ACIT, CHENNAI V. Shri M.Sajjanraj, Vellore

ITA 1352/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2828 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SRINIVASA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure; Valuation report; Bogus loan
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , , ' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /I.T.A. NO.1352/CHNY/2012 ## /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-IV(1), 46, M.G.ROAD, CHENNAI-600 034. VS SHRI DINESH KUMAR L/H OF M.SAJJANRAJ (DECEASED) 4/22, BAZAAR STREET, VIRINJIPURAM, VELLORE-632 104. PAN: ABBPS6031M ( & /APPELLANT) ( '(& /RESPONDENT) & /APPELLANT BY : MR.M.SRINIVASARAO, CIT '(& /RESPONDENT BY : MR.D.ANAND, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 22.01.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.02.2019 /O R D E R PER S.JAYARAMAN, AM: THE REVENUE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHENNAI, IN ITA NOS. 337 TO 343/10-11 DATED 26.03.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WITH FOLLOW ING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. TOW ARDS INADEQUATE DRAWINGS WITHOUT NOTING THAT THE CIT(A) HAS SUSTAIN ED THE ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IN THE CASE OF SRI.S.RAJESH KUMAR SON OF THE ASSESSEE, ON SIMILAR FACTS. 2.A ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF LOAN S AS PER RED COLOUR BOOK WITHOUT NOTING THAT ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON THE SEIZED MATERIALS, THE FACT THAT THE LOANS W ERE UNACCOUNTED WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. 2 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 2.B THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE A.O. HAS ALREADY GIVEN CREDIT TO THE OF ADVANCES AND TELESCOPED THE RECEIP TS AS EVIDENT IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2.C THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE W ORKING OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF THE A SSESSEE WITHOUT REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE A.O. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION RELATING TO RENT AL FROM DISPLAY BOARD AT RS.12,000 AND CREDIT CARD COMMISSION AT 32,583/- MERELY BASED ON THE CLAIM OF THE A.R THAT THESE FORM PART OF TOTAL INCO ME AND HAVE BEEN OFFERED ALREADY WITHOUT NOTING THAT NO SPECIFIC INCOME HAVE BEEN OFFERED MENTIONING THE EXACT SOURCE, 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS LOAN CHITTA BY TELESCOPING WITH DISCLOSURE MADE UNDER STOCK WITHOU T ANYONE TO ONE MATCH. 5A ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE CLAIM FOR REBATE FOR TAG , PLASTIC COVERS, THREADS ETC WITHOUT NOTING THAT THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE WHO ASSISTED IN THE INVENTORISING OF THE PHYSICAL STOCK HAS STATED THAT THE PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF STOCK HAS BEEN TAKEN ONLY AFTER REMOVAL OF THE TAGS AND CONTAINERS ETC WHICH FACT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A ND THAT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE A/R CANNOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT REMAND TO THE A. O. 5)B ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE CLAIM RELATING TO TOTALI NG ERROR IN THE INVENTORY AT 339.570 GRAMS WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. 5.C ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE VALUATION AT RS.681.50 P ER GRAM WITHOUT NOTING THAT THE VALUE AT RS.800 HAS BEEN CORRECTLY ARRIVED AT BY THE A.O. BASED ON THE MARKET RATE APPLICABLE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT YEAR. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TOWARDS EXCESS PERSONAL GO LD AT RESIDENCE WITHOUT NOTING THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOU R OF THE DEPARTMENT IN THE CASE OF SRI.S.RAJESH KUMAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR2001-02. 7 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN TELESCOPING THE PAWNED LOANS AT R4.32,308 WITHOUT ANY NEXUS. 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE INTEREST INCOME ON THE ADVANC ES OUTSTANDING AT RS.8,60,365 WITHOUT ANY PROOF THAT THE INTEREST INC OME HAS BEEN REINVESTED IN THE BUSINESS. 3 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 9. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF A DVANCE TO S.MANIVANNAN AT RS.50,000 WITHOUT ANY PROOF THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID FROM CASH AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS. 10. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION RELATING TO UNAC COUNTED CASH FOUND IN THE RESIDENCE AT VIRINJIPURAM WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. 2. THE LD. AR DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT M ADE U/S 153 A R.W.S 143(3) FOR AY 2007-08, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION TOWARDS INADEQUATE DRAWINGS AT RS. 52,000/- FOR TH E REASON THAT THE DRAWINGS SHOWN FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT GRO UP IS TOO LOW COMPARED TO THE SIZE OF THE FAMILY AND STYLE OF LIV ING. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION WITHOUT NOTING T HAT THE CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 -03 IN THE CASE OF SRI.S. RAJESH KUMAR SON OF THE ASSESSEE, ON SIMILAR FACTS. PER CONTRA, THE LD.AR STATED THAT THE DRAWINGS ADMITTED AT 1,56,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 FOR THE FAMILY WAS ACCEPTED B Y THE LD CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I. THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE AGRICUL TURAL LANDS TO THE EXTENT OF MORE THAN 50 ACRES FROM WHICH RICE, VEGET ABLES, MILK, GHEE ETC. ARE OBTAINED. II. RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS THEIR OWN AND THERE ARE NO RENTAL PAYMENTS. III. VELLORE IS A SMALL TOWN WHERE THERE IS NO LUXU RIOUS LIFE SUCH AS HEALTH CLUBS,STAR HOTELS ETC. 4 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 IV. THERE IS NO EXTRA ORDINARY ENTERTAINMENT OR ANY OTHER OUTLET FOR ANY AFFLUENT EXPENSES. V. BEING JAINS, THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE VEGETARIANS AND SHUN ALCOHOL. VI THE SEARCH HAS NOT YIELDED ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THEREIS ANY EXTRAVAGANT EXPENDITURE TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSING OF FICERS CONTENTION OF AHIGH LIFE STYLE AND HENCE THE LD AR PLEADED THAT T HE REVENUES GROUNDS MAY BE REJECTED . WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. AR.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 3. THE LD.DR ARGUED ON THE LINES OF APPEAL GROUNDS 2A TO 2C, SUPRA. PER CONTRA, THE LD AR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER : 9. ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF LOANS AS PER RED COLOU R BOOK FOR ALL THE A.YS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, VIDE SEIZED MATERIAL N O.ANN/MM/B&D/S, A RED COLOUR JYOTHI NOTE BOOK IN HINDI, IT WAS NOTICED THAT UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS IN TWO SEGMENTS WERE RECORDED. I.E PAW N BROKING BUSINESS AND OTHER FINANCE. PAGES 1 TO 50 CONTAIN PAWN LOAN TRAN SACTIONS RELATING TO VIRINJIPURAM AND 51 TO 83 OF VELLORE. PAGES 92 TO 1 38 CONTAIN TRANSACTIONS OTHER THAN PAWN LOANS. IN PAGE 147, LOANS GIVEN TO SOME VIRINJIPURAM PARTIES WERE DETAILED. THE EXERCISE DONE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO WORK OUT THE TOTAL OF UNACCOUNTED LOANS RESULTED IN THE FOLLOWIN G: 5 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 ASST. YEAR INTEREST INCOME RS. UNEXPLAINED LOANS RS. TOTAL RS. 2001-2002 7,125 1,17,875 1,25,000 2002-2003 12,125 NIL 12,125 2003-2004 20,000 1,87,875 2,07,875 2004-2005 16,000 8,16,000 8,32,000 2005-2006 3,54,000 5,250 3,59,250 2006-2007 3,52,929 44,98,045 48,50,974 2007-2008 5,90,220 3,07,304 8,97,524 TOTAL 13,52,399 59,32,349 72,84,748 10. THE LEARNED AR ARGUES THAT THE ABOVE INCOMES AR RIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE M ONEY AVAILABLE FOR RE- CIRCULATION IN THE BUSINESS. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE CORRECT METHOD TO DETERMINE INCOME WOULDBE TO ARRIVE AT THE PEAK OR MAXIMUM DEB IT AS BELOW: ASST YEAR WISE SUMMARY CREDIT RS. DEBIT RS. NET RESULT RS. 2001-2002 7,125 1,25,000 1,17,875 2002-2003 12,125 --- --- 2003-2004 20,000 2,00,000 1,80,000 2004-2005 2,16,000 10,00,000 7,84,000 2005-2006 7,34,000 7,93,250 59,250 2006-2007 40,94,679 91,25,887 50,31,208 2007-2008 76,21,875 75,03,745 --- 1,2705804 1,87,47,882 61,72,333 THIS WORKING HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT BY CASH FLOW, WORK ED OUT ON THE BASIS OF GROSS DEBIT AND GROSS CREDIT YEAR-WISE, AS RECORDED IN THE RED BOOK. 11. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE RED BOOK INVOLVE THE MONEYS BELONGING TO ALL OF THE ENTITIES IN THE GROU P, AND NOT JUST OF THAT OF THE APPELLANT. THE OTHER ENTITIES WERE S.RAJESHKUMAR HU F, M.SAJJANRAJ(HUF), M.MOHANLAL (HUF),M.PHULIBAI AND S.LALITHA. ALL OF T HEM WERE ASSESSES WELL BEFORE THE SEARCH AND WERE ALSO FILING RETURNS. TO OPTIMIZE UTILIZATION OF THEIR CAPITAL, MONEY BELONGING TO ALL OF THEM WAS USED IN THE BUSINESS. SUBSEQUENT TO SEARCH, APART FROM THE APPELLANT, THE OTHER ENTI TIES HAVE ALSO FILED RETURNS 6 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 AND HAVE DECLARED LOAN ON DEMAND IN THEIR RETURNS W HICH ARE TABULATED AS UNDER: NAME 31.03.2005 31.03.2006 31.03.2007 S.RAJESH KUMAR HUF 1,50,000.00 2,50,000.00 3,50,000.00 M.SAJJANRAJ HUF 1,00,000.00 4,50,000.00 4,50,000.00 N.MOHANLAL HUF 85,000.00 1,75,00.00 3,00,000.00 M.PHULIBAI 2,10,000.00 2,35,000.00 4,00,000.00 S.LALITHA 1,50,000.00 3,25,000.00 5,00,000.00 TOTAL 6,95,000.00 14,35,000.00 20,00,000.00 12. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE LOAN ON DEMAND WHICH HAVE BEEN DECLARED IN THE OTHERS RETURNS HAVE TO BE SET OFF FROM THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING AS INCOMES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR VARIOUS YEARS. A.Y 2001-02 1,17,875.00 A.Y 2002-03 NIL A.Y 2003-04 1,80,000.00 A.Y 2004-05 7,84,000.00 A.Y 2005-06 NIL AY 2006-07 36,55,458.00 A.Y 2007-08 NIL ------------------- TOTAL 47,37.333.00 A COMPARISON OF THE INCOMES ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER, ARRIVED AT BY THE LEARNED AR BEFORE EXCLUDING INCOME BELONGING TO OTHERS AND THE INCOME ARRIVED AT AFTER EXCLUSION CAN BE MADE AS UNDER: 7 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 A.Y INCOME DETERMINED BY ASSESSING OFFICER INCOME DETERMINED BY THE LEARNED AR INCOME AFTER EXCLUDING LOAN ON DEMAND 2001-02 1,25,000/- 1,17,875/- 1,17,875/- 2002-03 12,125/- NIL NIL 2003-04 2,07,875/- 1,80,000/- 1,80,000/- 2004-05 8,32,000/- 7,84,000/- 7,84,000/- 2005-06 3,59,250/- 59,250/- NIL* 2006-07 48,50,974/- 50,31,208/- 36,55,458/** 2007-08 8,97,524/- NIL NIL 13.THE LEARNED AR WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPA NCIES, THEMAXIMUM BEING IN THE A.Y 2006-07. HE SUBMITTED AN ELABORATE CASH FLOWSTATEMENT AND THE RELEVANT PART IS REPRODUCED BELOW: P DATE NAME CREDIT DEBIT 92 11.03.06 MAHAVEER 1,29,700 93 -DO- 20,250 93 18.02.06 -DO- 5,00,000 4,34,300 ------------ 94 21.03.06 RAMESH 1,16,545 95 21.11.05 LAXMICHAND 18,73,000 17.02.06 -DO- 16,99,720 96 09.03.06 V. PUNAM CHITS 438,750 97 23.03.06 RAJESH 3,75,405 8 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 98 14.03.06 STHANAKJI 65,717 101 10.02.06 VRINJLPURAM CHITS 2,50,650 4,90,500 103 02.05.05 5,000 111 20.09.05 NEW 100 1,90,000 10.10.05 -DO- 3,00,000 114 04.03.06 FAIZAL 2,00,000 115 30.09.05 MB LAL 10,00,000 115 22.12.05 -DO- 4,00,000 115 30.03.06 INTEREST 40,933 116 30.09.05 VICTORY 6,00,000 116 30.03.06 -DO- INTEREST 45,000 117 12.04.05 KANNAIYAN 4,00,000 117 16.03.06 -DO- 1,04,000 118 30.09.05 RAJESH TALEDS 2,00,000 118 26.02.06 -DO- INTEREST 10,000 119 06.05.05 CATHERINE CMC 3,00,000 119 01.03.06 -DO- INTEREST 65,000 121 20.07.05 SAMBEE (ALREADY OFFERED IN S.DINESHKU MAR A/C RS.2 LACS) 58,600 122 30.10.05 RAM BABU 30,000 18.02.06 -DO- 3,000 9 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 123 30.12.05 SINGH 2,00,000 123 31.03.06 -DO- INTEREST 4,000 124 20.03.06 AHMED BASHA- INTEREST 20,000 125 08.04.05 ARUMUGAM-DRIVER 20,000 08.10.05 -DO- INTEREST 3,500 129 10.12.05 KEWAL CHAND PATEL 2,00,000 02.03.06 -DO- 1,00,000 -DO- INTEREST 130 14.12.05 PRABHU 4,00,000 03.03.06 -DO- INTEREST 10,266 131 29.12.05 R.D. RAJ 5,00,000 22.03.06 -DO- INTEREST 8,400 132 31.12.05 VIJAY GATI 1,00,000 30.06.05 -DO- 1,00,000 31.03.06 -DO- INTEREST 3,000 133 31.01.06 DCV RAJESH 5,00,000 16.03.06 -DO- 5,00,000 134 29.03.06 JAGDISH,PALLIKONDA 2,00,000 40,94,679 91,25,887 NET DEBIT 50,31,208 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07: NET DEBIT OF ASST.YEAR 2005-2006 TAKEN THIS ASST.YEAR BY OVERSIGHT : 59,250 NET DEBIT DURING THE YEAR AS ABOVE : 50,31,458 50,90,458 10 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 LESS: INCOME OFFERED AS PER RED COLOURBOOKU/S.132: 36,55,458 LOAN ON DEMAND AS PER ABOVE LIST SET OFF14,35,000** RS.50,90,458/- NIL ========== * THE LEARNED AR EXPLAINED THAT FOR THE A.Y 2006-07 , TO THE NET DEBIT OF 50,31,208/-, HE HAD ADDED 59,250/- WHICH HAD BEEN M ISSED OUT BY HIM BY OVERSIGHT. TO CORRECT THIS ERROR, THIS AMOUNT HAS B EEN ADDED. 6,95,000/- IS THE TOTAL OF INCOMES RETURNED BY THE OTHER ENTITLES FOR THE A.Y 2005-06.HE HAD FACTORED IN 14,35,000/- WHICH IS THE TOTAL OF THE I NCOMES RETURNED BY THE OTHER ENTITLES FOR THE A.Y 2006-07. THUS, HE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ARRIVED AT 47,37,333/- FOR ALL THE YEARS IN QUESTION IS THE MOST CORRECT. 14. THE QUALIFICATION AS MOST CORRECT IS BECAUSE THE RED BOOK IS NOT THE COMPLETE RECORD OF UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS. FOR IN STANCE, THE ADVANCE OF 25,00,000/- TO SHRI S.MANIVANNAN DOES NOT FIND PLAC E THERE IS AS WELL AS THE AMOUNTS INVESTED IN PROPERTIES TOTALING TO 1,14,25,000/-. THE AMOUNT OF 57,35,770/- WHICH RELATES TO REDEEMED PAWNED ITEMS DOES NOT ALSO FIND PLACE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE INCOME WORKED OUT BY THE LEARNED AR TOTALING TO 47,37,333/-BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE INCOMES ADOPTED AND ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3.1 THUS, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABOVE OR DER, THE LD CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND CORR ECTLY, TELESCOPED THE UNEXPLAINED LOANS WITH CASH FLOW AND THE LOAN O N DEMAND DECLARED IN THE GROUP PERSONS RETURNS ETC . THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE. 11 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 4. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS . SINCE THE REVE NUE COULD NOT ASSAIL THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A), SU PRA, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CI T(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 5. ON GROUND NOS 3&4 , WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) WHICH IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER : CREDIT CARD COMMISSION 32,583/- 28. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A COMMISSION OF 32,583/- FROM CENTURION BANK RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS OF CUSTOMERS ON USAGE OF CREDIT CARDS. ACCORDING TO THE LD.AR, SUNDRY INCOMES LIKE THIS FORMS PART O F INCOME OFFERED IN THE RETURN FILED SUBSEQUENT TO SEARCH. ON PERUSAL OF TH E REVISED COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, I FIND THAT THIS HAS BEEN DISCLOSED A S ITEM NO.3 IN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES (CHAPTER IV F) THEREFORE, THIS ADDITI ON IS DELETED. II. RENTAL FROM DISPLAY BOARD- 12,000/- 29. ACCORDING TO THE LD.AR, SUNDRY INCOME LIKE THI S FORMS PART OF THE STOCK DISCLOSURE OF 2,86,23,000/- AS THESE MONEYS HAVE BEEN PUT BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS. I FIND THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.AR IS CORRECT AND THEREFORE THIS ADDITION IS DELETED. III. LOAN CHITTA - 8,97,524/-. 30. THE LD.AR SEEKS TELESCOPING OF THIS INCOME INTO THE DISCLOSURE MADE UNDER STOCK AS THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN PUT BACK INTO T HE BUSINESS. THIS IS ACCEPTABLE AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE IS HEREB Y DELETED. 6. SINCE THE REVENUE COULD NOT ASSAIL THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD CIT(A) THAT SUNDRY INCOME LIKE THIS FORMS PART OF T HE STOCK DISCLOSURE OF 2,86,23,000/- AS THESE MONEYS HAVE BEEN PUT BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS , 12 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE OR DER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THESE ISSUES. 7. ON GROUND NOS 5A TO 5C, THE LD. DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) WHIC H IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: IV. EXCESS STOCK IN TRADE: 31. PHYSICAL STOCK FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WAS INVENTORISED AND COMPARED WITH THE STOCK AS PER STOCK BOOK. THE RESULT OF THE EXERCISE WAS AS BELOW: PHYSICAL STOCK 81,347.305 STOCK AS PER STOCK BOOK 37,193.000 EXCESS STOCK 44,154.304 IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED 42 KGS OF GOLD JEWELLERY VALUED AT 2,86,23,000/-, AS AGAINST THE EXCESS STOCK QUANTIFI ED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FOUND THAT THE VALUE TAKEN B Y THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT TO 681.5 GMS. THE LD.AR PRESENTED A CALCULATION AS UNDER:- EXCESS STOCK IN TRADE 67,00,443 DETAILS OF DISCLOSURE OF 42000GMS EXCESS STOCK OF G OLD JEWELLERY FOR RS.2, 86,23,000/- :- PHYSICAL STOCK FOUND &INVENTORISED: 81347.305 LESS :TOTALLING ERROR IN INVENTORY __339.570_ TOTAL 81007.735 CORRECT NET WEIGHT ANNEXURE NO.1 31609.970 ANNEXURE NO.2 (WEIGHT INCLUDED IN ANNEXURE 1 ALREADY) NIL ANNEXURE NO.3 37059.155 ANNEXURE NO.4 12338.610 --------------- 13 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 TOTAL 81007.735 LESS : STOCK AS PER BOOK AS ON 25.08.2006 37193.0 00 TOTAL 43814.735 LESS : REBATE CLAIMED FOR TAG 1814.735 PLASTIC COVERS, THREAD. ETC EXCESS STOCK 42000.000 VALUATION TAKEN AS PER DEPARTMENT VALUER ON 42000 X RS.681.50 ________________ AVERAGE BASIS RS.681.50/- PER GRAM EXCESS STOCK VALUE RS.2,86,23,000/- 32. HE ARGUED THAT THE INVENTORY SHOWS MORE THAN 60 00 ITEMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY. HE POINTS OUT THAT FROM PAGE NO.4 TO PAG E NO.10, 70 BOXES HAVE BEEN WEIGHED. ITEMS WERE WEIGHED ALONGWITH THEIR TA GS, PLASTIC COVERS AND THREADS. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIES O N THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN A MENTION HAS BEEN MADE THAT T HE STOCK WAS, TAKEN EXCLUDING THE TAGS, PLASTIC COVERS ETC., FACTUALLY IT IS NOT CORRECT AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE INVENTORY. IN THE ABOVE CALCULA TION, HE HAD TAKEN A REBATE OF 1814.735 SO THAT A ROUND FIGURE OF 42,000 GMS IS ARRIVED AT. ACTUALLY AS A PERCENTAGE THIS WORKS OUT TO 4.15 OF43814.735 WHICH IS THE EXCESS STOCK ARRIVED AT. HE CONTENDS THAT THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE M INIMUM WHICH CAN BE ACCORDED TO SUCH TAGS, PLASTIC COVERS ETC. WHICH HA VE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE WEIGHING. HE ALSO HAD DEMONSTRATED THE TOTALING ERR OR IN THE INVENTORY AT 339.570GMS. I AM CONVINCED BY, THESE CONTENTIONS AN D AGREE THAT THE STOCK OF 42000 GMS ARRIVED AT AS EXCESS IS CORRECT. WITH REGARD TO THE VALUATION ADOPTED AT 681.50 PER GM, THE LD.AR CONTENDS THAT T HIS IS THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER WHO HAD CONSIDERED THE C OMPONENTS WHICH WOULD GO TO REDUCE THE VALUE OF ACTUAL GOLD VIZ. IMPURITI ES, LAC, COPPER ADDED ETC. ACCORDING TO HIM, 800 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS THE SELLING RATE OF GOLD JEWELLERY ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, THE VAL UE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ACCEPTED. 33. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND I FIND THAT THEY ARE REASONABLE. THE EXCESS GOLD ARRIVED AT, AS WELL AS THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WORKING IS ACCEPTED AND THE ADDITIO N MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS HEREBY DIRECTED TOBE DELETED. 14 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 AND THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS QUANTIFIED THE EXCESS STOCK BASED ON THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE AS SESSEE WHEREIN A MENTION HAS BEEN MADE THAT THE STOCK WAS, TAKEN EXC LUDING THE TAGS, PLASTIC COVERS ETC., HOWEVER, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERR ED IN ACCEPTING THE CLAIM FOR REBATE FOR TAG, PLASTIC COVERS, THREADS E TC. WITHOUT NOTING THAT THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE WHO ASSISTED IN THE INVENTO RISING OF THE PHYSICAL STOCK HAS STATED THAT THE PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF STO CK HAS BEEN TAKEN ONLY AFTER REMOVAL OF THE TAGS AND CONTAINERS ETC WHICH FACT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT THE ARGU MENTS OF THE A/R CANNOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT REMAND TO THE A.O. THE L EARNED CIT (A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE CLAIM RELATING TO TOTAL ING ERROR IN THE INVENTORY AT 339.570 GRAMS WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. FURTHER, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE VALU ATION AT RS.681.50 PER GRAM WITHOUT NOTING THAT THE VALUE AT RS.800 HAS BE EN CORRECTLY ARRIVED AT BY THE A.O. BASED ON THE MARKET RATE APPLICABLE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. PER CONTRA, THE LD AR SUPPORTED TH E ABOVE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 8 WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD DR. SINCE THE INVENTORY IS A CCEPTED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION, IF DEVIATION , IF ANY , IS TO BE MADE THEREAFTER, THEN THE AO SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO TEST 15 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CANVASSED BEFORE THE A PPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEEM IT FIT TO REMIT ALL THE ABOVE ISSUES BACK TO THE AO FOR A FRESH EXAMINATION. THE ASSESSEE SHALL PLACE ALL THE MATERIALS IN ITS SUPPORT BEFORE THE AO AND COMPLY TO THE AOS REQUIREMENTS AS PER LAW. THE A O SHALL FURNISH AD EQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEN DECIDE THESE ISSUES IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW. 9 ON THE PLEA OF THE LD DR THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TOWARDS EXCESS PERSONAL GOLD AT RES IDENCE WITHOUT NOTING THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF TH E DEPARTMENT IN THE CASE OF SRI.S.RAJESH KUMAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THE LD AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND HENCE THE RELEVANT PORTION IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER : V. EXCESS PERSONAL GOLD AT RESIDENCE: 35. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARRIVED AT AN EXCESS OF 817.76 GMS BY CONSIDERING THE DIFFERENCE OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING SEARCH AT 8270.76 GMS AND THE JEWELLERY DECLARED IN THE INDIVIDUAL HANDS IN THEIR RETURNS AT 7452.80 GMS. THE WORKING SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AS UNDER:- S.NO. NAME NET WEIGHT (IN GMS) 1 M.SARJANRAJJALN(HUF) 579.0 2 M.SARJANRAJ JAIN(INDIVIDUAL) 580.0 3 S.RAJESHKUMAR 230.8 4 R.SANJUSHREE 978.0 5 K.MOHAHLAI (HUF) 1718.0 6 R.DINESHKUMAR 558.0 16 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 7 S.LALITHA 1731.0 8 PULLIBAI 1078.0 TOTAL 7452.8 36. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONSIDERED THE QUANTI TY DECLARED IN THE W.T.RETURNS VLS--VIS THE QUANTITY CLAIMED IN THE R EPLY AND FOUND THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF 470 GMS AS BELOW: NAME DECLARED IN W.T. RETURN QUANTITY CLAIMED IN THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SARJANRAJ INDL 580GM 880.0 GMS SARJANRAJ- HUF 579GMS 672.8GMS LALLTHABAI L731 GMS 1807.2GMS TOTAL 2890GMS 3360.0GMS THE LD.AR POINTED OUT THAT IN SAJJANRAJ INDIVIDUAL S RETURN WHAT HAS BEEN DECLARED IS 880 AND NOT 580.HE CONTENDS THAT PROBAB LY THIS 580 IS AN ERROR. I HAVE PERUSED THE RETURN FLIED, WHEREIN THE DECLARAT ION IS AT. 880 GMS, AND THE CALCULATION ETC. IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: VALUATION OF JEWELLERY ETC. GOLD JEWELLERY: 880 GMS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS VALUEDAT 515/- PER GM. 4,53,200 THEREFORE, I AGREE WITH THIS CLAIM. 37. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER S FINDING RELATING TO SAJJANRAJ (HUF) AND LALITHABAI WHAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS STATED IS CORRECT.THEREFORE THE DIFFERENCE OF 470 GMS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN PARA24, PAGE 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS CORRECT. THIS IS ACCEPTED BY THE AS PER LEARNED AR. THE LD.AR CONTENDS THAT IN PARAGRAPH 25, THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAD NOTACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF JEWELLERY RELATING TO D.HA RSHA AT 500 GMS. AND PHUILBAI M. AT144 GMS., TOTALING TO 644 GMS. AS NOT HAVING BEEN PROVED. THE LD. AR FURNISHED ACOPY OF THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS FI LED BY SUNITA, DAUGHTER OF 17 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 M.SAJIANRAJ WHEREIN, A GIFT OF 1000 GMS. IS REFLECT ED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO D.HARSHA DURING THE TIME OF THEENGAGEMENT OF HER BR OTHER S.DINESH KUMAR. THIS RETURN HAS BEEN FILED ON 27-08-2003, WELL BEFO RE THE DATE OF SEARCH. 38. THE LD.AR PRESENTS FOR EASY COMPREHENSION THE F OLLOWING CHART. NAME PAN GOLD GOLD BULLIO N SILVER DIAMONDS IN GMS IN GMS IN GMS IN CTS M. SAJJANMJ* ABBPS6O31M 880.000 -- 30.000 11200 M.SAJJANRAJ (HUF)** AAHHM3983K 579.000 --- 37.000 14.200 S. LALITHA BAI*** AACPLO317R 1731.000 --- 25.000 18.950 S. R4JESHKUMAR AAHPR7339C 230.800 --- --- 10,200 N. MOHANLAL(HUF) A.ADNN7163C 1718.000 --- 20,000 10,000 S. DINESH KUMAR AAHPD7898N 558.000 --- 35.000 0.8 R. SANJUSHREE AYSPSS934P 978.000 775 5.000 --- D.HARSHA***** AAQPH1204D 1000.000 --- 2,000 U PHULIBAI***** AMCPPO222F 1078.000 --- 25,500 14,000 TOTAL 8752..800 775 179.500 79.35 NOTES: * VERIFIED AS 880 GMS. FROM THE RETURN OF WEALTH AS DISCUSSED EARLIER. ** ACCEPTED BY THE LD.AR AS HAVING BEEN CORRECTLY T AKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. *** -DO- ****IN PARAGRAPH 25, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF 500 GMS. AS BELONGING TO D.HARSHA, WIFE OF S.DLNESH KUM AR. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, THISCAN BE CO-RELATED WITH 1000 GMS. GIFTED BY S..S UNITA, SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE TO D.HARSHA AT THE TIME OF ENGAGEMENT. ***** THIS JEWELLERY OF 1078 GMS. HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF 144 GMS. AS RELATING TO HER, IN PARAGRAPH 25 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD.AR CO NTENDS THAT EVEN 18 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THIS CLAIM OF 144 GMS., STILL IN THE RESULT THERE IS A SHORTAGE AS BELOW: 1. PERSONAL GOLD JEWELLERY: 39. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE PERSONAL JEWELL ERY AT RESIDENCE IN VELLORE AND VIRINJIPURARM WERE INVENTORISED, THE JEWELLERY PLEDGED WITH THE DHANLAXMI BANK LTD WERE ALSO NOTICED. THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF JEW ELLERY INVENTORISED IS 8488.100 GRAMS. THE GROSS WEIGHT & NET WEIGHT AS PE R VALUATION REPORT WERE AS BELOW: JEWELLERY FOUND AT VELLORE RESIDENCE GROSS WEIGHT NET WEIGHT JEWELLERY FOUND AT ABOVE RESIDENCE (ITEM NO.1) 3951.45 3238.02 JEWELLERY FOUND AT ABOVE RESIDENCE (ITEM NO.2) 194.710 175.850 JEWELLERY FOUND AT VIRINJIPURAM RESIDENCE GROSS WEIGHT NET WEIGHT JEWELLERY FOUND AT ABOVE RESLDENCE(ITEM NO.1) 127 2.02 1184.25 . JEWELLERY FOUND AT ABOVE RESIDENCE (ITEM NO.2) 352.45 223.32 JEWELLERV PLEDGE WITHDHANIAXMI BANK, VELLOREGROSS W EIGHT NET WEIGHT 3449.150 3449.150 TOTAL 9219.780 8270.59 LESS :JEWELLERY DECLARED IN WEALTH TAX AS IN TABLE ABOVE. 8752.800 NET TOTAL SHORTAGE : 482.210 THUS, THERE IS NO CASE FOR ADDITION OF 7,87,074/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS PERSONAL JEWELLERY FOUND AT RESIDENCE ACCORDING TO HIM. 40. I HAVE CONSIDERED COPIES OF THE WEALTH TAX RETU RNS FURNISHED WHICH WERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSM ENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD STATED THAT THE GIFTS CANNOT BE PROVED. IN MY O PINION, FOR GIFTS WHICH ARE CUSTOMARY THERE GENERALLY IS NO PROOF. RETURNS FILE D PRIOR TO SEARCH SHOW THESEGIFTS. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED THAT THE SISTER OF THE APPELLANT HAD GIFTED SOME JEWELLERY TO SMT.HARSHA, THE BRIDE-TO-BE OF TH E ASSESSEES SON IS VERY PLAUSIBLE AND NOT A PREPOSTEROUS CLAIM. THE SAME OB TAINS TO THE EXPLANATION OFFERED WITH REGARD TO SMT.PHULIBAI. THEREFORE, I A M INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED, AND ONCE THESE GIFTS ARE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF, THERE IS NO EXCESS AS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED. THEREFORE, THE ADD ITION MADE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 19 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 10. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE T HROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL . SINCE THE REVENUE COULD NOT ASSAIL THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A), SUPRA, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 11 ON THE LD DR PLEAS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HA S ERRED IN TELESCOPING THE PAWNED LOANS AT RS.32,308 WITHOUT A NY NEXUS, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE INTEREST INCOME ON THE ADVANCES OUTSTANDING AT RS.8,60,365 WITHOUT ANY PRO OF THAT THE INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN REINVESTED IN THE BUSINESS AND THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF A DVANCE TO S.MANIVANNAN AT RS.50,000 WITHOUT ANY PROOF THAT TH E AMOUNT WAS PAID FROM CASH AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS, THE LD AR RELIED ON THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND HENCE THE Y ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER : 41. PAWNED LOANS: 32308/-. THE LD.AR PRAYS FOR TELESCOPING OF THIS WI TH THE INCOME DECLARED WHICH IS ACCEPTED AND THE ADDITION MADE TO THIS EXTENT IS DELETED. 42. REDEEMED PAWNED TICKETS: 8,60,365I-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HASWORKED OUT AN INTEREST INCOME OF 8,60,365/- ON THE ADVANCES OUTSTANDING OF 57,35,570/-, WHICH THE LD.AR CONTENDS TO HAVE BEEN REINVESTED IN THE BUSINESS.THIS PLEA IS ACCEPTED AND THE ADDITION MAD E IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE TO S.MANIVANNAN IN RELATION TO PURCHASE OF PROPERTY:- 50,000/-. 43. THE LD.AR EXPLAINS THAT 25,00,000/- WAS PAID AS ADVANCE IN CASH ON 17- 5-2006 TO SM S.MANIVANNAN. A SUM OF 24,50,000/- WAS OFFERED AS INCOME 20 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 FOR THE A.Y 2007-08 AND THE BALANCE OF 50,000/- CAN BE EXPLAINED AS HAVING BEEN PAID OUT OF THE CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT ACCEPTED THIS AS NOT BEING PROVED. THE LD.AR CONTENDS THAT ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCOME FOR EARLIER YEARS WHICH DEFINITELY WILL ADD TO THE CASH AVAILAB ILITY IN THE BUSINESS. OUT OF THE CASH AVAILABLE DURING THIS YEAR 50,000/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID. 24,50,000/- HAS BEEN OFFERED IN THE RETURN FILED. T HIS EXPLANATION OFFERED IS REASONABLE AND THE ADDITION MADE IS THER EFORE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 12. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE T HROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL . SINCE THE REVENUE COULD NOT ASSAIL THE SPECIFIC FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD CIT(A), SUPRA, ON EACH OF THE I SSUE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CI T(A) ON THESE ISSUES. 13. ON THE LD DRS PLEA THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION RELATING TO UNACCOUNTED CASH FOUND IN THE RESIDENCE AT VIRINJIPURAM WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, THE LD AR RELIED ON THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND HENCE THE Y ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER : 45. 1,00,000/- WAS FOUND IN THE RESIDENCE AT VIRINJIPUR AM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PAGE 14 OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER STATES T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.1 EXPLAINED THAT THIS AMOUNT BELONGED TO SMT. PHULIBAI, HIS MOTHER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,OBSERVES THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM. TH E EXPLANATION DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THAT THESE BELONG TO SMT.PHULI BAI, WITH REFERENCE TO RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE A.YS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 OF SMT. PHULIBAI WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THESE RETURNS HAVE BEEN FLIED, AFTER THE SEARCH. THE LD.AR CONTENDS THAT THE RESIDENCE AT VIRINJIPUR AM BELONGS TO THE APPELLANTS FATHER SHRIN.MOHANLAL. THE APPELLANTS MOTHER HAD BEEN RESIDING ALONE AT HER RESIDENCE. THE AMOUNT WAS SEIZED FROM THE POOJA ROOM OF THE RESIDENCE. A LADY OF 80 YEARS DEFINITELY CAN HAVE A CASH BALANCE OF L,00,000/- 21 ITANO.1352/CHNY/2012 FOR PURPOSES OF EMERGENCY. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT NATURALLY HAVE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SINCE IT BELONGED TO HIS MOTHE R. THE CAPITAL OF SMT.PHULIBAI, WHO WAS AN ASSESSEE EVEN PRIOR TO SEA RCH, IN HER RETURNS WAS AROUND 25,00,000/-. NOT ACCEPTING THE LATEST RETURNS JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN FILED AFTER THE SEARCH IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND TH EREFORE THIS ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORRECT. 46. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION OFFERED. THE CASH OF 1,00,000/- HAS BEEN SEIZED FROM THE POOJA ROOM AT SMT.PHUIIBAIS R ESIDENCE. SHE HAD BEEN LIVING ON HER OWN. THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO O FFER AN EXPLANATION, NOR WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS NATUR ALLY HE WAS NOT AWARE EVEN OF THE AMOUNT. SMT.PHULIBAI HAS BEEN AN ASSES SEE EVEN PRIOR TO SEARCH AND HER RETURNS FILED SHOW SUFFICIENT CAPITAL. IT I S NOT UNCOMMON FOR A LADY WHO IS ON HER OWN TO HAVE 1,00,000/- FOR EMERGENCIES. THE AMOUNT ALSO IS REFLECTED IN THE RETURN FILED BY SMT.PHULIBAI. THER EFORE, IN MY OPINION, THE ADDITION OF 1,00,000/- IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND IS THEREFORE DIRE CTED TO BE DELETED. 14. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE T HROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL. SINCE THE REVENUE COULD NOT ASSAIL THE S PECIFIC FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD CIT(A), SUPRA, WE DO NOT FIN D ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED PARTLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) (S.JAYARAMAN) ( /JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) /CHENNAI, /DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 SOMU '. /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. / ) (/CIT(A) 4. / /CIT 5. ' /DR 6. # /GF