Kiran Champalal Karva Mahesh Society, Solapur V. ITO, Ward 2(4), Solapur

ITA 2203/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2895 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 1992-1993
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASEEM SHARMA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , ! , # $ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.2203/PN/2012 #& & / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1992-93 SMT. KIRAN CHAMPALAL KARVA, MAHESH SOCIETY, BUDHWAR PETH, SOLAPUR PAN NO.BLDPK1499L . / APPELLANT V/S ITO, WARD-2(4), SOLAPUR . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUHAS BORA / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASEEM SHARMA / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28-07-2011 OF THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. 2. THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. EARLIER, THE CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF NON-ATTENDANCE. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE / DATE OF HEARING :05.01.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:15.01.2016 2 ITA NO.2203/PN/2012 CIT(A) TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE. 3. THE CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RE AD AS UNDER : ON FACTS AND IN LAW - 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,47,000/- MADE BY THE AO AS UNEXPL AINED INVESTMENT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AB OVE ADDITION WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN SUPP ORT OF THE ADDITION. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDIT ION OF RS.1,00,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS RECEIVE FROM HER L ATE FATHER. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.20,000/ AND REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPEL LANT ABOUT ITS SOURCE AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISREGARDING THE EVIDENC ES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITI ON OF RS. 29,000/- ONLY ON THE PRESUMPTION AND IGNORING THE SUB MISSION AND EVIDENCES GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. 6. APPELLANT SEEKS, PERMISSION TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, MO DIFY, RECTIFY, DELETE, WITHDRAW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND/ OR TO TAKE ADDITIONAL GROUND AS OCCASION MAY DEMAND. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. SHE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 09-10-2000 DECLARING NIL INCO ME AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.20,000/-. IN THIS CASE AN ACT ION U/S.133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 24-02-1998 IN TH E BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHRI CHAMPALAL M. KARVA, HUSBAND OF TH E ASSESSEE AT SOLAPUR. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCH ASED A 3 ITA NO.2203/PN/2012 HOUSE PROPERTY AT BLOCK NO.51/45 AT MAHESH SAHAKARI GR UH NIRMAN SANSTHA MARYADIT, BUDHWAR PETH, SOLAPUR VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 13-01-1992 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,12,318/-. ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE AO REGARDING TH E SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE ABOVE PROPERTY, IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE SOURCE OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS FROM CASH, JEWE LLERY ETC. RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER RESIDING AT ASSAM AT THE TIM E OF HIS DEATH. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF TWO DEMA ND DRAFTS, ONE OF THEM IS RS.20,000/- DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF SHRI CHAMPALAL M. KARVA ON 18-06-1991 AND THE OTHER IS RS.31,000/- DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE SOU. KIRANDEVI KARVA. 5. THE AO NOTED FROM THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS.2,12,318/- TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. FROM THE COPY OF THE AGREEM ENT DATED 13-01-1992 THE AO NOTED THAT THE PAYMENTS HAV E BEEN MADE FROM BANK. EVEN AFTER REPEATED REQUESTS THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BANK PASSBOOK THROUGH WHICH THE S AID PAYMENTS WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION/ONUS CAST ON HER TO ESTABLISH CLEAR NEXUS BETWEEN THE PAYMENTS M ADE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE FUNDS AVAILABLE DATE-WISE. THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY SHRI PREM KUMAR S. CHANDAK TO THE PROPOSITION THAT HE HAD GIVEN H IM CASH OF RS.2,71,769/- AND GOLD ORNAMENTS OF 6 TOLAS AND 70 0 GRAMS OF SILVER ORNAMENTS AND UTENSILS TO THE ASSESSEE W AS DISBELIEVED BY THE AO TREATING THE SAME AS SERF-SERVING 4 ITA NO.2203/PN/2012 DOCUMENT. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.20,000/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO DISBELIEVED BY THE AO. 6. SO FAR AS THE TWO DEMAND DRAFTS OF RS.20,000/- AND RS.31,000/- IN THE NAME OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE A ND IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE RESPECTIVELY IS CONCERNED, THE SAME WAS ALSO DISBELIEVED BY THE AO IN ABSENCE OF PRODUCTION OF THE PASSBOOK BY THE ASSESSEE. IN EFFECT THE AO MADE ADDITIO N OF RS.2,12,318/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACC OUNT OF PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY, ON THE GROUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE. 7. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WAS MOSTLY OUT OF HER OLD FATHERS SAVINGS. TH E SPECIFIC SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE CIT(A) IS AS UNDER : 1. RS. 25,000/- WAS PAID BY WAY OF CHEQUE NO. 55501 DATE D 5/8/91 DRAWN ON SIDHESHWAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD. SOLAPU R, S.B. A/C NO. 877 GIVEN BY MR CHAMPALALJI MADANLALJI KARWA HU SBAND OF THE APPELLANT. THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID OUT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.20,000 RECEIVED BY HIM FROM HIS FATHER-IN-LAW MR. DULICHAND CHANDAK RESIDING IN ASSAM AND BALANCE AMOUNT PAID OUT OF HIS CA SH BALANCE. 2. RS. 1,00,000 WAS PAID BY WAY OF CHEQUE ON 9.9.91 O N SIDHESHWAR BANK, SOLAPUR. THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID OUT OF THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BY WAY OF THREE SLIPS AMOU NTING TO RS. 50,000, RS.20,000 AND RS. 30,000 RESPECTIVELY DEPOSI TED IN SIDHESHWAR BANK LTD. SOLAPUR ON 9.9.91 STANDING IN TH E NAME OF APPELLANT. THIS AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOU NT OUT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM MR. DULICHAND CHANDAK FATH ER OF THE APPELLANT THROUGH PREMKUMAR CHANDAK, COUSIN OF THE A PPELLANT. 3. RS. 87,318/- WAS PAID ON 10.1.92 BY WAY CHEQUE ON SIDHESHWAR CO-OP. BANK LTD. SOLAPUR. THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID OUT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 31,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM HER FATHER BY WAY OF D.D. NO. OL/A/41 7631.25 DRAWN ON STATE BANK OF INDIA, SOLAPUR AND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 30.11.91. IN ADDITION THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20,000 WAS AVAILABLE WI TH HER OUT OF HER AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WAS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR. THE AMOUNT OF RS.29,000/- WAS RECEIVED ON SALE OF GOLD AND SILVER FROM MR. GIRISH C. JAVERI, SOLAPUR. R EMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.7,318/- WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF THE CASH BALA NCE 5 ITA NO.2203/PN/2012 AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER. 8. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CLAIMS THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED T HE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO WITH A REQUEST TO ADMIT THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER R ULE 46A : 1. COPY OF BANK A/C AND ITS EXPLANATION. 2. COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF DULICHAND CHANDAK 3. CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM CHAMPALAL KARVA ALONG WITH HIS BANK A/C. 4. EVIDENCE-CUM-CONFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF SALE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS BY THE APPELLANT. 9. THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO ON TH E BASIS OF THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO AND THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) GAVE RELIEF OF RS.65,318/- AND SUSTAINED ADDITION OF RS.1,47,000/-. WHILE DOING SO, HE GAVE CREDIT OF RS.25,000/- BEING THE CHEQUE G IVEN BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELIEF OF RS.2000/- OU T OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.20,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE, HOWEVER, DISBELIEVED THE CASH OF RS.1 LAKH RECEIVED FROM SHRI DULICHAND CHANDAK, FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SALE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS OF RS.29,000/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.18,000/-. 10. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET STRO NGLY CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 LAKH WAS GIVEN BY HER FATHER THROUGH SHRI 6 ITA NO.2203/PN/2012 PREM KUMAR CHANDAK WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE SAME BY AN AFFIDAVIT. ALTHOUGH THESE FACTS WERE CATEGORICALLY STATED B EFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF RECORDING HER STATEMENT U/S.131 OF THE I.T. ACT ON 04-08-2009 AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. P.K. NOORJAHAN REPORTED IN 237 ITR 570 HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT DISCRETION HAS BEEN CONFERRED ON THE AO U/S.69 OF THE AC T TO CONSIDER SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY, THE SAID DISCRETION HAS TO BE EXERCISED KEE PING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE WHEN THE CONTENTS O F THE AFFIDAVIT WERE PARTLY ACCEPTED, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO RE ASON TO DISREGARD THE PART OF THE CLAIM ONLY ON PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES ON FRIVOLOUS GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REMAND REPORT . HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS THE ONLY DAUGHTER OF HER LATE FATHER, THEREFORE, THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DOUBT REG ARDING THE CLAIM. RELYING ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE STATEMENT OR AFFIDAVIT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A WHO LE AND NOT IN PART. 1. CHANDERMOHAN MEHTA REPORTED IN 71 ITR 245 (PUNE) 2. MRS. SUSHILA DEVI AGARWAL REPORTED IN 50 ITD 524 (AHMEDABAD) 3. RAMANLAL P. CHORDIA REPORTED IN 87 TTJ 713 (PUNE) 7 ITA NO.2203/PN/2012 HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 LAKH RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER FATHER THROUGH HER C OUSIN BROTHER SHRI PREM KUMAR S. CHANDAK SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. 12. SO FAR AS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.20,000/- IS CONCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF 3 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT DAHIWADA, TALUKA TULJAPUR IN HER NAME AND INCOME OF RS.20,000/- WAS SHOWN IN HER RETURN O F INCOME WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE THEN AO. REFERRING TO THE 7/12 EXTRACTS OF THE LAND HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CROPS GROWN INDICATE THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION CARRIED ON BY THE ASSE SSEE. CONSIDERING THE EXTENT OF LAND HOLDING BY THE ASSESSEE TH E INCOME OF RS.20,000/- IS REASONABLE. MERE NON FURNISHING OF DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON CULTIVATION CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR TOTAL REJECTION OF CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. I N THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE AO FAILED TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY COMPARING THE SAID INCOME WITH THAT OF HER HUSBAND. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME OF RS.20,000/ - WAS SHOWN IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOT ICE U/S.148 AND THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE SAME. FURTHER , THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS REASONABLE. COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE A REASON FOR DISALLOWIN G THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOM E TO RS.2,000/- WHICH IS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. 8 ITA NO.2203/PN/2012 13. SO FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF RS.29,000/- RECEIVED ON SALE OF GOLD AND SILVER ORNAMENTS IS CONCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT THE GOLD ORNAMENTS AND SILVER ARTICLES WERE GIVEN BY SHRI PREM KUMAR CHANDAK FROM ASSAM AS PART OF BELONGING OF HER FATH ER SHRI DULICHAND CHANDAK. THE GOLD AND SILVER ARTICLES WERE SOLD TO M/S. K.K. JEWELLERS, SOLAPUR. REFERRING TO PAGES 35 T O 37 AND 44 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE COPY OF STATEME NT OF SHRI GIRISH JAVERI, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. K.K. JEWELLERS IN SUPPORT OF SALE OF GOLD AND SILVER ARTICLES FOR RS.29,000/- ALONG WITH 2 COPIES OF INVOICES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IN THE REMAN D REPORT ACCEPTS THE SALE OF GOLD AND SILVER ORNAMENTS. HO WEVER, BY RAISING SOME DEFECTS HE HAS DISREGARDED THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. P.K. NOORJAHAN REPORTED IN 23 7 ITR 570 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY THE DISCRETION IS TO BE EXERCISED KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOU NT OF RS.29,000/- RECEIVED FROM GOLD AND SILVER ARTICLES AND UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED. 14. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER H AND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE REJECTING THE SOURCE FOR AMOUNT OF RS.1 LAKH HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS P URELY BASED ON THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI PREM KUMAR S. CHANDAK AND THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUGGEST THA T THE LATE 9 ITA NO.2203/PN/2012 FATHER OF THE ASESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF CASH TO THAT EXTENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PREVIOUS OCCASIONS HAD GIVEN DEMAND DRAFTS IN THE NAME O F THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND THERE WAS NO NECESSITY FOR H IM TO HAND OVER CASH OF RS.1 LAKH TO BE TRANSPORTED FROM ASSA M TO MAHARASHTRA. 15. SO FAR AS ADDITION OF RS.18,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS CONCERNED THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER W AS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE INCOME O F RS.20,000/-. 16. AS REGARD THE SOURCE OF RS.29,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF S ALE OF JEWELLERY IS CONCERNED THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE SALE OF GOLD AND SILVE R ORNAMENTS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS.29,000/-. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND T HE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAS INV ESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,12,218/- TOWARDS ACQUISITION OF HOUSE PROPERTY AT BLOCK NO.51/45 AT MAHESH SAHAKARI GRUH NIRM AL SANSTHA MARYADIT, BUDHWAR PETH, SOLAPUR. ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE AO REGARDING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FOR 10 ITA NO.2203/PN/2012 PURCHASE OF THE ABOVE HOUSE PROPERTY IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME IS FROM CASH, JEWELLERY ETC. RECEIV ED FROM HER FATHER RESIDING AT ASSAM AT THE TIME OF HIS DEAT H. IN ABSENCE OF ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE A DDITION OF RS.2,12,318/- U/S.69 OF THE I.T. ACT. WE FIND ON THE BASIS OF THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT (A) GAVE PART RELIEF AND SUSTAINED ADDITION OF RS.1,47,000/- OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.2,12,318/- MADE BY THE AO. WHILE DOING SO, HE REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDIN G THE CASH RECEIPT OF RS.1 LAKHS FORM HER LATE FATHER THROUGH SH RI PREM KUMAR S. CHANDAK, RESTRICTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO RS.2,000/- AS AGAINST RS.20,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF RS.29,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF GOL D AND SILVER ORNAMENTS. 18. SO FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1 LAKH RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER FATHER AFTER HIS DEATH THROUGH SHRI P REM KUMAR S. CHANDAK IS CONCERNED WE FIND THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE EXCEPT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI PREM KUMAR S. CHANDAK . THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WITH THE ASSESSEE THAT HER LATE FATHER WAS HOLDING THAT MUCH CASH. WE FURTHER FIND IN THE PREVIOUS OCCASIONS THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD SENT MONEY THROUGH DEMAND DRAFTS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS W ELL AS IN THE NAME OF HER HUSBAND. THIS WAS EARLIER REJECTED B Y THE AO BUT SUBSEQUENTLY ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A). WE, THEREFO RE, FIND NO REASON AS TO WHY HUGE AMOUNT OF CASH WAS SENT FROM ASSAM TO MAHARASHTRA THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY WITHOUT T HE 11 ITA NO.2203/PN/2012 SAME BEING SENT THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT OR CHEQUE. IN AB SENCE OF ANY COGENT REASONS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WE DO NO T FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) REJECTING THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF RS.1 LAKH. THE SOCALLED AFFIDAVIT FILED BY SHRI PREM KUMAR S. CHANDAK IN OUR OPINION IS ONLY A SELF-SERVING DOCUMENT. VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO NO T APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE ACCORDING LY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF RS.1 LAKH AS RECEIVED FROM HER LATE FATHER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURC E OF INVESTMENT. 19. SO FAR AS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS CONCERNED WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RS.20,000/- AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME . FOR SIMILAR LAND HOLDING BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE A T THE SAME PLACE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.2000/- HAS BEEN SHOWN BY HI M AS HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICA TION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.20,000/- IN ABSENCE OF ANY EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE OR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE SUCH HUGE INCOME. CONSIDERING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SIMILAR LAND HOLDING AT THE SAME PLACE A T RS.2000/- THE CIT(A) HAS REASONABLY ALLOWED THE AGRICULTU RAL INCOME AT RS.2,000/- AS AGAINST RS.20,000/- DECLARED BY T HE ASSESSEE. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS ALSO UPHELD. 12 ITA NO.2203/PN/2012 20. SO FAR AS SALE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS AND SILVER ARTICLES IS CONCERNED WE FIND THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS REPO RTED AS UNDER : 13. AS REGARDS THE SALE OF GOLD, ON VERIFICATION OF THE PURCHASE BILLS ISSUED SHRI K.K.JEWELLERS AND STATEMENT OF SAM E PERSON THERE IS BIG CONTRADICTION IN, AS MUCH AS IN THE PURCHASE BILL IT IS NOT REGULAR PURCHASE BILL BUT IT IS ESTIMATE WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE CONVERTED IN GOLD PURCHASE BILL NO.3 DTD.3/9/91, ON THE BILL IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT GOLDEN ORNAMENTS CONSI STING OF A RING, 2 BANGLES AND ONE CHAIN WEIGHING 60 GMS WERE S OLD FOR RS.24000/- AFTER DEDUCTING THE IMPURITY. IN SAME FASH ION, THE SAME JEWELER ON THE SAME DAY VIDE ALLEGED PURCHASE BILL NO.10 STATED TO HAVE PURCHASED A SILVER THALI WEIGHING 70 0 GMS FOR RS.5000/-. THE RATE OF SILVER EXISTING ON THE DATE OF SALE WAS SHOWN AS RS.7200/- KG. HOWEVER, IN THE STATEMENT DTD. NIL, THE PROPRIETOR SHRI GIRISH CHAMPAKLAL JAVHERI HAS STATE D THAT MRS. KIRAN C. KARWA IS A CLOSE RELATIVE OF HIM AND DURING THE PERIOD AUGUST, 91 TO DEC.,91 FROM TIME TO TIME AND WHEN SHE WAS IN NEED SHE USED TO SALE GOLD AND SILVER. FURTHER IN TH E SAME STATEMENT HE HAS COMMITTED THAT OUT OF THESE SELLS TOTAL CONSIDERATION PAID WAS RS.24000/- AND RS.3000/- ON ACCOUNT OF GOLD AND SILVER SALE RESPECTIVELY AGGREGATING TO RS .29000/-. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE THAT THE PAYMENT WAS NOT MAD E BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR DEMAND DRAFT BUT WAS MAD E IN CASH. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE IN PUR CHASE OF PROPERTY OUT OF SALE OF GOLD AND SILVER IS NOT SATI SFACTORILY EXPLAINED. 21. WE FIND THE PURCHASER SHRI GIRISH CHAMPAKLAL JHAVERI HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND CONFIRMED TO HAVE PAID RS.29,000/- TOWARDS PURCHASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS AND SILVER ARTICLES FROM THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE THE AMOUNT WAS NOT PAID BY CHEQUE OR DEMAND DRAFT AND THE AMOUNT WAS PAID IN CASH IN OUR OPINION IS NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND TO REJECT TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASER HAS APPE ARED BEFORE THE AO AND CONFIRMED TO HAVE PAID RS.29,000/- TO T HE ASSESSEE ON DIFFERENT DATES TOWARDS PURCHASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS AND SILVER ARTICLES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT THE TRANSACTION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE AND THE 13 ITA NO.2203/PN/2012 ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF RS.29,000/- TO EXP LAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.1,47,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.29,000/- BEING SALE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS AND SILVER ARTICLES. THE ADDITION OF BALANCE AMOU NT OF RS.1,18,000/- IS CONFIRMED. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15-01-2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 15 TH JANUARY, 2016. ) *#,! -! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A ) - I, PUNE 4. 5. 6. THE CIT-I, PUNE $ ''(, (, / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; - / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // // $ ' //TRUE C // /0 ' ( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (, / ITAT, PUNE