ANITA KHANNA, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 20, MUMBAI

ITA 173/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7508 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C OMI NINGSHEN; B SRINIVAS LD
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK RAOLD
• Keywords: Gift; Business income; Salary income; Principle of natural justice; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 131; 132

Judgement Text

ITA NO.169-176/MUM/2016 RAKESH KHANNA & ANITA KHANNA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO.169-172/MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 TO 2010-11 & 2012-13) RAKESH KHANNA 161B,TWIN TOWERS TWIN TOWERS LANE, PRABHADEVI MUMBAI-400 025 / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-20 AAYKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO.AADPK-9771-B ( /APPELLANT ) : ( !' / RESPONDENT ) & ./I.T.A. NO.173-176/MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 TO 2010-11) ANITA KHANNA 161B,TWIN TOWERS TWIN TOWERS LANE, PRABHADEVI MUMBAI-400 025 / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-20 AAYKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO.AADPK-9772-C ( /APPELLANT ) : ( !' / RESPONDENT ) REVENUEBY : M.C.OMI NINGSHEN & B.SRINIVAS, LD. CIT(DR) ASSESSEE BY : ASHOK RAO,LD.AR / DATE OF HEARING : 05/04/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 /04/2018 2 ITA NO.169-176/MUM/2016 RAKESH KHANNA & ANITA KHANNA / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. THE BUNCH OF CAPTIONED APPEALS BY TWO ASSESSEE F OR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS [AY] CONTEST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD . FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. SINCE THE ISSUES UNDER APPEAL ARE INTER- RELATED, ALL THE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED-OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE & BREVITY. THESE APPEALS MAY BE TABULAT ED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER AND THE SAME ARE TAKEN UP IN THE SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS:- ITA NOS. 169-172/MUM/2016 AYS 2008-09 TO 2010-11 & 2012-13 : RAKESH KHANNA 2. THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2012-13 CONT EST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-51 [CIT(A) ], MUMBAI, APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-51/IT-60/2014-15 DATED 20/10/2015. THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, MUMBAI [AO] U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ASSESSMENT YEAR APPEAL NO. RAKESH KHANNA 2008-09 171/MUM/2016 RAKESH KHANNA 2009-10 170/MUM/2016 RAKESH KHANNA 2010-11 172/MUM/2016 RAKESH KHANNA 2012-13 169/MUM/2016 ANITA KHANNA 2007-08 175/MUM/2016 ANITA KHANNA 2008-09 173/MUM/2016 ANITA KHANNA 2009-10 174/MUM/2016 ANITA KHANNA 2010-11 176/MUM/2016 3 ITA NO.169-176/MUM/2016 RAKESH KHANNA & ANITA KHANNA 24/03/2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING E FFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,89 ,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF 9% ADDITIONAL INTEREST INCOME ALL EGEDLY EARNED IN CASH AND NOT DECLARED IN THE RETURN. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS.12,77,130/ - REPRESENTING GIFTS OF JEWELLERY RECEIVED ON VARIOUS OCCASION FROM PARENTS, IN-LAWS AND OTHERS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS.35,83,674/ -, REPRESENTING JEWELLERY INHERITED BY YOUR APPELLANT FROM HIS MOTHER. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT DELETING AN AMOUNT OF RS.19,904/- REPRESENTING JEWELLERY PURCHASED BY YOUR APPELLANT FOR HIS CHILDREN. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT GIVING A FINDING IN RESPECT OF JEW ELLERY AGGREGATING RS.12,76,651/- (RS.3,52,893/- BY PARENTS/IN-LAWS, RS.6,71,678/- BY PARENTS AND RS.2,52,080/- BY IN-LAWS) GIVEN BY THE PARENTS AND IN-LAWS ON THE EN GAGEMENT OF YOUR APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE AND, HENCE, IN NOT DELETING THE CONCER NED ADDITION BY THE AO. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED A LARGEST AMOUNT THAN 500 GMS. FOR YOUR APP ELLANTS WIFE AND 100 GMS. FOR YOUR APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF RELIEF AVAILABLE U NDER INSTRUCTION NO.1916 DATED 11 TH MAY,1994 AS PARA (III) THEREOF. 3.1 FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN ASSESSED U/S 143(3) ON 24/03/2014 AT RS.133.21 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS/DISALLOWANCES AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOM E OF RS.64.05 LACS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 16/09/2012. CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH OPERATIONS U/S 132 ON 16/09/2011 ON UNIVERSAL MEDICAL GROUP, THE ASSESSEE BEING DIRECTOR OF UNIVERSAL GROUP, WAS ALSO COVERED IN THE SAID OPERATIONS. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED AY U/S 139(1) ON 16/09/2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.64,05,38 0/- WHICH COMPRISED OF INCOME FROM SALARY, BUSINESS INCOME, CAPITAL GAINS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4 ITA NO.169-176/MUM/2016 RAKESH KHANNA & ANITA KHANNA 3.2 DURING SEARCH OPERATIONS, BACKUP OF LAPTOP OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN WHEREIN LOAN AND INTEREST CALCULATION SHEET WAS FOUND CONTAINING CERTAIN INTEREST CALCULATIONS AND THE SAME IS EXTRACTED BEL OW:- FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.08-31.12.2008 AMT.(RS.) AMT.(RS.) (I)LOAN ACCOUNT RAKESH KHANNA(HUF) 1500000 RAKESH KHANNA/ANITA KHANNA 2100000 ANITA KHANNA/RAKESH KHANNA 5400000 9000000 (II) PROFESSION FEES O/S AS ON 05/01/09 262044 262044 (III)INTREST ON LOAN O/S AS ON 31/12/08 ANITA KHANNA 972000 RAKESH KHANNA 402000 CHANDAN KHANNA 96000 1470000 10732044 INTT. CALCULATED AT THE RATE OF 24% (15% IN CHEQUES AND 9% IN CASH) RS. 25.00 LACS (20 TO MR. CHANDAN AND 5 TO MR RAKES H) WAS PAID ON 12/06/08. INTT. FOR 73 DAYS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS AN ATTACHMENT OF AN EMAIL SENT BY ONE SHRI SANJEEV SWAMY, CHIEF PROMOTER OF AN ENTITY NAMELY DOUCEUR SPORTSWEAR MFG. CO. PVT. LTD. [DSM]. CONSEQUENTLY, THE STATEMENT U/S 131 OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS SH. SANJEEV SWAMY WAS RECORDED, THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE NUMBER S 3 & 4 OF THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW-CAUSED TO EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF LOAN ADVANCED TO THE SAI D ENTITY NAMELY DSM. THE MAIN DISPUTE UNDER APPEAL IS YEAR OF TAXABILIT Y OF 9% ADDITIONAL SUM AS STATED IN THE ABOVE EMAIL RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SAID LOAN. THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS SANJEEV SWAMY ADMITTED THAT INTEREST OF 9% REFERRED TO IN ABOVE E-MAIL WAS PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE 5 ITA NO.169-176/MUM/2016 RAKESH KHANNA & ANITA KHANNA AGAINST SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ADVANCED BY ASSESSEE TO DSM AS ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IN PERSONAL CAPACITY OF SANJEEV SWAMY WHEREAS THE INTEREST AMOUNT OF 15% WAS PAYABLE BY DSM TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ADDITIONAL COMPENS ATION OF 9% WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE SAME WA S TO BE OFFERED ON CASH BASIS UPON ACTUAL RECEIPT THEREOF. HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCE D, LD. AO WORKED OUT 9% ADDITIONAL INTEREST FOR RELEVANT AYS AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME, W HICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:- NO. AY AMOUNT (RS.) 1. 2008-09 89,112/- 2. 2009-10 1,98,366/- 3. 2010-11 1,89,000/- 4. 2011-12 1,89,000/- 5. 2012-13 1,89,000/- TOTAL 8,54,478/- 3.3 THE SECOND ADDITION PERTAINS TO GOLD & DIAMOND JEWELLERY & SILVER ARTICLES VALUED AT RS.67,27,325/- FOUND AT THE RESI DENTIAL PREMISES AS WELL AS FROM THE LOCKER HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WITH HDFC BANK . THE ASSESSEE ATTRIBUTED THE SOURCE OF JEWELLERY AS GIFTS RECEIVE D ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS, INHERITANCE THROUGH WILL UPON DEATH OF ASSESSEES M OTHER ON 09/12/2009 & PURCHASES FROM TIME TO TIME THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL S. HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED WITH ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. AO A DDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY. 4. AGGRIEVED AS ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE, CONTESTED BOTH THE ADDITIONS WITH PARTIAL SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORD ER WHERE LD. CIT(A) 6 ITA NO.169-176/MUM/2016 RAKESH KHANNA & ANITA KHANNA AFTER CONSIDERING FACTUAL MATRIX AND ASSESSEES SUB MISSIONS CONCLUDED THAT MATTER QUA INTEREST INCOME IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- C. ONCE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT IS TAXABLE AND SHOULD BE OFFERED TO TAX, THE ONLY QUESTION THAT IS TO BE ADDRESSED IS THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY. BASED ON THE EVIDENCE FLIED I HAVE NO HESITATION THAT ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THE CASH INTEREST NEEDS TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT AND NOT ON ACCRUAL BASIS. HAVING SA ID SO, THE ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE FURTHER ADDRESSED IS WHETHER ASSESSEE DID NOT YET RECEIVE T HE CASH PORTION OF INTEREST AS CLAIMED BY HIM AND SWAMY. THIS, IN MY OPINION, IS NOT THAT SIM PLE AS IT LOOKS. IT IS ALREADY MADE CLEAR IN THE ABOVE PARAS THAT THE CASH PORTION OF INTEREST IS NO T MEANT TO BE DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THE RELEVANT FACTS TO BE CONSIDERED ARE NOT THE AVERMENTS IN THE AFFIDAVIT BUT THE GENERAL BEHAVIOR IN SUCH CASES AND THE MARKET PRACT ICES THAT GOVERN SUCH TRANSACTIONS. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT SWAMY (M/S DSW) PAID 15% INTEREST I N F.YR.07-08, 08-09 CORRESPONDING TO AYR.08-09 AND 09-10. FOR A.YR. 2010-11 INTEREST WAS NOT PAID THOUGH TDS WAS DEDUCTED AND CERTIFICATE GIVEN, THE REASON BEING ALLEGED FINANCI AL CONSTRAINTS OF DSW. GENERAL MARKET PRACTICE IN CASES OF CASH INTEREST IS THAT IT IS PAID ALONG WITH THE CHEQUE INTEREST OR EVEN PRIOR TO CHEQUE PAYMENT. AS THERE IS NO WRITTEN DOCUMENT FOR THE CA SH PORTION OF INTEREST AND AS THE SAME IS NOT MEANT TO BE BROUGHT INTO REGULAR BOOKS, AS DISCUSSE D ABOVE, IT IS BUT NATURAL TO ASSUME THAT THE PARTIES WENT BY THE GENERAL MARKET PRACTICE FOR SET TLEMENT OF CASH PORTION OF INTEREST. THUS, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE WAS PAID CASH PORTIO N OF INTEREST FOR A.YR. 08-09 AND 09-10. FOR THE REMAINING A.YRS. SWAMY COULD NOT EVEN PAY THE 1 5% INTEREST AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT 9% INTEREST WAS PAID BY HIM. AS THE AS SESSEE IS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE CASH INTEREST WHICH WAS NOT RECEIVE D CANNOT BE TAXED. IN THE RESULT IT IS HELD THAT 9% INTEREST SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN A.YR 08-09 AND 09-10 ONLY BEING THE YEARS IN WHICH 15% INTEREST IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND NOT IN A. YR. 10-11, 11-12 AND 12-13. AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. AS FAR AS A.YR. 12-13 IS CONCERNED; TH E ADDITION MADE BY AO IN THIS REGARD WILL NOT STAND. AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION FOR TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS, THUS, ALLOWED. SIMILARLY, PARTIAL RELIEF HAS BEEN PROVIDED AGAINST JEWELLERY ADDITION BY LD. CIT(A) TO THE FOLLOWING EXTENT:- NO. PARTICULARS RELIEF PROVIDED ADDITION SUSTAINED 1. PURCHASES MADE BY ASSESSEE 5,70,776/- 19,094/- 2. GIFTS RECEIVED ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS OVERALL RELI EF AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 1916 NOT QUANTIFIED 3. INHERITED FROM MOTHERS WILL NIL 35,83,674/- AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE [AR] TAKING US THROUGH DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER-BOOK CONTESTED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS AS SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) WHEREAS LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT LD. 7 ITA NO.169-176/MUM/2016 RAKESH KHANNA & ANITA KHANNA CIT(A) ERRED IN PROVIDING INTEREST RELIEF TO THE AS SESSEE FOR AYS 2010-11 TO 2012-13 SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AS EVIDENT FROM THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER. OUR A TTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE LETTER NO. DCIT-CC-3(2)/ITAT/2017-18 DATED 19/0 3/2018 OF LD. AO TO SUBMIT THAT THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL FOR DIFFER ENT ASSESSMENT YEARS ONLY DUE TO LOW TAX EFFECT CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS, AS MADE BY LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 6.1 WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS A ND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE ISSUE OF Y EAR OF TAXABILITY OF 9% ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION / INTEREST COMPONENT ON AMOUNT ADVANCED BY ASSESSEE TO DSM. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT WHATEVER NOMENCLATURE IS GIVEN TO THE SAID AMOUNT VIZ. INTEREST OR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION, THE SAME WAS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ONLY . AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145, THE INCOME UNDER THIS HE AD COULD BE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER ON CASH BASIS OR ON MERCANTILE BASIS . HOWEVER, THE SAID METHOD IS TO BE FOLLOWED CONSISTENTLY AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PERMITTED TO FLICKER ITS STAND QUA THE SAME FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY OF THE SAID AMOUN T WOULD DEPEND UPON THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING BEING REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS TO OFFER INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . THE LD. AR HAS STRESSED THE POINT THAT THE SAID S UM HAS NEVER BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN SUBSTA NTIATED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI SANJEEV SWAMY . ON THE OTHER HAND, IN TERMS OF SUBMISSION OF LD. DR, WE FIND THAT THE LD. AO, IN THE QUANTUM ORDER, HAS NOTED THAT THE 8 ITA NO.169-176/MUM/2016 RAKESH KHANNA & ANITA KHANNA ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING . FURTHER, THE MATERIAL ON RECORD DOES NOT DECIPHER THE EXACT METH OD OF ACCOUNTING BEING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BOTH THE REPRESENTATIV ES HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE SAID FACT CONCLUSIVELY. IN THE ABSE NCE OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF DSM, BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND EARLIER INCOME TAX RETURNS / COMPUTATIONS , WE ARE UNABLE TO EXAMINE THE SAME. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED INTEREST INCOME OF 15 % IN ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR AYS 2008-09 & 2009-10 WHICH HAS BEEN FIL ED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE EXAMINATION OF THE SAME COUPLE WITH BAN K STATEMENT AND AFORESAID DOCUMENTS WOULD REVEAL THE METHOD OF ACCO UNTING BEING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ON FACTUAL MATRIX, WE A RE LEFT WITH NO OPTION, BUT TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO FIND OUT THE METHOD OF ACC OUNTING BEING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RE-ADJUDICATE ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSEE, IN TURN, IS DIRECTED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS STAND IN THIS REGARD B Y FILING REQUISITE INFORMATION / DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. 6.2 IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED AD DITIONS FOR AY 2010-11 TO 2012-13, AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE IS NOT IN FURTHE R APPEAL BEFORE US, APPARENTLY DUE TO LOW TAX EFFECT CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT. THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAIN BE NEFITTED BY THE CONCESSIONS GRANTED BY THE SAID CIRCULAR, IRRESPECT IVE OF THE STAND TAKEN BY LD. AO IN THIS REGARD. CONSEQUENTLY, NO ADDITIONS QUA INTEREST AMOUNTS SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR AYS 2010-11 TO 2012-13. 9 ITA NO.169-176/MUM/2016 RAKESH KHANNA & ANITA KHANNA 6.3 RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND RAISED IN AYS 2008-09 & 2009-10 STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS THIS GROUN D FOR AYS 2010-11 & 2012-13 BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS SINCE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY PROVIDED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THESE AYS. 6.4 SO FAR AS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY IS CONCERNED, UPON CONSIDERATION OF FACTUAL MATRIX, WE FIND THAT THE A SSESSEE IS UNABLE TO RECONCILE THE JEWELLERY IN TOTO AND REFUTE THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) THAT THE JEWELLERY BESTOWED UPON BY THE WILL OF THE ASSESSEE S MOTHER WAS MEANT FOR THE ASSESSEES TWO SONS WHO WERE MARRIED AND LIVING SEPARATELY AND THEREFORE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSITIO N THAT THE SAID JEWELLERY REPRESENTED INHERITANCE FROM MOTHER. AT THE SAME TI ME, THE ASSESSEE WAS QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND HE AND HIS WIFE WERE INCOME TAX ASSESSEE FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND OFFERING HEALTHY RET URNED INCOME AND THEREFORE, THE ACQUISITION OF JEWELLERY FROM TIME T O TIME COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. FURTHER, THE RECEIPT OF GIFTS IN THE SHAPE OF JEWELLERY ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS, BEING CUSTOMARY, COULD ALSO NOT BE RULED OUT. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY DIRECTED LD. AO TO PROVIDE R ELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE JEWELLERY WEIGHT IN TERMS OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 1916 . HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE SAME WOULD NOT BE AN APPROPRIATE DIRECTION SINC E THE JEWELLERY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND THE SAME BEING OF NUMEROUS VARIETY / QUALITY / STANDARD WOUL D GIVE RISE TO DIFFICULTY IN ARRIVING AT THE VALUATION. HENCE, ON PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE, TAKING A HOLISTIC VIEW, WE RESTRICT THE SAID DISALLOWANCE TO AN ADHOC AMOUNT OF RS.20 LACS, WHICH THE ASSESSEE SHALL SUFFER IN THE IMPUGN ED AY. NO FURTHER RELIEF, 10 ITA NO.169-176/MUM/2016 RAKESH KHANNA & ANITA KHANNA WHATSOEVER, SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE AGAINST THIS ADDITION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NUMBERS 2 TO 6 STANDS PARTLY AL LOWED. 7. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2010-11 CONTEST ANO THER ADDITION OF RS.2,83,495/- (EXCLUDING TDS) ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED RECEIPT OF INTEREST INCOME OF 15% FROM DSM. WE FIND THAT THE TAXABILITY OF THE SAME, IN SIMILA R MANNER, WOULD DEPEND UPON THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING BEING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE SAME STANDS REMITTED B ACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. 8. RESULTANTLY, ITA NO. 170/MUM/2016 FOR AY 2009-10 & 171/MUM/2016 FOR AY 2008-09 STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. ITA 172/MUM/2016 FOR AY 2010-11 STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. ITA 169/MUM/2016 FOR AY 2012-13 STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. ITA NOS. 173-176/MUM/2016 AYS 2007-08 TO 2010-11 : ANITA KHANNA 9.1 THE SOLE GROUND RAISED IN APPEALS FOR AY 2008-0 9 & 2009-10 CONTEST INTEREST ADDITION OF 9%. FACTUAL MATRIX BEING THE S AME, TAKING THE SAME STAND, THE ISSUE STANDS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE O F LD. AO FOR RE- ADJUDICATION ON SIMILAR LINES. ITA NOS.173/MUM/2016 & 174/MUM/2016 STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9.2 THE GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL FOR AY 2010-11 CONTE ST ADDITION OF INTEREST INCOME OF 15% FROM DSM WHICH STAND REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION ON SIMILAR LINES. GROUND NO.1 BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS SINCE RELIEF HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED BY LD. CIT(A ) IN THIS 11 ITA NO.169-176/MUM/2016 RAKESH KHANNA & ANITA KHANNA REGARD. THE APPEAL ITA NO. 176/MUM/2016 STANDS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9.3 THE SOLE GROUND RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2007-08 CONTEST THE STAND OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN NOT ALLOWING A NE W CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT U/S 153A WHICH WAS NEVER CLAIMED IN ORIG INAL RETURN OF INCOME. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR OPINION, IS NOT T ENABLE SINCE THIS WAS AN UN-ABATED ASSESSMENT AND THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING REVISED R ETURN OF INCOME HAD ALREADY EXPIRED SINCE A LONG TIME BACK. ITA NO. 175/MUM/2016 STANDS DISMISSED. 10. ALL THE APPEALS STANDS DISPOSED OFF IN THE FOLL OWING MANNER:- ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH APRIL, 2018. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 11 .04.2018 SR.PS:- THIRUMALESH NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AY APPEAL NO. DECISION RAKESH KHANNA 2008-09 171/MUM/2016 ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES RAKESH KHANNA 2009-10 170/MUM/2016 ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES RAKESH KHANNA 2010-11 172/MUM/2016 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES RAKESH KHANNA 2012-13 169/MUM/2016 PARTLY ALLOWED ANITA KHANNA 2007-08 175/MUM/2016 DISMISSED ANITA KHANNA 2008-09 173/MUM/2016 ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ANITA KHANNA 2009-10 174/MUM/2016 ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ANITA KHANNA 2010-11 176/MUM/2016 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES 12 ITA NO.169-176/MUM/2016 RAKESH KHANNA & ANITA KHANNA ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ) / CIT CONCERNED 5. *+ !$, , , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. +-./ / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI