SMT. CHARU GUPTA, Bhopal V. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), Bhopal

ITA 130/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9051 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DES
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Salary income; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Assessment record; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 250; 131; 132

Judgement Text

CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HONBLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HONBLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS) NO.43/IND/2015 & ITA NO.130/IND/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2012-13 IT(SS) NO.47/IND/2017 & ITA NO.163/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11& 2011-12 IT(SS) NO.65/IND/2017 & ITA NO.160/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 & 2012-13 SMT. CHARU GUPTA, A-12, PADMANABH NAGAR, BHOPAL VS. DCIT ( CENTRAL ) , BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO.ABCPG1206D SMT. LAXMI GUPTA, A-12, PADMANABH NAGAR, BHOPAL VS. DCIT (CENTRAL) , BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO.ADYPG7511R SMT. ALKA GUPTA, B-253, SHAHPURA, BHOPAL VS. DCIT (CENTRAL) , BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO.ADYPG7575P CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 2 REVENUE BY SMT. ASHIMA GUPTA, CIT ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.S. DESPANDE, CA DATE OF HEARING 13 .0 8 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27 .09.2019 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM THE ABOVE CAPTIONED BUNCHES OF APPEALS FILED AT TH E INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEES PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 10-11 TO 2012- ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II & III (IN SHORT LD.CIT(A)], BHOPAL D ATED 14.11.2017 & 18.01.2017 RESPECTIVELY WHICH ARE ARISING OUT OF T HE ORDER U/S 143(3) & 153A R.W.S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 31.01.2014, 27.01.2014 & 05.03.201 4 FRAMED BY DCIT(CENTRAL), BHOPAL. 2. AS MOST OF THE ISSUES RAISED ARE COMMON AND RELA TING TO THE SAME GROUP OF CASES THESE CASES WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR SAKE OF CONVE NIENCE AND BREVITY. CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 3 3. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP APPEALS NO. IT(SS)43/IND/2 015 & ITA NO.130/IND/2015 IN THE CASE OF SMT. CHARU GUPTA WHERE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED; ITA (SS)NO 43/IND/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 1. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.2,25,000/- (OUR OF TOTAL AD DITION OF RS.14,27,000/-) CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEA L)-2 AS INVESTMENT ON PURCHASE OF LAND AT KHAJURI-KALAN BE HELD TO BE UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BE DELETED. 2. THAT IT BE HELD THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAVIN G FOUND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE AO FOR MAKING THE ADDITION FOR I NVESTMENT ON PURCHASE OF LAND AT KHAJURI-KALAN AS NOT CORRECT AN D HAVING ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AS CORRECT, HAS ERR ED IN CONFORMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,25,000/-. THE SAID ADDITION MAY T HEREFORE BE DELETED FROM THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE RELEVANT Y EAR. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAD TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUN D OF APPEAL. ITA NO.130/IND/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 1. THAT THE ADDITION FOR GOLD JEWELLERY 204.869 GMS. ( OUT OF TOTAL GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND AT 1154.869 GMS.) SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) BE HELD TO BE UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BE DELETED. 2. THAT THE ADDITION FOR SILVER ARTICLES 3.944 KGS VAL UED AT RS.1,58,760/- SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) BE HELD TO BE UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BE D ELETED. 3. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.27,000/- FOR DIAMOND JEWLLE RY SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) BE HELD TO BE UNJUSTIFIED ON TH E FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BE DELETED. CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 4 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAD TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUN D OF APPEAL. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN ARTIST (PAINTER) AND DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY, SALE OF PAINTINGS AND BANK INTEREST. HER HUSBAND DR. NIR AJ KUMAR IS A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED U/S 13 2 OF THE ACT ON 02.06.2011 AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE APPE LLANT AND HER FAMILY ALONG WITH BUSINESS PREMISES OF HER HUSBAND. SIMULTANEOUS SEARCH AND SURVEY OPERATIONS WERE ALSO CARRIED OUT ON 02.06.2011 AT VARIOUS BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHR I SUNIL BANSAL AND SHRI ANIL BANSAL WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION, REAL ESTATE, MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF SOYA OIL, MANUFACTURING OF STEEL ETC. PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE IT ACT INITIATED AGAINST THE APPELLANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2006-07 TO 2011-12. RETURNS OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NO TICE U/S 153A ON 17.9.013 WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED ON 28.01.2 014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2010-11. RETURN FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 HAS BEEN FILED BELATEDLY ON 24.09.2013. 5. INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ASSESSED AT RS.16,72,250/- AGAINST DECLARED INCOME OF RS.2,55,2 50/- AND FOR CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 INCOME ASSESSED AT RS.32,17 ,780/- AS AGAINST RETURN INCOME OF RS.3,73,300/-. AGGRIEVED A SSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A) AND PARTLY SUCCEE DED. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. SMT. CHARU GUPTA APPEAL NO. ITA (SS)NO 43/IND/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 7. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF 2,25,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUN T OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND AT KHAJURI KALAN. 8. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THIS ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IN CO- OWNERSHIP WITH SMT. LAXMI GUPTA ACQUIRED AGRICULTUR E LAND MEASURING 0.24 24 ACRE SITUATED AT KHAJURI KALAN VI DE REGISTERED DEED EXECUTED ON 25.3.2010. THE COST OF THE LAND DI SCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN JOINTLY PAID WITH SMT. LAXM I GUPTA WAS STOOD AS RS.5,50,000/- PAID AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF LAND DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND REGISTRATION FEES AN D STAMP DUTY CHARGES AT RS.2,30,000/- PAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10. IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY A DOPTED BY SUB- REGISTRAR WAS RS.26,24,000/-. LD. A.O AFTER ADDING THE STAMP DUTY OF RS.2,30,000/- COMPUTED THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAI D PROPERTY AT CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 6 RS.28,54,000/- AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE COST OF PURCHASE OF LAND ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 COMPUTED THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AT 50% AT RS.28,54,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1 4,27,000/-. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ADDITION ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPE AL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSAL OF RECORDS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,2 5,000/- AS AGAINST RS.14,20,000/- MADE BY THE LD. A.O. 9. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. 10. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APART FROM REFERRI NG TO THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ALSO SUBMITTED TH AT THE ACTUAL PURCHASE OF THE LAND HAPPENED DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 WHEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID AND POSSESSION WAS TAKEN. DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 ONLY THE FORMALITY OF GETTING THE PROPERTY REGISTERED IN THEIR NAME WAS CARRIED FOR W HICH REGISTRATION FEE OF RS.2,30,000/- WAS INCURRED. ASSESSEE HAS DU LY DISCLOSED THIS INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY PURCHASED DURING THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION FOR UNACCOUNTED I NVESTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE. CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 7 11. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHE MENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF LD. A.O. 12. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. ASSESSEES SOLE GRIEVANCE IS AGAI NST THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,25,000/- FOR UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. WE OBSERVE THAT THE IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY MEASURING 0.24 ACRE LAND SITUAT ED AT VILLAGE KHAJURI KALAN WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CO-O WNERSHIP WITH SMT. LAXMI GUPTA VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 25.3.2010. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ACTUAL PURCHASE OF THE LAND TOOK PLACE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2 007-08 WHEN THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,50,000/- WAS JOINTLY PAID TO THE SELLER AND POSSESSION WAS TAKEN. DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-1 0 THE PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED AND STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION FEES OF RS.2,30,000/- WAS INCURRED. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THA T THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF STA MP DUTY WAS AT RS.26,24,000/-. 13. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SELLER OF THE LAND SMT. REHANA PARVEEN WAS SUMMONED BY LD. A.O IN RESPONSE TO WHICH HER HUSBAND SHRI M.A. KHAN ATTEND ED BEFORE THE CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 8 LD. A.O AND STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED, HOWEVER THE A SSESSMENT IS SILENT REGARDING THIS INFORMATION. REFERENCE WAS AL SO MADE TO THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 24.7.2007 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS .5,50,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND. ALL THES E DOCUMENTS STANDS IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 14. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE A DDITION OF RS.2,25,000/- OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS; 3.2.1 THUS, AO'S CONTENTION THAT NO EVIDENCE BEEN S UBMITTED TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM THAT THE ABOVE LAND BEEN PUR CHASED IN JULY, 2007 IS NOT FOUND CORRECT AND NOT BORNE OUT FROM RECORDS SINCE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ARE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE A.O. HIMSELF . 3.3 A.O. HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SELLER HAS NOT BEE N PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION NOR ANY AFFIDAVIT OR CONFIRMATION FILED FROM THEM. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT, WHILE EXPLAINING ALL SEIZED DOC UMENTS AND GIVING OTHER REQUIRED DETAILS, HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A. O. THAT SMT REHANA PRAVEEN IS NOT PERSONALLY KNOWN TO HER. SINCE HER A DDRESS IS ALREADY AVAILABLE IN LPS-3(PG 1-32), SHE MAY BE SUMMONED FO R EXAMINATION. ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IN ONE VOLUME, AS SU BMITTED BY THE A.O. TO THIS OFFICE, NO ACTION APPEARS TO BE TAKEN BY TH E A.O. IN THIS REGARD. HOWEVER ON THE BASIS OF APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS MAD E IN APPEAL, A.O. HAS BEEN CALLED FOR HEARING DURING APPEAL PROCEEDIN GS AND ASKED TO GIVE HIS COMMENTS. IN RESPONSE, A.O. HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF HIS DISPATCH REGISTER WHEREBY SUMMONS U/S 131 HAVE BEEN ISSUED T O SMT. REHANA PRAVEEN ON 13.12.2013 AS PER SI NO.2284 ALONG WITH OTHER WITNESSES. IN RESPONSE THERETO, LETTER ALONG WITH VARIOUS ENCLOSU RES INCLUDING HER BANK CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 9 STATEMENT, DETAILING THESE TRANSACTIONS BEEN FILED BY SMT. REHANA PRAVEEN ON 17.12.2013 REQUESTING FOR EXEMPTION ON D ATE FIXED OF 19.12.2013 FOR HER PERSONAL APPEARANCE' HAVE ALSO B EEN SUBMITTED BY THE A.O. TO THIS OFFICE. AS PER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AO, THE SAID LETTER HAS BEEN PLACED IN A SEPARATE FOLDER ALONG WITH OTH ER DETAILS FOR REFERENCE FOR ANY FUTURE NECESSARY ACTION. THESE DETAILS, AS SUBMITTED BY THE A.O. IN APPEAL, HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORDS OF THIS OFFI CE ALSO AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE A.G. THUS, AO'S OBSERVATION THAT THE SELLER HAS N OT BEEN PRODUCED NOR ANY CONFIRMATION FILED IS NOT FOU ND CORRECT. ALSO A.O. HAS MADE NO FURTHER ENQUIRY NOR BROUGHT ON ANY 'ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD BEFORE REJECTING THESE SUBMISSIONS, AS MA DE BEFORE HIM, IN THIS REGARD. 3.4 NOW COMING TO LPS-3, PG NO 42 AND STATEMENT OF SHRI NEERAJ KUMAR- APPELLANT'S HUSBAND. IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE FILLING UP PROFORMAS FOR INITIAL/PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AT THE COMMENCEMENT O F SEARCH OPERATIONS, NEERAJ KUMAR HAS MENTIONED THAT HIS WIF E AND MOTHER JOINTLY OWN APPROX 10S00 SQ FT LAND AT KHAJURI KALAN, BHOPAL BOUGHT ABOUT 4 YEARS AGO FOR RS.I0 LAKHS. FURTHER LPS-3 PG 42 (BAC KSIDE), AS REPRODUCED AND RELIED ON BY THE AO, HAS BEEN FOUND AND SEIZED FROM OFFICE PREMISES OF DR. NERRAJ KUMAR. IT IS FOUND WRITTEN IN TWO DIF FERENT HAND WRITINGS AND NONE OF THEM BELONGS TO THE APPELLANT OR THE OT HER EO-OWNER. THE SAID DOCUMENT IS UNDATED AND UNSIGNED. NEITHER THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT OR ANY DETAILS OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTIO N APPEAR ON THE SAID DOCUMENT. IT MERELY MENTIONS THE AMOUNT OF RS.10 LA KHS AND BELOW REMAINING ACTIONS REQUIRED LIKE SIGNATURES, PERSONA L PRESENCE, TAKING POSSESSION ETC ARE MENTIONED. HOWEVER THESE JOTTING S APPEAR ON THE BACKSIDE OF KHATA BAHI OF THE LAND INVOLVED IN QUES TION. A.O. HAS ALSO FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS, INDEED, PAID MORE AMOUNT THAN MENTIONED. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 26,24,0001- PERTAINS TO MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID LAND IN THE YE AR 2009-10 CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 10 FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES ONLY AND IS RELEVANT FOR DE EMING PROVISIONS U/S SOC OF THE IT ACT FOR CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAINS PURP OSES. 3.5 KEEPING IN VIEW FACTS OF THE CASE AND AFTER PERUSAL OF ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD, TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PROPERTY, I NCLUDING STAMP DUTY AND OTHER REGISTRATION CHARGES OF RS.2,30,OQO/-, IS ASSESSED AT RS.12,30,000/-. THE APPELLANT'S 1/2 SHARE COMES TO RS.6,I5,000/-. THE APPELLANT HAS DECLARED HER INVESTMENT AT RS.3,90,000/-. ACCORDINGLY ADDITION OF RS.2,25,000/- IS FOUND SUSTAINABLE OUT OF RS.14,27,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ADDITION OF RS.2,25,000/- IS, HEREBY, CONFIRMED FOR A.Y.2010- 11. 15. FROM PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) , WE FIND THAT REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENT LPS- 3 PAGE NO.42 WHEREIN THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND MR. NEE RAJ KUMAR IS PLACED. IN THIS STATEMENT IT WAS STATED THAT THE P ROPERTY MEASURING 10500 SQ.FT AT KHAJURI KALAN WAS PURCHASED ABOUT 4 YEARS AGO IN THE JOINT NAME OF WIFE AND HER MOTHER FOR RS.10,00, 000/-. SO ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE PURCHASE COST AT RS.5,50,0 00/-, LD. A.O HAS ADOPTED THE PURCHASE COST AT RS.28,54,000/- AND LD. CIT(A) COMPUTED IT AT RS.12,30,000/- (RS.10,00,000/- AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND + REGISTRATION FEES PAID). P3ER USAL OF THE PAPER BOOKS SHOWS THAT APART FROM THE SALE DEED DATED 25. 03.2007 ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT O F ITS CLAIM THAT ACTUAL PURCHASE TOOK PLACE DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 20 07-08:- CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 11 1. COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 24.07.2007 BETWEEN SYED HANIF AND ASSESSEE PAGE 15-18 2. COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 02.06.2007 BETWEEN REHAN A PARVEEN AND SYED HANIF PAGE 19-22 3. COPY OF KABZA-NAMA DATED 02.06.2007 EXECUTED BY REHANA PARVEEN AND SYED HANIF PAGE 23-24 4. COPY OF MUKHTAR-NAMA DATED 02.06.2007 BETWEEN RE HANA PARVEEN PAGE 25-29 5. COPY OF VASIYAT-NAMA DATED 02.06.2007 EXECUTED B Y REHANA PARVEEN PAGE 30-31 16. THE ABOVE STATED DOCUMENTS WHICH RELATES TO FIN ANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 STANDS UNCONTROVERTED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIE S AT ANY STAGE. GENUINENESS OF THESE DOCUMENTS IS NOT DOUBTED. EVE N IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 25.03.2010 THE REFERENCE TO THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,50,000/- IS MENTIONED WHICH R ELATES TO THE DATE OF AGREEMENT 24.7.2007 WHEN THE SELLER RECEIVE D THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,50,000/- FROM THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE SET OF DOCUMENTS ARE ASCERTAINING THE FACT THAT THE TRANSA CTION OF PURCHASE TOOK PLACE DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 W HEN THE CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 12 CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,50,000/- WAS PAID BY THE ASSE SSEE WITH THE JOINT OWNER TO THE SELLER. THOUGH THE ASSESSEES H USBAND HAS GIVEN A STATEMENT OF HAVING PURCHASED THE SAID LAND OF AR OUND RS.10,00,000/- BEFORE 4 YEARS BUT AS CONTENDED BY T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THIS WAS A PRELIMINARY STATEMENT W HICH WAS RECORDED BEFORE THE START OF ACTUAL SEARCH THEREFOR E CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. EVE N OTHERWISE THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE BETTER EVIDENCE OVER THE OR AL STATEMENTS. 17. WE THEREFORE IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ALLEGED TRANSAC TION OF PURCHASE OF LAND DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 FOR CONSIDERA TION OF RS.5,50,000/- AND POSSESSION WAS TAKEN DURING FINAN CIAL YEAR 2007-08 ONLY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DECLA RED HER INVESTMENT AT THE SAID LAND AT RS.3,90,000/- (BEING 50% OF RS.7,80,000/-), WE FIND NO REASON TO SUSTAIN THE AD DITION OF RS.2,25,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,25,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) STANDS DELETED. 18. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS ALLOWED. CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 13 19. NOW WE TAKE UP ITANO.130/IND/2015 OF SMT. CHARU GUPTA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 20. FROM PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE GROUND OBSERVE THAT T HE ISSUE RELATES TO ADDITION OF GOLD JEWELLERY 204.869 GMS. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH GOLD JEWELLERY (GROSS 122.950 GRAMS) AND SILVER ARTICLE GROSS WEIGHT 3.944 KGS WAS FOUND AT THE ASSESSEES RESIDENCE. FURTHE R GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1031.919 GRAMS 1.5 CARROT LOOSE DIAMOND WA S FOUND FROM THE LOCKER. ASSESSEE LIVES WITH HER HUSBAND MR. NE ERAJ KUMAR AND TWO UNMARRIED CHILDREN MS. SHIVANGI GUPTA AND SIDDH ARTH GUPTA. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE GOLD JEWLLERY FOUND WAS MOSTLY ACQUIRED BY HER DURING HER MARRIAGE AND AT VARIOUS CEREMONIAL OCCASIONS. LD. A.O DID NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND MADE THE ADDITIONS F OR UNEXPLAINED GOLD JEWELLERY AND DIAMOND AT RS.25,01, 704/- AND ADDITION FOR SILVER ARTICLES AND DIAMOND AT RS.3,78 ,780/-, THEREBY ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS.32,17,780/- AS AGAINST R S.3,37,300/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRE D APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND GOT PART RELIEF. 21. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 14 22. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. A.O. 23. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE A DDITIONS SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A)FOR THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTME NT IN GOLD JEWELLERY OF 204.869 GMS AS AGAINST 1154.869 GMS O F GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN GROUND NO.2 ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED THAT THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED FOR UNACCOUN TED INVESTMENT IN SILVER ARTICLES WEIGHING 3.944 KGS VALUED AT RS. 1,58,760/- AND GROUND NO.3 FOR ADDITION OF RS.27,000/- FOR DIAMO ND JEWELLERY. WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS WIFE OF A DOCTOR AN D MARRIED AROUND 15 YEARS AGO. ON THE DATE OF SEARCH ASSESSE E HAS TWO UNMARRIED CHILDREN. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING T HE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.1916 DATED 11.5.1974 PARTLY DELETED THE ADDITION FOR UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN GOLD JEWELLERY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- 4.2 APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH ASSESSMENT O RDER HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED CAREFULLY. ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE A.O . HAVE ALSO BEEN PERUSED. TOTAL JEWELLERY OF RS.28,80,484/- BEEN FOUND IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE. IT CONSISTS OF GOLD JEWELLERY OF 122.950 GMS FOUND FROM HER RESIDENCE AND OF 1031.919 GMS FROM THE LOCKER BESID ES 3944 GMS OF SILVER ARTICLES AND 1.5 CARATS OF LOOSE DIAMONDS. B OTH THE APPELLANT AND HER HUSBAND HAVE ALL ALONG STATED THE SAID JEWELLER Y TO BE BELONGING TO CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 15 HERSELF AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS CONSISTING OF HER UN MARRIED CHILDREN (MS. SHIVANGI GUPTA AND SIDDHARTH GUPTA) AND HER HU SBAND. THE SOURCE OF ITS ACQUISITION IS STATED TO BE RECEIVED AT TIME OF HER MARRIAGE IN 1986 AND ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS THEREAFTER. THE SAME FACT HAS BEEN CORROBORATED BY HER HUSBAND ALSO DURING LOCKER SEAR CH OPERATIONS. A.O. HAS ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY FOUND FROM APPELLANT'S RESIDENCE AND JOINT LOCKER ASSESSING IT TO BE HER U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ON THE GROUND THAT NO ITEM WISE DETAILS NOR ANY CON FIRMATION FOR GIFT AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS BEEN GIVEN IN HER SUPPORT. HOW EVER, NO ADVERSE MATERIAL BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE A.O. BEFORE REJECTING APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS. THIS IS DESPITE THE FACT THAT EXTENSIV E SEARCH OPERATIONS AND POST SEARCH INVESTIGATIONS BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS. EVEN CBDT IN INS TRUCTION NO.1916 DTD 11.05.1994 HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT GOLD JEWE LLERY AND ORNAMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GMS PER MARRIED LADY, 250 GMS PER UNMARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS PER MALE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY NEED NOT BE SEIZED. THE FACT OF RECEIVING OF JEWELLERY AND OTHER ITEMS AT T HE TIME OF MARRIAGE, BIRTH OF CHILDREN AND OTHER NUMEROUS OCCASIONS CANNOT BE RULED OUT ALTOGETHER. 4.1.2 KEEPING IN VIEW ABOVE AND THE FACT THAT DR. N EERAJ KUMAR HAS ADMITTED AND VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.L.4 5 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF HIS SHARE IN SALE OF AYUSHMAN MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC PVT LTD OF WHICH HE IS THE DIRECTOR AND THE APPELLANT IS . DECLARING SA LARY INCOME RECEIVED THEREFROM, GIVING CREDIT FOR JEWELLERY, IN THE ABSE NCE OF WEALTH TAX RETURNS, AS PER ABOVE MENTIONED BOARD'S INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 IS FOUND REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY GOLD JEWELLER Y AND ORNAMENTS WEIGHING 950 GMS FOR APPELLANT'S FAMILY CONSISTING OF ONE MARRIED LADY, TWO MALE MEMBERS AND ONE UNMARRIED DAUGHTER ARE TRE ATED AS EXPLAINED. SINCE TOTAL GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1154 .869 GMS HAS BEEN FOUND IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT, ACCORDINGLY ADDITIO N FOR 204.869 GMS OF CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 16 GOLD JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS IS FOUND SUSTAINABLE O N THIS ACCOUNT. FURTHER, ADDITION MADE FOR 3944 GMS SILVER, VALUED AT RS. 1,58,7601- AND 1.5 CARATS OF DIAMONDS (RS.27,000/-) IS, ALSO HEREBY, CONFIRMED IN ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD DURI NG THE ENTIRE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. A.O. IS D IRECTED TO VALUE UNEXPLAINED GOLD JEWELLERY OF 204.869 GMS AS PER VA LUATION REPORT ON HIS RECORDS ALONG WITH SILVER AND DIAMONDS AT RS.1,58,7690/ AND RS.27,000/- RESPECTIVELY WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS APPEAL ORD ER. 24. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION CONFIRMED FOR GOLD JEWE LLERY 204.869 GMS IS CONCERNED WE FIND NO INCONSISTENCY IN THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) WHO HAD GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF 950 GRAMS OF GO LD (500 GMS PER MARRIED LADY, 250 GRAMS FOR UNMARKED LADY (DAUGHTER ) AND 100 GRAMS FOR MALE MEMBER (HUSBAND AND SON). WE THEREF ORE IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DISMISS G ROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 25. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 & 3 ARE CONCERNED WHEREI N ONE OF THE ADDITION FOR SILVER ARTICLES WEIGHING 3.944 KG VALU ED AT RS. 1,58,760/-, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN T HE INDIAN CUSTOMS AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE ALONG WITH GOLD JEW ELLERY SILVER UTENSILS/ARTICLES ARE ALSO GIFTED WHICH ARE GIVEN W ITH THE OBJECT FOR USE DURING THE NORMAL COURSE OF LIFE AND NOT CONSID ERED IN THE CATEGORY OF GOLD JEWELLERY OR ORNAMENTS. THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.1196 DATED 11.5.1994 ONLY REFERS TO GOLD JEWELLE RY AND CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 17 ORNAMENTS. THEREFORE MAKING THE ADDITION FOR SUCH GIFTED ARTICLES ONLY ON THE PREMISE OF THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.1916 DATED 11.5.1994 WHICH ONLY TALKS ABOUT GOLDEN JEWELLERY A ND ORNAMENTS IS UNCALLED FOR HOWEVER AUTHORITIES SHOULD NOT BEEN DE NIED THE CLAIM AS SUCH SILVER ARTICLES WERE GIFTED AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE WHICH WAS AROUND 15 YEARS BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. 26. WE THEREFORE IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND LOOKING TO THE FAMILY LIVING STANDARD ARE OF TH E CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SILVER WEIGHING 3.944 KG AND DIAMOND JEWEL LERY VALUED AT RS.27,000/- CANNOT BE TREATED AS UN EXPLAINED IN TH E GIVEN FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE PROCESS 1154.869 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLE RY. THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTED AMOUNT OF RS.1,58,760/ - FOR SILVER ARTICLES AND ADDITION OF RS.27,000/- FOR DIAMOND JE WELLERY STANDS DELETED. 27. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO.2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 28. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEALS IN THE CASE OF SMT. LAXMI GUPTA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 & 2012-13 VIDE APPEAL N O.ITA(SS) NO. 47/IND/2017 & ITA NO.163/IND/2017. FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010- 11 ASSESSEE RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL; CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 18 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND BE QU ASHED. 2. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.14,27,000/- AS ON-MONEY PAY MENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AT KHAJURI KALAN BE HELD TO BE BAD AND UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BE QUAS HED AND DELETED. 3. THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO TH E GROUNDS STATED ABOVE THE ADDITIONS MADE BE HELD TO BE HIGHLY UNREA SONABLE AND EXCESSIVE AND BE REDUCED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROU ND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE CASE. 29. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQU ESTED NOT TO PRESS GROUND NO.1, THEREFORE GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISS ED AS NOT PRESSED. 30. APROPOS GROUND NO. 2 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED IN THE CASE OF SMT. C HARU GUPTA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 FOR THE ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND AT KHAJURI KHALAN JOINTLY WITH SMT. CHARU GUPTA. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT SHE ALONG WIT H SMT. CHARU GUPTA PURCHASED THE LAND AT RS.5,50,000/- DURING T HE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 INCURRED RS.2,30,000/- FOR REGISTRATIO N CHARGES. TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.7,90,000/- WAS INVESTED AND 50% OF TH IS AMOUNT COMES TO RS. 3,90,000/- STANDS DULY DISCLOSED AS IN VESTMENT. LD. CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 19 A.O MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF VALUE ADOPTED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDI TION TO RS.14,27,000/-. 31. WE HOWEVER FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE STANDS ADJUD ICATED BY US IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNER SMT. CHARU GUPTA IN PARA 26 AB OVE WHEREIN WE AFTER CONSIDERING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PLACED B EFORE US ASCERTAINED THE FACT THAT ACTUAL TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 ONLY AND ALLOWED ASSESSEES G ROUND AND DELETED THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THERE IS NO DISPUTE AT THE END OF BOTH THE PARTIES THAT THE ISS UE RAISED AND FACTS IN THIS APPEAL ARE THE SAME AS WERE ADJUDICATED BY US IN THE CASE OF SMT. CHARU GUPTA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 VIDE I TA (SS) NO.43/IND/2015, WE APPLY THE DECISION MUTANDIS MUTANDIS ON THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORD ER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.14,27,00 0/- FOR THE ALLEGED ON MONEY PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. ACCO RDINGLY GROUND NO. 2 & 3 ARE ALLOWED. 32. GROUND NO.4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 33. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 20 33. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF SMT. LAXMI GUPTA V IDE APPEAL NO.ITA/163/IND/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 RAI SING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL; 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND BE QU ASHED. 2. THAT THE ADDITION OF 428.947 GRMS. GOLD ORNAMENTS ( GROSS WEIGHT) AND SILVER ARTICLES 470 GMS FOUND FROM LOCKER NO.1 37 AT ALLAHABAD BANK, MATA MANDIR, BHOPAL MAINTAINED AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) BE HELD TO BE BAD AND UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BE QUASHED AND DELETED.. 3. THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO TH E GROUNDS STATED ABOVE THE ADDITIONS MADE BE HELD TO BE HIGHLY UNREA SONABLE AND EXCESSIVE AND BE REDUCED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROU ND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE CASE. 34. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQU ESTED NOT TO PRESS GROUND NO.1, THEREFORE GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISS ED AS NOT PRESSED. 35. GROUND NO.3 & 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, GROUND N O.2 IS THE SOLE SUBSTANTIAL GROUND WHICH RELATES TO THE ALLEGE D ADDITION FOR VALUE OF 428.94 GRAMS GOLD ORNAMENTS AND SILVER ART ICLES WEIGHING 470 GRAMS. CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 21 36. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 448.947 GRAMS AND SILVER ARTICLE WEIGHTING 470 GRAMS WAS FOUND IN THE LOCKER JOINTLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE S MT. LAXMI GUPTA AND HER SON PANKAJ GUPTA. LD. A.O MADE THE ADDITIO N FOR RS.20,33,378/- WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE SEPARATE AMOU NT FOR GOLD JEWELLERY AND SILVER ARTICLES. WHEN THE MATTER CAM E UP BEFORE LD. CIT(A) HE GAVE THE BENEFIT OF CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.1 196 DATED 11.5.94 TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GRAM PER MARRIED LADY AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION FOR UN EXPLAINED GOLD JEWELLERY OF 428 .947 GRAMS AND 470 GRAMS OF SILVER ARTICLES. 37. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. 38. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LOCKER IS IN THE JOINT NAME OF ASSESSEE AND HER SON SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA WHO LIVES WITH HIS FAMILY OUT OF INDIA AND THE GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE LOCKER BELONGS TO ASSESSEE, HER SON, DAUGHTER-IN-LA W AND CHILDREN WHICH RECEIVED ON MARRIAGES AND AUSPICIOUS OCCASION S. REQUEST WAS MADE OF GIVING BENEFIT OF THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.1196 DATED 11.5.1994 FOR THE GOLD JEWELLERY OWNED BY SHRI PANK AJ GUPTA AND HIS WIFE SMT. SHAILIE GUPTA. CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 22 39. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHE MENTLY ARGUED AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES . 40. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THE SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE ADDITION FOR VALUE OF GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 428.9 47 GRAMS AND SILVER ARTICLES WEIGHING 470 GRAMS. AS FAR AS SILV ER ARTICLES WEIGHING 470 GRAMS WE FIND NO BASIS IN THE ORDER OF LD. A.O MAKING THE ADDITION FOR SMALL QUANTITY OF SILVER ARTICLE OF 47 0 GRAMS WHICH ARE NORMALLY FOUND IN THE LOCKER SINCE SUCH ITEMS ARE U SUALLY RECEIVED AS GIFT AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE AS PER THE INDIAN C USTOMS. 41. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION FOR 428.947 GRAMS OF GO LD ORNAMENTS WE OBSERVE THAT THE LOCKER WAS IN THE JOINT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER SON. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT SHRI PANKAJ G UPTA, SON OF THE ASSESSEE WHO LIVES OUT OF INDIA WITH HIS WIFE SMT. SHAILIE GUPTA IS JOINT OWNER OF THE LOCKER. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES HAVE NOT GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.1196 DATED 11.5. 1994 TO THE MARRIED LADY SMT. SHAILIE GUPTA WIFE OF SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA AS WELL AS SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA. THE CBDT INSTRUCTIONS PROVID ES FOR A CAP OF 500 GRAM GOLD JEWELLERY FOR MARRIED LADY AND 250 GR AMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY FOR UNMARRIED LADY AND 100 GRAM GOLD JEWE LLERY FOR MALE CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 23 MEMBER. AS PER THE CIRCULAR BENEFIT SHOULD HAVE BE EN PROVIDED FOR 600 GRAMS FOR SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA AND SMT. SHAILIE GU PTA. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE SMT. LAXMI GUPTA IS A WIDOW AND HER HUSBAND WAS ALS O A DOCTOR. ONE CANNOT IGNORE THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE MUST B E SOME JEWELLERY OF HER HUSBAND. 42. LOOKING TO THESE FACTS AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT 600 GRAMS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS, 500 GRAMS FOR SMT. SHAILIE GUPTA AN D 100 GRAMS FOR SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY T HE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO ADDITION IS C ALLED FOR 428.947 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH IS LESS THAN 600 GRA MS OF GOLD JEWELLERY FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEES SON AND DAUGHTER IN LAW WERE ELIGIBLE TO GET THE BENEFIT FROM CBDT INSTRUCTION N O.1196 DATED 11.5.1994. GROUND NO.2 STANDS ALLOWED. 43. GROUND NO. 3 & 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH N EEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 44. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 45. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEALS IN THE CASE OF SMT. ALKA GUPTA VIDE ITA (SS) 65/IND/2007 & ITA NO.160/IND/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 24 YEARS 2011-12 & 2012-13. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-1 2 FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED; 1.THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT BE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND BE QUASHED. 2.THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.98,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED C ASH DEPOSITS IN BANK BE HELD TO BE BAD AND UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE. THE ADDITION MADE BE QUASHED. 3.THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED ON-MONEY PAYMENT TO SHRI SHARDENDU MISHRA BE HELD TO BE BAD AND UNJUSTIFIED SPECIALLY WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE THE STATEMENT OF THE SAID P ERSON. THE ADDITION MADE IS REQUESTED TO BE QUASHED AND DELETED. 4.THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUNDS STATED ABOVE THE ADDITIONS MADE BE HELD TO BE HIGHLY UNREASONABLE AN D EXCESSIVE AND BE REDUCED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROU ND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE CASE. 46. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQU ESTED NOT TO PRESS GROUND NO.1, THEREFORE GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISS ED AS NOT PRESSED. 47. APROPOS GROUND NO.2 FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.98,0 00/- AS UNDISCLOSED CASH DEPOSIT. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN T HE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS.98,000/- IN HER BANK ACCOUNT HELD WITH HDFC CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 25 BANK. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS DEPOSI TED BY ASSESSEES FATHER AT SATNA, MADHYA PRADESH AND IMME DIATELY THEREAFTER ON 12.4.2010 CHEQUE WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSE ES MOTHER SMT. SUDHA JAIN. LD. A.O DID NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION AND MADE ADDITION FOR RS.98,000/- FOR UNEXPLAINED C ASH DEPOSIT. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET ANY RELIEF AND THE ADDITION OF RS.98,000/- CONFIRME D OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS; I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AND THE FINDINGS OF A.O. AND ALSO PERUSED THE CASE RECORD. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PUT FORWARD BEFORE THE A.O. THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUN T OF RS. 98,000/- DEPOSITED IN CASH ON 12.04.2010 WAS DEPOSITED BY HE R FATHER AT HDFC BANK SATNA BRANCH AND THE SAME WAS RETURNED BACK TO ASSESSEE'S MOTHER SMT SUDHA LAIN THROUGH CHEQUE ON 12.04.2010. THE CO NTENTION OF THE APPELLANT APPEARS UNCONVINCING AS NO COGENT REASON OR EXCEPTIONAL SITUATION OR CIRCUMSTANCE REQUIRING THE MONEY TO BE DEPOSITED IN CASH IN SATNA AND TO RETURN THE SAME AMOUNT RS. 98,000/- TH ROUGH CHEQUE TO HER MOTHER SMT SUDHA LAIN. NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD WAS FILED BEFORE THE A.O AND NOR AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. AS THE AMOUNT OF RS . 98,0001- HAS BEEN PAID BACK BY THE APPELLANT TO HER MOTHER O N THE SAME DAY THROUGH CHEQUE SHOWS THAT SMT SUDHA LAIN IS HAV ING A BANK ACCOUNT. THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION COULD HAVE BEEN TO DEPO SIT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 98,000/-- DIRECTLY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT. SUDHA JAIN. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFE RE WITH THE FINDING CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 26 OF THE A.O AND THE ADDITION OF RS.98,000/- AS UNDIS CLOSED CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT IS UPHELD. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 48. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 44. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERR ED BY ASSESSEES FATHER FOR THE RENOVATION OF DEPLEX HOUS E IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES MOTHER SMT. SUDHA JAIN. THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY HER FATHER FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND. BEFORE L D. CIT(A) AN AFFIDAVIT AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE MOTHER WAS FILED UNDER RULE 46A. HE HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE SOURCE OF RS.98,000/- IS DULY EXPLAINED THEREFORE THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 49. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHE MENTLY ARGUED AND SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIE S. 50. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THE ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION IS WH ETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION FOR RS.98,000/-. FROM PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE CASH O F RS.98,000/- IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT IN TWO PARTS AT RS.49,0 00/- EACH WAS DEPOSITED ON 10.4.2010 AND 12.4.2010. THE ADDRESS O F THE ASSESSEE CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 27 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS SHOWN AT BHOPAL. CASH OF RS .98,000/- IS DEPOSITED AT SATNA, MADHYA PRADESH. THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH WAS RECEIVED FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND AT SATNA IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PLACED AT PAGE 16-26 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWING THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURE L AND SITUATED AT VILLAGE SATNA IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES MOTHER SMT. SUDHA JAIN. FURTHER IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS IMMEDIATE LY TRANSFERRED TO SMT. SUDHA JAIN IS ALSO VERIFIABLE FROM THE BAN K STATEMENT. SMT. SUDHA JAIN HAS USED THE AMOUNT FOR RENOVATION OF RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX HOUSE WHICH IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 27-43. IN THIS GIVEN FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LD. A.O AND LD. CIT(A) IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE O F RS.98,000/- IS DULY BACKED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND CANNOT BE T REATED AS A COOKED STORY. THEREFORE SINCE THE SOURCE OF RS.98, 000/- IS DULY EXPLAINED, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ACTION O F THE LD. A.O MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.98,000/- STANDS DELETED. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 51. APROPOS GROUND NO.3 FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00 ,000/- FOR UNDISCLOSED ON MONEY PAYMENT TO MR. SHARDENDU MIS HRA. CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 28 52. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE LAND ON 7.6.10 MEASURING 4674 SQ.FT PLOT SITUATED AT GRAM BORDA, B HOPAL. REGISTRATION VALUE WAS STOOD AT RS.2,44,000/-. HOW EVER WHEN THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY MR. SHARDENDU MISHRA WAS SUM MONED HE WAS STATED TO HAVE RECEIVED RS.2,00,000/- AS ON MONEY IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,44,000/-. BASI S OF THE ADDITION BY THE LD. A.O WAS THE STATEMENT OF MR. SHARDENDU MISHRA AS WELL AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUA TION AUTHORITY AT RS.4,78,000/-. 53. AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT9A) BUT FAILED TO SU CCEED. 54. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. 55. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT SALE CONSIDERATION IS SPECIFICALLY MENTION ED AT RS.2,44,000/-. STATEMENT OF MR. SHARDENDU MISHRA OF HAVING RECEIVED ON MONEY CANNOT BE RELIED SINCE THEY WERE RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPOR TUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THIS CONTENTION IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/- AS OTHER INCOME IN CASH AS TELESCOPIN G BENEFIT HAS TO CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 29 BE GIVEN TO THE INCOME OTHERWISE THIS AMOUNT WOULD BE DOUBLE TAXATION ONE AS INCOME AND CONSEQUENTLY AS INVESTME NT. 56. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHE MENTLY ARGUED AND SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITI ES. 57. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THE ISSUE BEFORE US RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS FOR U NDISCLOSED ON MONEY PAYMENT. THE LAND AT GRAM BORDA WAS PURCH ASED ON 7.6.2010 AT A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,44,000/- AND WA S PAID THROUGH CHEQUE. FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RS.4,78,000/- WAS ADO PTED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. THE SELLER MR. SHARDENDU KUMA R MISHRA WAS SUMMONED AND ON OATH STATED TO HAVE RECEIVED ON MO NEY OF RS.2,00,000/- FROM THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) CONFIRM ED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS; I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AND THE FINDINGS OF A.O. AND ALSO PERUSED TH E CASE RECORD. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PUT FORWARD BEFORE THE A.O. THE REGISTERED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS RS. 2,44,000/- AND THE BREAKUP OF THE PAYMENT AS CLAIMED APPELLANT IS: RS. 1,50,000/-- BY CHEQUE ON 24.12.2010 RS. 94,000/-- BY CHEQUE ON 03.05.2011 CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 30 HOWEVER, THE SELLER OF THE SAID PROPERTY SHRI SHARD ENDU MISHRA HAS ADMITTED TO HAVE RECEIVED RS. 2,00,000/-- ON MONEY IN CASH ON THE SALE OF THE ABOVE PLOT AT GRAM BORDA, .BHOPAL. SHRI SHARDEN DU MISHRA ALSO ADMITTED THAT HE HAS USED THE ABOVE SUM OF RS. 2,00 ,000/- RECEIVED IN CASH FROM THE APPELLANT FOR THE PAYMENT OF OUTSTAND ING LOAN OF UCO BANK, LALGHATI BRANCH, BHOPAL. 4.2 FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE PLOT SITUATED AT GRAM BORDA, BHOPAL WAS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT FROM SHRI SHA RDENDU MISHRA FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 4,44,0001- OUT OF WHICH RS. 2,44,000/- HAVE BEEN PAID BY CHEQUE AND BALANCE OF RS 2,00,000/- HAS BEEN PAID IN CASH. THE REGISTERED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS SHOWN AT RS. 2, 44,000/- ONLY. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000/- PAID IN CASH AS ON MONEY TO SHRI SHARDENDU MISHRA IS CONFIRMED AS UNDISCLOSED ON MONEY IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT . THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 58. WE OBSERVE THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY MR. SHAR DENDU MISHRA IS SUPPORTED WITH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RS.4,78, 000/- ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. WE THEREFORE FIND F ORCE IN THE FINDING OF LD. A.O AND LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY M ADE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- FOR THE ON MONEY PAYMENT FOR PUR CHASE OF LAND. 59. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT RS.2,00,000/- HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX IN THE COMPUT ATION OF INCOME UNDER OTHER INCOME AND TELESCOPING BENEFIT SHOULD B E GIVEN FOR THE ALLEGED ADDITION FOR ON MONEY PAYMENT. THIS CLAIM WAS NEVER MADE CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 31 BEFORE THE LD. A.O NOR BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THIS IS NOT A LEGAL GROUND WHICH CAN BE TAKEN AT ANY STAGE BY THE ASSESSEE. D URING THE COURSE OF APPEAL ALSO NO SUCH SPECIFIC GROUND HAS B EEN TAKEN FOR PROVIDING TELESCOPING. WE FIND NO FORCE IN THE CON TENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ARE INCLINED TO CONFIR M THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/ - FOR ON MONEY PAYMENTS STANDS CONFIRMED. 60. AS REGARDS GROUNDS 4 &5 SAME ARE GENERAL IN NA TURE WHICH NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 61. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 62. NOW WE TAKE UP THE CASE OF SMT ALKA GUPTA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 VIDE ITA NO.160/IND/2017 THROUGH WHICH FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED; 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND BE QUASHED. 2. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.1,70,288/- FOR SILVER AR TICLES 2.936 KGS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE BE HELD TO BE BAD AND UNJ USTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ADDITION MADE BE QU ASHED. 3. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.67,310/- FOR SILVER ARTI CLES 1.270 KGS FOUND FROM LOCKER NO.S- 223 AT STATE BANK OF INDIA, ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL BE HELD TO BE BAD AND UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. TH E ADDITION MADE IS REQUESTED TO BE QUASHED AND DELETED. CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 32 4. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.1,15,640/- FOR SILVER A RTICLES 2.065 KGS FOUND FROM LOCKER NO.153 AT KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK, M.P. NAGAR, BHOPAL B E HELD TO BE BAD AND UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ADDITION MADE IS REQUESTED TO BE QUASHED AND DELETED. 5. THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO TH E GROUNDS STATED ABOVE THE ADDITIONS MADE BE HELD TO BE HIGHLY UNREA SONABLE AND EXCESSIVE AND BE REDUCED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROU ND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE CASE. 63. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQU ESTED NOT TO PRESS GROUND NO.1, THEREFORE GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISS ED AS NOT PRESSED. 64. GROUND NO.2 & 3 RELATES TO ADDITION FOR SILVER ARTICLE WEIGHING 2.936 KG VALUED AT RS.1,70,288/- FOUND FROM THE RES IDENCE, SILVER ARTICLES WEIGHING 1.270 KG FOUND FROM LOCKER VALUIN G RS.67,310/- AND SILVER ARTICLE WEIGHING 2.065 KGS FOUND FROM AN OTHER LOCKER VALUING RS.1,15,640/-. THESE SILVER ARTICLES WERE FOUND IN THE LOCKER AS WELL AS IN THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE . THE ADDITION FOR THE VALUE OF SILVER ARTICLES/UTENSILS FOUND IN THE LOCKER AND IN THE ASSESSEES RESIDENCE MADE BY THE LD. A.O WAS CONFIR MED BY LD. CIT(A) AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. 65. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 66. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 33 67. GROUND NO. 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CHALL ENGES THE ADDITION FOR SILVER ARTICLES WEIGHING 6.271 KGWHICH VALUED AT RS.3,53,238/-. IN THE OTHER CONNECTED CASES OF THE GROUP, WE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE AND ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF SI LVER ARTICLES/UTENSILS KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE INDIAN CUS TOMS THAT SUCH ITEMS ARE RECEIVED ON MARRIAGES AND OTHER AUSPICIOU S OCCASIONS. HOWEVER IN THE INSTANT CASE THE QUANTITY OF SILVER ARTICLES IS 6.271 KG IS LIKELY ON HIGHER SIDE. WE THEREFORE IN THE GI VEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT SETTING A PRE CEDENCE FOR OTHER CASES AND BEING FAIR TO BOTH THE PARTIES AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE DIRECT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO ALLOW CLA IM OF 3 KG OF SILVER ARTICLES/SILVER UTENSILS TO BE A REASONABLE QUANTIT Y OF SILVER AND THUS DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,68,986/- FOR 3 KG OF SILVER ARTICLES. THUS GROUND NO.2,3 & 4 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 68. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. 69. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF SMT. CHARU GUPTA, SMT. LAXMI GUPTA AND SMT. ALKA GUPTA ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.09.201 9 SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BOR AD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : SEPTEMBER, 2019 /DEV COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. CHARU GUPTA & OTHERS IT(SS)NO.43/IND/15, 47/IND/17 & 65/IND/17,ITA NO.13 0/IND/15,ITANO.160&163/2017 34 BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE