The DCIT, Jalandhar V. Smt. Kamal Gandhi, Nawanshahr

ITA 152/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9632 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A N MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: BHAGAT; RAJINDER CHOPRA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Document seized; Additional evidence; Documents seized
• Section: 132; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (CAMP AT JALANDHAR) BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.152(A SR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YE ARS: 2010-11 THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II JALANDHAR. VS. SMT. KAMAL GANDHI, BHATTI COLONY, CHANDIGARH ROAD, NAWANSHAHAR. PAN:ADWPG0708N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A NO.114(A SR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEA RS: 2010-11 SMT. KAMAL GANDHI, C/O M/S K.C. PALACE, ROHAN ROAD, NAWANSHAHAR. PAN:ADWPG0708N VS. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. A.N.MISRA (DR) RESPONDENT BY: SH.M.R. BHAGAT & SH. RAJINDER CHOPRA (CA) DATE OF HEARING: 23.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T: 04.08.2016 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE AS WELL AS BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 12..12.2012. 2. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APP EAL WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW. I TA NOS.152 & 114 (ASR)/2013 ASST. YEARS : 2010-11 2 1. THAT THE LD, CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN LA W AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS, 1,98,121/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISAL LOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 24(B), KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS MENTIONED IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,284/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIVIDEN D CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S 10(34), KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT AMOUNT O F RS. 44,284/- IS DIVIDEND INCOME. 3(I). THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 64,80,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3(II). THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-1, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED I N LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 64,80,000/- BY NOT APP RECIATING THE FACT THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 64,80,000/- IS CLEARLY WRITTEN AGA INST LAND MEASURING 10 KANALS 16 MARLAS AT VPO RAHON, WHICH IS IN THE N AME OF MRS. KAMAL GANDHI AND IS EVIDENCED BY SEIZED DOCUMENT NO. 109 OF ANNEXURE 2. 3(III). THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED I N LAW AND ON FACTS IN SHIFTING THE ONUS OF EXPLAINING THE INVESTMENT OF R S, 64,80,000/- IN THE ABOVE PROPERTY TO THE AO. 4(I)., THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS, 8,78,996/- MADE ON ACC OUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS MEN TIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4(II).. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED I N LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 8, 78,996/-IS CLEARLY WRITTEN AGAINST THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN SEIZED DOCUMENT NO, 107 OF ANNEXURE A-19. 4(III). THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED I N LAW AND ON FACT IN OBSERVING THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS ONLY RECORDS NUMB ER OF SHARES TO BE BOUGHT AND THUS WAS A MERE PROPOSAL. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS, 8,29,000/- OUT OF TOT AL ADDITION OFRS. 13,29,040/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY FOUND DURI NG SEARCH, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6(I). THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED I N LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 59,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PURCHASE OF SHARES, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6(II). THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN OBSERVING THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS ONLY RECORDS NUMBER OF SHAR ES TO BE BOUGHT AND THUS WAS A MERE PROPOSAL. I TA NOS.152 & 114 (ASR)/2013 ASST. YEARS : 2010-11 3 7. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT NO EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED ADDITIONS WAS PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE NON- COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF TH E ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED EXPARTE U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 8. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)~I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED ADD ITIONS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH AND ON THE BASIS OF FACTS ON RECORDS. 9. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-I S LUDHIANA, HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE WAS SPECIFICALLY OBJECTED BY THE AO IN THE RE MAND REPORT UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. 10. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND GRO UND(S) OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 11. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE REST ORED. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ONLY ONE GROUND OF APPEAL WHEREIN HE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE ACTION OF LEARNED CIT(A), BY WHICH HE HAD PARTLY CONFIRMED ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5 LAC S ON ACCOUNT OF GOLD ORNAMENTS SEIZED U/S 133 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4. THE LEARNED DR, AT THE OUTSET, INVITED OUR ATTENTIO N TO THE VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE AND SUBMITTED THAT LEAR NED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT CONSIDERING HE ENTIRE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS W ERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING SURVEY ON THE AS SESSEE. THE LEARNED DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS WRONGL Y ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT ASSES SING OFFICER IN REMAND REPORT HAD SPECIALLY OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE LEARNED DR HEAVILY PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. I TA NOS.152 & 114 (ASR)/2013 ASST. YEARS : 2010-11 4 5. THE LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT I N ALL 58 NOTICES U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WERE SERVED ON VARIOUS GROUP COMP ANIES OF ASSESSEE AND THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS 26.12.2011 AS ALL THE CA SES WERE GOING TO GET TIME BAR ON 31.12.2011 AND THEREFORE, THE FILING OF DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME WAS NOT HUMANELY POSSIBLE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE EVIDENCES WERE NECES SARY FOR ARRIVING AT THE CORRECT DECISION AS THESE EVIDENCES INCLUDED TH E EVIDENCE FOR COST PRICE OF SHARES AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND DIVIDEND INCOME. 6. AS REGARDS THE DELETION OF ADDITIONS ON MERITS, THE LEARNED AR HEAVILY PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINATION OF ALL DOCUMENTS H AS PASSED A SPEAKING AND EXHAUSTIVE ORDER WHICH SHOULD BE UPHELD. 7. AS REGARDS THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE, THE LEARNE D AR SUBMITTED THAT PART CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.5 LACS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS LIVING IN THE JOINT FAMILY A LONG WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. 8. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AS REGARDS ASSESSEES APPEAL. I TA NOS.152 & 114 (ASR)/2013 ASST. YEARS : 2010-11 5 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROU GH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT W AS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLET ED U/S 144 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF DO CUMENTS SEIZED DURING SURVEY MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS. (I) DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST CLAIMED ON BORROWED CAPITA L AGAINST RENTAL INCOME OF RS.1,98,121/- (II) DIVIDEND INCOME CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S 10(34) RS.44,284 /- (III) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN LAND R S.64,80,000/- (IV) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES RS.8,78 ,996/- (V) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF SHARES FROM FIVE PERSONS RS.59,00,000/- (VI) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING SURV EY RS.13.29,040/-. 10. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE F ILED APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED VARIOUS SUBMISS IONS AND EXPLANATIONS FOR THE ADDITIONS MADE BY ASSESSING OF FICER AND ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A. THE LEARNED CIT (A) FORWARDED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED CONSOLIDATE D REMAND REPORT FOR ASST. YEARS: 2004-05 TO 2010-11 WHICH IS PLACED AT (PB PAGE 3 TO 19). THE ASSESSING OFFICER DEALT WITH EACH AND EVERY ADDITIO N AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITIONS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN I TA NOS.152 & 114 (ASR)/2013 ASST. YEARS : 2010-11 6 THE REMAND REPORT ALSO OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE LEARNED CIT(A), HOWEVER, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCO UNT THE FACTS, REMAND REPORT AND REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT DELETED T HE ADDITIONS BY HOLDING AS UNDER: DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST CLAIMED ON BORROWED CAPITA L AGAINST RENTRAL INCOME OF RS.1,98,121/- 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE AS WELL AS THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE P ERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT FILED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT INTEREST DEBITED AGAINST THE RENTAL INCO ME HAS BEEN PAID TO THE BANK WITH RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT BORROWED. IT IS ALS O A MATTER OF FACT THAT NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT INVESTED IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING APPARENTLY BEC AUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT HAS BEEN BORROWED FROM THE BANKS ON INTEREST. IT IS ALSO TO BE APPRECIATED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE A DDITION ON ACCOUNT OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS WEL L. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT HOLD THAT T HE AMOUNT BORROWED HAS NOT BEEN USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF T HE BUILDING OF WHICH RENT IS RECEIVED THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. DIVIDEND INCOME CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S 10(34) 44,284/- 9. THE SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT WERE SENT TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER HIS COMMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE O F REMAND PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE DIVIDEND WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE PROOF OF INVESTMENT OR TH E EVIDENCE THAT THE SAME WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DIVIDEND. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE BASIS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT AS THE ASSES SEE HAS CREDITED THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND NO SEPARATE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED FURTHER, THE ASSES SEE IS OWNER OF VARIOUS SHARES AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE SAME HAS BEEN IN THE SEIZED RECORD A FACT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTRADICTED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN THE REMAND REPORT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CAN NOT BE PRESUMED THAT IMPUGNED AMOUNTS PERTAIN TO ANYTHING BUT DIVIDENDS. THE ADDITION MAD E IS THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT INVESTMENT IN LAND RS.64,80,000 /- 13. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITIONS MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE AS WELL AS THE REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. IT IS QUITE APPA RENT FROM THE PERUSAL OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAS BEEN VALUED AT THE I TA NOS.152 & 114 (ASR)/2013 ASST. YEARS : 2010-11 7 STATED PRICE RS.64,80,000/- FOR SOME PURPOSES BY TH E APPELLANT AND IT DOES NOT SPEAK OF THE PURCHASE PRICE AT ALL. FURTHER, TH E APPELLANT HAD GIVEN THE DETAILS OF PHOTOCOPY OF PURCHASE DEED OF THE LAND P URCHASED BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS SON HITESH GANDHI AT VILLAGE RAHO N MEASURING 12KANALS 8MARLAS. EVEN OTHERWISE THE ASSET IN QUESTION IS AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND ITS OWNERSHIP WOULD BE EVIDENCED ONLY BY APPROPRIAT E DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF TITLE DEEDS AND NOT BY MERE NOTING ON A PIE CE OF PLAIN PAPER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY SUC H EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ACTUALLY PURCHASED THE IMPUG NED PROPERTY. EVEN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY S UCH EVIDENCE. IT IS VERY EASY TO REFER TO THE REVENUE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO KNOW ITS CURRENT AND PREVIOUS OWNERS AND IN THE INS TANT CASE NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN MARSHALED TO HOLD THE VIEW THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE D ELETED. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES FOR RS. 8,78,996/- & RS.59,00,000/- 17. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE AS WELL AS THE REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. I HAVE ALSO PERU SED IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF CHART PREPARED TO ACQUIRE SHAREHOLDINGS BY DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF THE GANDHI FA MILY HOW THE SAME WAS TO BE PROCEEDED WITH. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE SAID PROPOSAL WAS NEVER ACTED UPON AS NO PAYMENT IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAME HAD BEEN MADE. THE SAID CHART CLEARLY RECORDS NUMBER OF SHARES TO BE BOUGHT, THE RATE AT WHICH THEY WERE TO BE OUGHT, THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID BY CHEQUE ETC. IT IS EVIDENT THAT NO AMOUNT STANDS RECORDED AS PAID BY V ARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE GANDHI FAMILY INCLUDING THE APPELLANT TO EFFECT THE PROPOSED PURCHASES. IN CASE OF THE SAID PROPOSED TRANSACTION HAVING BEEN M ATERIALIZED NECESSARY DEBITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WILL HAVE TO TAKE PLACE APART FROM CASH TRANSACTIONS, IF ANY. IT IS ALSO LOGICAL TO EXPECT THAT ON THE MATERIALIZATION OF THE PROPOSED PURCHASES THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHE R MEMBERS WOULD BECOME OWNERS OF THE SAID SHARES, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE AT ALL. TO SUM UP, IT BECOMES ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE IMPUGNED SEIZED D OCUMENTS CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF SHARE WAS A MERE PROPOSAL, ALTHOUGH A DETAILED ONE AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION ON THE SAME WAS CALLED FOR. I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING SURVE Y RS.13.29,040/- 22. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE AS WELL AS THE REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. IT IS A MATTER O F FACT .THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION BELONGED TO THREE LADIES IN THE HOUSE AND NONE OF THEM IS WEALTH TAX ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO A M ATTER OF FACT THAT NO STATEMENT HAS BEEN RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH OPERATION ON THE ISSUE OF ACCOUNTABILITY OF IMPUGNED ' JEWELLERY AND SAME HAS NOT BEEN SEIZED ON THE BASIS OF CBDT CIRCULAR REFERRED TO BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CIRCULAR REFERRED TO BY THE APPELLANT IS M EANT FOR THE PROCEDURE TO BE I TA NOS.152 & 114 (ASR)/2013 ASST. YEARS : 2010-11 8 ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICERS DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH OPERATION IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE INCONVENIENCE ASSOCIATED WITH SEIZURE OF JEWELLERY ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SAME IS WITHIN CERTAIN LIMITS A S PRESCRIBED THEREIN. HOWEVER THE SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN ALLO WANCE OF RS.6 LAKHS BEING ISTRIDHAN WHICH TO MY MIND COULD NOT BE APPRO PRIATE AND REASONABLE ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE THREE LADIES LIVING JOINT LY AND NO OTHER JEWELLERY HAS BEEN FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE/LOCKERS. IN THE C IRCUMSTANCES, JEWELLERY AMOUNTING TO RS.8,29,000/- IS CONSIDERED AS REASONA BLE BEING OWNED BY THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF ISTRIDHAN. THEREFORE, ADDIT ION MADE TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,00,000/- IS CONFIRMED. 11. THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A) WITH RESPECT T O EACH DELETION OF ADDITION IS BASED UPON CATEGORICALLY FINDINGS MADE BY HIM ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 12. AS REGARDS THE DELETION OF RS.1,98,121/- AS INTERES T FROM THE ANNUAL RENT RECEIPTS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED FROM THE EXAMINATION OF BANK ACCOUNT FILED BY ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAD RE ALLY MADE PAYMENTS OF INTEREST AGAINST AMOUNTS BORROWED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AND THEREFORE, HE RIGHTLY HELD THAT INTEREST WAS ALLOWA BLE DEDUCTION AGAINST THE RENT INCOME RECEIVED FROM SUCH BUILDING. SIMILARLY, AS REGARDS THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.44,284/-, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MADE A FINDING OF FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF VARIOUS SHARES AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE SAME WAS AVAILABLE IN THE SEIZED RECORDS, THEREFORE , HE HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 13. AS REGARDS THE DELETION OF RS.64,80,000/- ON ACCOUN T THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T IN PROPERTY MEASURING 12 KANALS AND 8 MARLAS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY I TA NOS.152 & 114 (ASR)/2013 ASST. YEARS : 2010-11 9 OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HOLD THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE SA ID AMOUNT IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND THE OWNERSHIP OR THE FACT OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY COULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED FROM TITLE DEEDS OF SUCH P ROPERTY WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT DONE AND MERELY A NOTING ON A PIECE OF PAPER DOES NOT MEAN THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MADE A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOTED DOWN THE VA LUATION OF SUCH PROPERTY AND IT DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE PURCHASE P RICE OF SUCH PROPERTY. 14. AS REGARDS THE DELETION ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE HAVI NG MADE INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF SHARES, THE LEARNED C IT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE CHART SHOWING DIFFERENT FAMILY MEMBERS OF GANDHI FA MILY AS OWNERS OF THE SHARES WAS PREPARED TO ACQUIRE SHAREHOLDINGS BY DIF FERENT MEMBERS OF THE GANDHI FAMILY FOR WHICH PAYMENTS WERE TO BE MADE BY CHEQUES. HE HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT PROPOSAL WAS NEVER ACTED UPON AS NO PAYMENT IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAME HAD BEEN MADE. THE LEARNED CI T(A) HAS FURTHER HELD THAT ON ACQUISITION OF SHARES THE ASSESSEE ALO NGWITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY WOULD HAVE BECOME OWNERS OF THE SHARE S WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE. THEREFORE, HE HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENTS CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF SHARES WAS MERE A PROPOSA L AND WAS NOT ACTED UPON. I TA NOS.152 & 114 (ASR)/2013 ASST. YEARS : 2010-11 10 15. AS REGARDS THE PART ADDITION DELETION ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY, WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS VERY REASONABLY ALLOWED PAR TIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 16. THE LEARNED DR WAS NOT ABLE TO CONTROVERT ANY OF TH E FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A). 17. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) WHO HAS PA SSED A WELL REASONED AND EXHAUSTIVE ORDER. 18. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 19. AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, WE FIND THAT LEAR NED CIT(A) HAS ALREADY ALLOWED APPROPRIATE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE HAS NO FORCE AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 20. IN NUTSHELL, THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE AS WEL L AS BY ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 .08.2016. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 04.08.2016. /PK/PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: I TA NOS.152 & 114 (ASR)/2013 ASST. YEARS : 2010-11 11 (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER