DCIT,Cent. Circle-1, Kanpur V. Smt. Snehlata Gupta, Kanpur

ITA 209/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78642 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Additional evidence
• Section: 153A; 68; 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.209 & 210/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2002 - 03 & 2005 - 06 DY.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, KANPUR. VS. SMT. SNEHLATA GUPTA, 123/1 - F, KALPI ROAD, KANPUR. PAN:AARPG1916E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) - I, KANPUR BOTH DATED 20/01/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002 - 03 & 2005 - 06. BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 I.E. I.T.A. NO.209/LKW/2011. IN THIS APP EAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/ - AS ESTIMATED BUSINESS RECEIPT FROM SHARE BUSINESS AFTER APPELLANT BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CIT, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI SWARAN SINGH, F.C.A. SHRI ANURAG GUPTA, F.C.A. DATE OF HEARING 16/06/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 8 /07/2014 2 RELYING UPON REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER U/R 46 - A OF INCOME TAX RULES AND ILLEGALLY AD MITTED THE SAME AND ALSO WITHOUT RECORDING OF PROPER REASONS AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE'S CASE IS NOT COVERED UNDER ALSO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE'S CASE IS NOT COVERED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES FROM (A) TO (D) OF RULE 46 - A OF INCOME TA X RULES, 1962. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.21,50,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FIXED DEPOSIT WITH BANK IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE THE SPECIFIC O PPORTUNITIES GIVEN AND HAS ALSO NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS AS PROVIDED U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AME ND ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NEED FOR DOING SO MAY ARISE. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PARIVAR PROPERTIES (P.) LTD. VS. DCIT [2014] 41 TAXMANN.COM 485 (DELHI - TRIB.). HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. REGARDING GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY CIT(A) AS PER PARA 17 OF HIS ORDER, APPEARING ON PAGE 10, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE: 17. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, SINCE THE REMAND REPORT F.NO.DCIT/CC - II/KNP/YOG GROUP/2008 - 09 DATED 8.5.2009 IS A SKETCHY REPORT TO 3 THE EXTENT THAT NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED ON THE ISSUES NOTED ABOVE AS (A), (B) AND (C) IN PARA - 16 OF THIS ORDER, HENCE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REJECTING THE SAME PARTICULARLY, WHEN THE BASIC FACTS HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN REBUTTED AS CONTAINED IN THE SAID PARAGRAPH. THEREFORE, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CONTAINED IN THE SAID PARAGRAPH ARE ACCE PTED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 4.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARA FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS NOT REBUTTED THE BASIC FACTS AS NOTED BY HIM I N PARA (A), (B) & (C) OF PARA 16 OF HIS ORDER. IN PARA 16(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING SUBMISSIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS REQUIRED IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS MADE IN THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. THIS WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE INFORMATION GATHERED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO UNDERSTAND FULL FACTS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL. IN PARA 16 (B ), IT WAS ASSERTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROVIDING CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES FOR ASCERTAINING FULL FACTS BU T THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED. A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY CIT(A ) THAT THESE BASIC FACTS WERE NOT REBUTTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT. BEFORE US ALSO, LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FINDING OF CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THI S ISSUE AND WE HOLD THAT THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS PROPER IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 IS REJECTED. 5. AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERIT VIDE PARA 18 TO 20 OF HIS ORDER AND FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 4 18. FURTHER, TO THIS REMAND REPORT DATED 16.11.2009, WHICH WAS EXPECTED TO COMMENT ON THE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED VIDE LETTER DATED 20.11.2007 OF THE APPELLANT INCLUD ING COPIES OF STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT AND OTHER CERTIFICATE, HAS NOT BEEN COMMENTED UPON. THE PENDING REMAND REPORT WAS ABOUT FOR THREE YEARS IN THIS HIGH DEMAND CASE WHICH SHOWS THAT THE AMPLE TIME WAS AVAILABLE FOR REQUIRED VERIFICATIONS OR NECESSARY A CTION AT THE END OF THE AO FOR THE PURPOSE OF SENDING THE REMAND REPORT BY COMMENTING ON THE DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE CIT(APPEALS) AND FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR THIS PURPOSE. THE REASONS FOR DISALLOWANCE MADE ARE LACKING ON THE BASIS AND ANY OTHER ENQUIRY, DOCUMENT AT THE END OF THE AO SUCH AS (A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FILED THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ALONG WITH RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A NOR DID SHE FILE THE SAME TILL PASSING OF THIS ORDER. AS SUCH THE INCOME IS ESTIMATED AT RS.2,50,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS & DOCUMENTS TO THE SPECIAL AUDITOR, THEREBY NOT COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTORY DIRECTIONS FOR SPECIAL AUDIT U/S 142(2A) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. HENCE THE A SSESSMENT IS BEING COMPLETED U/S 144 OF I.T.ACT, (ADDITION RS.2,50,000) (B) THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN BANK INTEREST OF RS.58,032/ - . NO DETAILS OF WHATSOVER HAVE BEEN FILED. HOWEVER, ON A PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS OF INTEREST FILED FROM THE STANDARD CHARTERED GRINDLAYS BANK, MG ROAD, KANPUR, IT IS SEEN THAT THE INTEREST CREDITED ON FDRS IS RS.58,032/ - AND THE INTEREST IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE INDIVIDUAL NAME IS RS.1696/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANOTHER SUM OF RS.4579/ - AS INTEREST ON ACCOUNT NO.2931527 - 1 IN THE JOINT NAME OF UP STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION LTD. ACCOUNT SHAREWALA & CO. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.5,747/ - AND RS.10,194 / - FROM PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK , UPSE BRANCH, KANPUR IN THE NAME OF SHAREWALA & CO. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN THE COPIES OF FINAL ACCOUNT OF SHAREWALA & CO. HOWEVER, A NET PROFIT OF RS.373/ - HAS BEEN SHOWN FROM BUSINESS. AS SUCH, THE INTEREST OVER AND ABOVE RS. 58 , 032/ - RECEIVED HAS NOT B EEN 5 SHOWN. HENCE THE SUM OF RS. 22,216/ - , AVER AND ABOVE RS.50 , 032/ - WILL BE ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS NOT DISCLOSED. (ADDITION RS.22.2 1 6/ - ) THE ABOVE INTEREST IS ON THE TERM DEPOSIT OF RS.21,50,000 / - . THE PERIOD OF INVESTMENT IS NOT KNOWN. THE DETAILS OF WITHDRAWALS FOR INVESTMENT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND F OR THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR DO NOT FIND PLACE IN THE EXPLANATION BANK DEPOSIT AND - WITHDRAWAL. IN THAT VIEW, THE SUM OF RS.21,50,000/ - IS HELD TO HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF FDR IN STANDARD CHARTERED & GRINDLAYS BANK FROM OUT OF UNDISCLOSED AND UN PROVED SOURCES. HOWEVER, THE PERIOD OF INVESTMENT NOT BEING CLEAR, THE SUM OF RS.21,50,000/ - WILL BE ASSESSED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 ON SUBSTANTIVE B ASIS AND WILL BE ASSESSED IN A.Y. 2001 - 02 ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. (ADDITION RS.21,50,000/ - ) A PERUSAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY AO FOR ADDITIONS MADE, SHOWS THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN THE SP I RIT OF EX - PARTE ORDER AT THE SAME TIME ESTIMATES OF INCOME ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENT. THE ADDITIONS FOR INVESTMENTS ARE ALSO WITH THE REMARK THAT 'HOWEVER THE PERIOD OF INVESTMENT NOT BEING CLEAR'. IN THE ABOVE CONTEXT, NOW WHEN THE DOCUMENTS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO, FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, I FIND NO REASON AS TO WHY SAME WERE IGNORED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMAND REPORT. AFTER R ECEIVING THE REMAND REPORT, I FIND THAT THE DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE, PRIMA - FACIE EXPLAIN THE CREDIT ENTRIES AND AT THE SAME TIME SHOW THAT THE OTHER ADDITION RELATING TO SHARE OF INCOME IN THE CLOSED BUSINESS IS BASELESS. 19. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO VALID REASON FOR DELAYING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS THE MERIT OF ADDITIONS, COMMENTS OF THE AO ON T H E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT/AO IS CONCERNED. 20. ACCORDINGLY, THE EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION FILED BY THE AP PELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 20.11.2007 ON BOTH THE ADDITIONS IS ACCEPTED. FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS OF RS.2,50,000/ - AND RS.21,50,000/ - . AS THE ISSUE OF THE SHORT ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80L, THE AO IS 6 DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND SAME IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THUS, GROUND NO. I(A), I(B) AND I(D) OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED, ACCORDINGLY. 5.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARAS FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY CIT(A) THAT THE DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE, PRIMA - FACIE EXPLAIN THE CREDIT ENTRIES AND AT THE SAME TIME , SHOW THAT THE OTHER ADDITION RELATING TO SHARE OF INCOME IN THE CLOSED BUSINESS IS BASELESS. ON THIS ASPECT AND ON THESE DOCUMENTS, NO COMMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT AND THESE FINDINGS COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE ALSO AND CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 7. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 I.E. I.T.A. NO.210/LKW/2011. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/ - AS ESTIMATED BUSINESS RECEIPT FROM SHARE BUSINESS AFTER RELYING UPON REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER U/R 46 - A OF INCOME TAX RULES AND ILLEGALLY ADMITTED THE SAME AND ALSO WITHOUT RECORDING OF PROPER RE ASONS AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE'S CASE IS NOT COVERED UNDER ALSO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE'S CASE IS NOT COVERED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES FROM (A) TO (D) OF RULE 46 - A OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.84,525/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF SHARE OF ONGC IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE THE SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN AND HAS ALSO NOT DISCHARGED 7 HIS ONUS AS PROVIDED U/S. 68 OF THE I.T.ACT AND ALSO WITHOUT RECORDING OF PROPER REASONS AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IS NOT COVERED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES FROM (A) TO (D) OF RULE 46 - A OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETI NG THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE THE SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN AND HAS ALSO NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS AS PROVIDED U/S68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,06,192/ - ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND RS.5,38,031/ - AS SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE LOCKER AND AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE A SSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE THE SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN. 5. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING RENT RECEIPTS FROM MOBILE COMPA NIES FOR TOWERS INSTALLED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS AGAINST INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 6. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO A MEND ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NEED FOR DOING SO MAY GUISE. 8. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. REGARDING GROUND NO. 1 I.E. ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) ON PAGE NO. 7 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 05/02/2010 ON 8 PARA 2 OF HAS STATED THAT TRADING TER MINAL HAD BEEN DEACTIVATED W.E.F. 20/10/1999. THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/ - ON THE BASIS OF THIS REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE WHEN THE TRADING TERMINAL ITSELF HAS BEEN DEACTIVATED W.E.F. 20/10/99, THERE CANNOT BE A NY TRADING IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 IN RESPECT OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN REMAND REPORT AND THE DECISION OF CIT(A) IS ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR REGARDING GRO UND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 IS REJECTED. 10. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2, WE FIND THAT ON PAGE 7 OF HIS ORDER, IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 05/02/2010 ON PAGE 2 PARA 1 HAS STATED THAT HE HA S VERIFIED THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS STATED THAT THESE ARE VERIFIABLE. ON THE BASIS OF THIS REMAND REPORT, THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AND THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND N O. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS REJECTED. 11. REGARDING GROUND NO. 3, WE FIND THAT ON THIS ISSUE , THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ARE APPEARING ON PAGE NO. 7 AND THE DECISION IS ON PAGE NO. 8 AND THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: III) RS.2,00,000/ - BEING THE ADDITION FOR ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH: THE APPELLANT IS AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS AND GOT MARRIED WITH SHRI AMAR NATH GUPTA IN 1971. SHE HAILS FROM THE REPUTED FAMILY OF SHRI SANTOSH CHAND JAIN. SHRI LAXMI CHAND JAIN WAS THE ELDER BROTHER OF SHRI SANTOSH CHAND JAIN WHO HAD NO ISSUE AND WITHOUT ANY LE GAL FORMALITY HE ADOPTED THE 9 APPELLANT I.E. SMT. SNEH LATA GUPTA. THE STATE OF SHRI LAXMI CHAND JAIN WAS ALSO SUCCEEDED BY THE APPELLANT ON HIS DEATH IN 22.11.1992. THE CASH OF RS. 2 LAC WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM HER TAU NAMELY SHRI LAXMI CHAND JA IN AND WAS KEPT IN THE LOCKER AND THE SAME WAS SEIZED. IN THE LIGHT OF PRELIMINARY STATEMENT RECORDED OF THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH SEEMS TO BE CORRECT AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 LAC DESERVES TO BE DELETED. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND EXPLANAT IONS OF THE APPELLANT AS NOTED ABOVE. THE SAID LOCKER FROM WHERE CASH WAS SEIZED WAS IN THE JOINT NAME OF SHRI AMAR NATH GUPTA AND APPELLANT. DURING THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) ON 30.12.2004 THE EXPLANATION WAS FORWARDED, WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED DUE TO ITS NATURAL AND BONAFLDE NATURE. THE AMOUNT IS ALSO REASONABLE AND COVERED IN TERMS OF INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED IN THIS BEHALF. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/ - . THUS, GROUND NO. I(C) OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 11.1 FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS CASH WAS RECEIVED BY HER FROM HER TAU SHRI LAXMI CHAND JAIN AND WAS KEPT IN THE LOCKER. THIS FACT WAS STATED IN THE PRELIMINARY STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SEARC H. SUCH PRELIMINARY STATEMENT DESERVES ACCEPT ANCE BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT SUCH PRELIMINARY STATEMENT IS SPONTANEOUS AND THEREFORE IS NOT A MAKE BELIEVE STORY UNLESS THERE ARE STRONG REASONS TO DOUBT THE SAME. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 IS REJECTED. 12. REGARDING GROUND NO. 4, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) VIDE PARA 16 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENC E: 16. FURTHER ON THIS ISSUE, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.5,38,031/ - ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 10 THE JEWELLERY WAS FOUND WORTH RS.10,48,898/ - FROM LOCKER NO.233 WITH PUNJAB & SIND BANK, OUT OF WHICH RS.5,10,867/ - WAS ACCEPT ED BY AO AND BALANCE JEWELLERY OF RS.5,38,031/ - DISALLOWED. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE CHART OF THE WORKING OF JEWELLERY SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS SHOWN THAT 930.000 GMS. GOLD BULLION WERE RECEIVED THROUGH RBI BOND, 1998 WHICH WERE ISSUED IN THE YEAR 1993 AND COPY OF THE SAME WERE SEIZED AS PER LP - 1. SINCE 930.000 GMS. OF JEWELLERY IS TREATED AS EXPLAINED, THE ADDITION MADE BY AO IS BASELESS AND WITHOUT ANY COGENT MATERIAL. THEREFORE, AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.19,06,192/ - CONSIST ING OF RS.5,38,031/ - ALSO, WHICH HAS SEPARATELY BEEN ADDED IN THE COMPUTATION. 12.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARA FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY CIT(A) THAT 930 GMS OF GOLD BULLION WERE RECEIVED THROUGH RBI BOND, 1998 WHICH WERE ISSUED IN THE YEAR 1993 AND COPY OF THE SAME WERE SEIZED AS PER LP - 1. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. GROUND NO. 4 IS ALSO REJECTED. 13. REGARDING GROUND NO. 5, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) VIDE PARA 18 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: 18. I HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AS PER GROUND NO. I(E) OF APPEAL. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY INTERPRETED THE FACT AND TREATED THE RENT RECEIVED FOR MOBILE TOWERS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BUT IT IS OF THE CHARACTER OF THE NATURE OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THEREFORE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,28,000/ - AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY, THE STATUTORY DEDUCTION UNDER COMPUTATION PROVISIONS FOR THE SAME WILL BE ALLOWED. THUS, GROUND NO. I(E) OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 13.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARA FROM THE ORDER OF CIT( A), WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THIS RECEIPT OF RS.1,28,000/ - IS ON ACCOUNT OF RENT RECEIVED 11 FROM MOBILE TOWERS. IT IS HELD BY CIT(A) THAT THIS INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND STATUTORY DEDUCTION UNDER COMPUTATION PR OVISIONS FOR HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO BECAUSE NO BASIS IS INDICATED BY THE A.O. . TO HOLD THAT THIS INCOME IS AS SESSABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 5 IS REJECTED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 8 /07/2014 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR