Vijayaraj Surana, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1351/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57831 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Gift; Search and seizure; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NOS. 1351 TO 1355 & 1680/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 TO 2007-08 & 2009-10 SHRI VIJAYRAJ SURANA, FLAT NO.2D, II FLOOR, 15, HARRIGTON ROAD, CHETPET, CHENNAI-600 031. V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(3), CHENNAI. [PAN:AACPS3236N] I.T.A. NO. 1356/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI SANDEEP SURANA, V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF NO. 13/23, MANDAPAM ROAD, INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(3), KILPAUK, CHENNAI-600 010. CHENNAI. [PAN: AZTPS0873M] I.T.A. NOS. 1357 TO 1361 & 1678/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 TO 2007-08 & 2009-10 SHRI G. R. SURANA, V. THE ASSISTANT COM MISSIONER OF NO.2, VIMALA STREET, AYYAVOO COLONY, INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(3), AMINJIKARAI, CHENNAI-600 029. CHENNAI. [PAN : AACPS3237P] I.T.A. NOS 1351-1369 & 1677-1680/MDS/2011 2 I.T.A. NOS.1362 TO 1364 & 1677/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 200 3-04 SHRI SHANTILAL SURANA, V. THE ASSISTANT C OMMISSIONER OF NEW NO. 23, OLD NO.13A, INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(3), MANDAPAM ROAD, CHENNAI. KILPAUK, CHENNAI-600 010. [PAN : AADPS0456P] A N D I.T.A. NOS. 1365 TO 1369 & 1679/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 TO 2007-08 & 2009-10 SHRI DINESH CHAND SURANA, V. THE ASSISTAN T COMMISSIONER OF NEW NO. 49, A BLOCK, 6 TH STREET, INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(3), ANNA NAGAR EAST, CHENNAI-600 102. C HENNAI. [PAN : AACPS3223K] (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY : SHRI B. RAMAKRISHNAN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 12-01-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-01-2012 O R D E R PER BENCH: ITA NOS. 1351 TO 1355/MDS/2011 ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, SHRI VIJAYRAJ SURANA, AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II, CHENNAI IN ITA NOS. 403 TO 407/10- 11 DATED 02-05-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2007-08. ITA NO. 1680 /MDS/2011 IS AN APPEAL FILED I.T.A. NOS 1351-1369 & 1677-1680/MDS/2011 3 BY THE ASSESSEE, SHRI VIJAYRAJ SURANA, AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.408/10-11 DATED 28-06-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.1356/MDS/2011 IS A N APPEAL FILED BV THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SANDEEP SURANA, AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 409/10-11 DATED 02-05-2011 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NOS. 1357 TO 1361/MDS/2011 ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, SHRI G.R. SURANA, AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS)-II, CHENNAI IN ITA NOS. 429 TO 433/10-11 DATED 02-05-2011 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2007-08. ITA NO. 1678/MDS/2011 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, SHRI G. R. SURANA, AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL S)-II, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.434/10-11 DATED 27-06-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009-10. ITA NOS. 1362 TO 1364/MDS/2011 ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SHANTILAL SURANA, AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II, CH ENNAI IN ITA NOS. 421 , 423 & 424/10-11 DATED 02-05-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2006-07 AND 2007- 08. ITA NO. 1677/MDS/2011 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE, SHRI SHANTILAL SURANA, AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL S)-II, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.420/10-11 DATED 27-06-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2003-04. ITA NOS. 1365 TO 1369/MDS/2011 ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, SHRI DINESH CHAND SURANA, AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS )-II, CHENNAI IN ITA NOS.410 TO 414/10-11 DATED 02-05-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2003-04 TO 2007-08. ITA NO. 1679/MDS/2011 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E, SHRI DINESH CHAND SURANA, I.T.A. NOS 1351-1369 & 1677-1680/MDS/2011 4 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II, C HENNAI IN ITA NO.415/10-11 DATED 28-06-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. AS ALL THESE APPEALS RELATE TO THE SAME GROUP OF ASSESSEES AND INVOLVE IDENTICAL I SSUES, THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. SHRI B. RAMAKRISHNAN, CA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEES AND SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, LEARNED SR. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHAL F OF THE REVENUE. 3. AT THE OUT SET IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED A UTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES IN ITA NOS. 1677, 1678 , 1679 & 1680/MDS/2011 WERE BELATED BY 10 DAYS. THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED THE A FFIDAVITS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY WAS ON ACCO UNT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES WERE OUT OF STATION. IT WAS THE SUBMISSI ON THAT ALL THE OTHER APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED IN TIME AND THESE FOUR APPEALS WERE MISSED OUT IN SIGNING THE NECESSARY FORM NO. 36 AND THAT HAD CAUSED THE DELAY . NO SERIOUS OBJECTIONS HAD BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE. CONSEQUENTLY, ALL THE SAID FOUR APPEALS ARE ADMITTED, THE DELAY CONDONED AND THE APPEALS DISPOSED OF ON M ERITS. 4. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION BY THE LEARNED AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT IN ALL THE APPEALS THE ISSUES WERE BASICALLY THREE, THE FIRST ISSUE BEING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO THE OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULT URAL LAND AND THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISCLOSED, PART OF WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PART OF WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED. THE SECOND IS SUE WAS IN REGARD TO THE CASH FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE THIRD ISSUE W AS IN REGARD TO THE ADDITION I.T.A. NOS 1351-1369 & 1677-1680/MDS/2011 5 REPRESENTING THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY AND SILVER ARTICLES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE THAT IN REGARD TO THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIJAYRAJ SURANA IN I TA NO. 1680/MDS/2011 AGAINST THE ADDITION REPRESENTING THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS ALSO IN REGARD TO THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI DI NESHCHAND SURANA IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED CASH WHICH HAS BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAI NED IN ITA NO. 1679/MDS/2011. THE ASSESSEES WERE NOT PRESSING THESE GROUNDS. CON SEQUENTLY, THE SAID GROUND STAND DISMISSED. 5. AGRICULTURAL INCOME: IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION ON THE PREMISES OF M/S. SURANA INDUSTRIES LTD. AND M/S. SURANA CORPORA TION LTD. ON 03-03-2009. SEARCH WAS ALSO CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE DI RECTORS OF THE SAID GROUP OF COMPANIES. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SEARCH, PROCEED INGS HAD BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES W ERE OWNING ONLY 9.38 ACRES OF LAND WHEREAS THE ASSESSEES IN FACT JOINTLY OWNED NE ARLY 24 ACRES OF LAND BEING 20 ACRES IN TAMILNADU AND 4 ACRES IN RAJASTHAN. IT WA S THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONSEQUENTLY HELD THAT THE AG RICULTURAL INCOME WAS LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ORIGINALLY AN ASSESSMENT HA D BEEN COMPLETED IN THE CASE I.T.A. NOS 1351-1369 & 1677-1680/MDS/2011 6 OF SHRI VIJAYRAJ SURANA UNDER SECTION 143(3) WHEREI N THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAD BEEN CONSIDERED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HELD 24 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED ONLY 9,38 ACRES OF AGRICULT URAL LAND AND HAD ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT ` 50,000/- PER ACRE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED A MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATION AGAINST THE SAID ORDER WHICH HAD ALSO BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS ONLY AN ERROR APPARENT FROM THE FACE OF THE ORDER THAT COULD BE CORRECTED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE PROCEEDINGS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SEARCH WERE FRE SH PROCEEDINGS AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDI NG WAS PEGGED AT 9.38 ACRES COULD NOT ACT AS A RES JUDICATA AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE PLACED BEFORE US THE COPY OF THE DEC ISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 628/MDS/2008 DATED 05-12-2 008 IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIJAYRAJ SURANA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AS ALSO THE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ORDER IN MP NO. 32/MDS/2009 DATED 09-06 -2009. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED NEARLY 24 ACRES OF AGRICULT URAL LAND AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE SAME HAD ALSO BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AND VERIFICATION IN REGARD TO THE ACTUAL OWNERSHIP OF T HE LAND. I.T.A. NOS 1351-1369 & 1677-1680/MDS/2011 7 6. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE OWNE RSHIP OF THE LAND HAS ALREADY GOT FIXED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I TA NO. 628/MDS/2008 IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIJAYRAJ SURANA. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMIS SION THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO BECOME FINAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THIS ACREAGE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND COULD NOT BE MODIFIED ANY FURTHER. IT WAS THE SUBM ISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ALSO THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD ESTIMATED THE AGRICU LTURAL INCOME ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAD BECOME FINAL . HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT( A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PE RUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) CLEARLY S HOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSES SEE DID HOLD NEARLY 24 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. HOWEVER, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIJAYRAJ SURANA HAD ACCEPTED ONLY 9.38 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. HERE IT IS SPECIFICALLY NOTICED THAT IN THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 628/MDS/2008 THE TRIBUNAL NOWHERE HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNING ONLY 9.38 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT PEGGED THE LAND HOLDINGS AT 9.38 ACRES. THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD RECORDED THAT NO PROOF OF SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION IN THE FORM OF L AND RECORD HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS SUBMISSIONS AND CONSEQU ENTLY HAD UPHELD THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED ONLY 9.38 ACRES. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BARRED FROM PRODUCING EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CORRECT FACTS. THE I.T.A. NOS 1351-1369 & 1677-1680/MDS/2011 8 TRIBUNAL CAN DECIDE THE ISSUE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AS ARE UNDISPUTED. IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIJAYRAJ SURANA WHEN DECIDING THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 628/MDS/2008 AS THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AVAILABLE IN THE COURSE OF THAT PROCEEDINGS THE TRIBUNAL HAD UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. H ERE THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS OF NEARLY 24 ACRES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN PRODUC ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT BECOMES INCUMBENT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO EXAMINE THOSE EVIDENCES AND THEN REACH A FINDING. IN THE CIRCUMS TANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE IS REQUIRED TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASCERTAINING THE ACTUAL LAND HOLDINGS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES AND THEN TO DETERMINE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN THE CIRCUMST ANCES, THE ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME INCLUDING THE DETERMINAT ION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDINGS IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE THE ASSESSEES ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE ALL SUCH EVIDENCES AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLAIMS. 8. CASH FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH AND TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED: IN THE CASE OF SHRI G. R. SURANA IN ITA NO. 1678/MD S/2011, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH CASH OF ` 4,55,310/- WAS FOUND. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THIS CASH REPRESENTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE HAS GOT RESTRICTED DUE TO THE RESTRICTING OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDINGS A T 9.38 ACRES IN VIEW OF THE DECISION I.T.A. NOS 1351-1369 & 1677-1680/MDS/2011 9 OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIJAYRAJ SURAN A, THE CASH FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION, TO WH ICH SUBMISSION THE LEARNED DR DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, AS WE HAVE ALREADY RESTORED THE ISSUE OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION, THE ISSUE IN REGARD TO THE CASH FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE AS BEING PART OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE- ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY CONSIDER T HE APPLICABILITY OF THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING IF SO SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. JEWELLERY & SILVER ARTICLES: IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT IN REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF JEWEL LERY AND SILVER ARTICLES FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE RELATIV ES OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS THE ASSESSEE WAS QUESTIONED IN REGARD TO THE ISSUE ONLY TOWARDS THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IF AN OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE JEWE LLERY AND SILVER ARTICLES FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION TH AT SHRI VIJAYRAJ SURANAS FIRST WIFE HAD EXPIRED AND THE JEWELLERY AND SILVER ARTICLES B ELONGING TO THE FIRST WIFE WERE I.T.A. NOS 1351-1369 & 1677-1680/MDS/2011 10 WITH THE FAMILY OF THE FIRST WIFE AND WERE KEPT IN SAFE CUSTODY FOR THE MARRIAGE PURPOSES OF THE DAUGHTERS OF SHRI VIJAYRAJ SURANA T HROUGH HIS FIRST WIFE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THE MARRIAGE OF THE DAUGHTER WAS TAKING PLACE, THESE JEWELLERY AND SILVER ARTICLES HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO THE HOUSE O F SHRI VIJAYRAJ SURANA. THE AFFIDAVIT TO THAT EXTENT WAS ALSO AVAILABLE FROM TH E MOTHER OF SHRI VIJAYRAJ SURANAS DECEASED WIFE AND THE BROTHER-IN-LAWS OF SHRI VIJAY RAJ SURANA. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THIS ISSUE MAY ALSO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION TO WHICH NO SERIOUS OBJECTION H AD BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT I S NOTICED THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIF ICALLY RAISED THE CLAIM THAT THE JEWELLERY AND SILVER ARTICLES BELONGED TO THE VARIO US CHILDREN AND FAMILY MEMBERS. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ION A CCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PRODUCED IN REGARD TO THE HOLDING OF THE JEWELLERY AND SILVER ARTICLES BY THE CHILDREN. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD TAKEN PLACE ONLY AFTER T HE FIRST HALF OF NOVEMBER, 2010 AND THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY 31-12-2010 . OBVIOUSLY, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE HAD ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE ALL THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBST ANTIATE HIS CLAIM. I.T.A. NOS 1351-1369 & 1677-1680/MDS/2011 11 12. ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH IS THERE IN THE CASE OF SHR I SHANTILAL SURANA IN ITA NO. 1677/MDS/2011 IS IN REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AT MADHAVARAM FOR A SALE VALUE O F ` 19,62,000/- WHEREAS THE GUIDELINE VALUE BY THE STATE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY WAS AT ` 41,33,300/-. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 21,71,314/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 0C OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE PURCHASERS OF THE PROPERTY HAD FILED A CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF MADR AS AND THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF MADRAS HAD RESTORED THE ISSUE OF RE-D ETERMINING THE GUIDELINE VALUE TO THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER (STAMPS) FOR RE-ADJ UDICATING THE GUIDELINE VALUE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE P ROPERTY ONLY FOR ` 19,62,000/- AND THE ISSUE OF THE GUIDELINE VALUE HAVING BEEN RE STORED TO THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER (STAMPS), THIS ISSUE MAY BE RESTORE D TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER TAKING INTO CONSI DERATION THE FRESH GUIDELINE VALUE AS IS ADOPTED BY THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER (STAM PS). TO THIS, THE REVENUE HAD NO SERIOUS GRIEVANCE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS I SSUE IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. THE ASS ESSEE SHALL CO-OPERATE IN PLACING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ORDER OF THE DISTR ICT REVENUE OFFICER (STAMPS) IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS IN LINE WITH THE DIRECTIO N OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH I.T.A. NOS 1351-1369 & 1677-1680/MDS/2011 12 COURT IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOS. 236 TO 238 OF 2010 AND MP NO. 1 OF 2010 DATED 20-09-2010. 13. IN ITA NO. 1356/MDS/2011 RELATING TO THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANDEEP SURANA IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNE D 1084.180 GMS. OF JEWELLERY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO 884.180 GMS. OF JEWELLERY . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE BALANCE OF 200 GMS. OF JEWELLERY WERE GIFTS RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS INCLUDING THE OCCASION OF HIS MARRIAGE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE REC EIPT OF GIFTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PERSON OF RAJAST HAN ORIGIN AND AS PER THE RAJASTHANI CUSTOM, SUCH GIFTS ARE RECEIVED. 14. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT NO EVID ENCE HAVING BEEN PRODUCED IN REGARD TO THE RECEIPT OF GIFT IN ANY MANNER WHAT SOEVER, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS I T IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO THE RECE IPT OF GIFT OF 200 GMS. OF JEWELLERY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MAD E ON THIS COUNT IS ON A RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. TH E FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE STANDS CONFIRMED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 1351 TO 1355/MDS/2011 AND ITA NO. 1680/MDS/2011 IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIJAYRAJ SURANA A RE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL I.T.A. NOS 1351-1369 & 1677-1680/MDS/2011 13 PURPOSES. THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1356/MDS/2011 IN T HE CASE OF SHRI SANDEEP SURANA IS DISMISSED. THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 1357 TO 1361/MDS/2011 & 1678/MDS/2011 IN THE CASE OF SHRI G.R. SURANA ARE P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 1362 TO 1364 & 1 677/MDS/2011 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SHANTILAL SURANA ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 1365 TO 1369 AND 1679/MDS/2011 IN THE CASE OF SHRI DINESH CHAND SURANA ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12/01/ 2012. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 12 TH JANUARY, 2012. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE