER OF TRUST S. THE A.O. HAS VERY SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR THE TREATMENT TO BE GIVEN TO THIS ENTRY. THE APPELLANT HAS DECLINED TO ACCEPT THE EN TRY. AS ALREADY STATED THE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT SHOWS THAT THE NOTINGS ON THE PAPER REFLECT THE TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, I THINK THE A.O. HAS NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO TREAT THIS AS UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT AND ATTRIBUTE IT TO THE MAJOR INCOME EARNING ENTITI ES. HE HAS RESORTED TO ESTIMATE INTER-SE AMONG THE APPELLANT, LATE SHRI JAGDISH SHAH AND HIS HUF. 6. IN THE SITUATION I THINK IT WAS REASONABLE AND F AIR FOR THE A.O. TO MAKE AN ESTIMATE ON THE BASIS OF A STAND ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,49,000/- IS CONFIRMED. 22. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINS T THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(). THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E REITERATED THEIR CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 23. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PATIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. UDISPUTEDLY AND AS FOUND BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IT IS A CASE OF PAPER WHERE THE DESCRIPTION IS VERY CLEAR AND A PART OF IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED AS CORRECT AND OWNED UP BY THE ASSESSEE OR HER FAMILY. THE ASSESSEES L ATE HUSBAND HAD ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 29-8-93 THAT RS.13,00,000/- STOOD ADVANCED TO THE BUILDERS OF BO MBAY, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AND WHICH FINDS PLACE IN THE NOTINGS OF SEIZED PAPERS. LATER ON IN A STATEMENT OF 4-10-93 HE ADMITTED THAT THE PART OF THE PAPERS HAD BEEN WRITTEN BY HIM AND THE DISTINCTION OF C AS CAS H AND CH FOR CHEQUE AS MARKINGS EXISTED. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE UNDISPUTED FACTS, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT THE VERACITY AND A CCURACY OF THE NOTING. IT WAS ITAS NO.1287, 1288 & 1289/AHD/2003 & ITA 1494 & 1557/AHD/2004 & ITA NO 1429/AHD/2003. 16 FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE NOTING ON THE PAPER WAS. SARAL ENTERPRISES SAT YAM SHIVAM TOTAL EIGHT TRUSTS 29-10-86 12,48,000..16 ,17,18,19 BASEMENT. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO ANY TRUST OR INDI VIDUAL BUT FROM ALL THE DISCUSSION AS ABOVE IT CAN BE AS GOOD AS TRUE THAT THE MONEY I NVOLVED BELONGS TO THE FAMILY ONLY. CONSIDERING THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN THE SAID INVESTMENT WITH R EFERENCE TO RELEVANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION. SINCE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US CONTR OVERTING THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) , WE ARE NOT INCLINED T O TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER. THEREFORE, GROUND NOS 1 TO 5 .IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. CHETNABEN J SHAH IN ITA NO.1289/AHD/2003 FOR THE AY 1987-88 ARE DISMISSED. 24. GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. CHETNABEN J SHAH IN ITA NO.1288/AHD/2003 FOR THE AY 1986-87, GROUND N O.6 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. CHETNABEN J SHAH IN ITA NO.1289/AHD/ 2003 FOR THE AY 1987- 88 AND GROUND NO.3 IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI J.K.SHAH,HUF IN ITA NO.1287/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87 RELATING TO LE VY OF INTEREST U/S 139(8) AND 215/217 OF THE ACT , BEING CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE WHILE NO SUBMISSIONS HAVING BEEN MADE BEFORE US BY THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE SE ASSESSES ON THESE GROUNDS, ACCORDINGLY . THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED , THE LEVY OF INTEREST IN TERMS OF THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS BEING MANDATORY. 25. GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 IN THE APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI J.K.SHAH IN ITA NO.1557/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87 , GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI J.K.SHA H,HUF IN ITA NO.1429/AHD/2003 FOR THE AY 1986-87, GROUND NO. 5 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE LATE SHRI J.K.SHAH IN ITA NO.1494/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87, GROUND NO.4 IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI J.K.SH AH,HUF IN ITA NO.1287/AHD/2004 FOR THE AY 1986-87, GROUND NO.7 I N THE APPEAL OF THE ITAS NO.1287, 1288 & 1289/AHD/2003 & ITA 1494 & 1557/AHD/2004 & ITA NO 1429/AHD/2003. 17 ASSESSEE SMT. CHETNABEN J SHAH IN ITA NO.1289/AHD/ 2003 FOR THE AY 1987- 88 AND GROUND NO. 4 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. CHETNABEN J SHAH IN ITA NO.1288/AHD/2003 FOR THE AY 1986-87, BEING GE NERAL IN NATURE , DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION AND ARE THEREFORE , DISMISSED. 26. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES A ND THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.N. PAHUJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2010 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES 2. DCIT, CENT.CIRCLE-1(2),AHMEDABAD & ITO, WARD-10( 3),AHMEDABAD 3. CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. THE DR, C BENCH BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD