JAYA P. PATEL, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 42, MUMBAI

ITA 2324/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8025 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJIT KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Search and seizure; Valuation report
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH ES I MUMBAI , , ! BEFORE S.SH.VIJAY PAL RAO,JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJEN DRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2324/MUM/2011 ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ( $% / APPELLANT) ( &'$% / RESPONDENT) '() '() '() '() * * * * / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA + * / REVENUE BY : SHRI AJIT KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA ' ' ' ' + ++ + ), ), ), ), / DATE OF HEARING : 31/07/2014 -.# + ), / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/08/2014 PER RAJENDRA,AM ' ' ' ' : CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-36 MUMBAI DATED 28.12.2010,ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.25,54,60,000/- MADE U/S. 69 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PAINTING BY THE A.O. 2.WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,54,60,000 /- AS UNEXPLAINED IN STATEMENT, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT M OST OF THE PAINTINGS ARE RECEIVED ACQUIRED BEFORE 31/3/1999 HENCE THE ADDITION IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE O F SECTION 153A OF THE I.T.ACT. 3A. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AT THE PA INTING AT SR.NO. 7,8,77,78,79, 80,81,82,84,90,92,93,94,117, 120 AND 128 OF THE INV ENTORY OF PAINTINGS PREPARED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ARE ALSO REFLECTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS SNAPPE D BEFORE 31/3/1999 HENCE THE ACQUISITION OF SUCH PAINTINGS ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153 A. 3B. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT ON THE FLIMSY GROUND T HAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE ALBUM DO NOT HAVE ANY DATES, THE VERACITY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS BEING TA KEN ON THE DAY OF OCCASION IS NOT PRODUCED AND MORPHING OF PHOTOGRAPHS IS ALSO POSSIBLE AND FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ALBUM WAS ALREADY FURNISHED TO THE ASST. DIRECTOR (INVESTIGAT ION) IN THE POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND SUBSEQUENTLY SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY A.O. IN RESPECT O F 19 PAINTINGS. 4A. WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 CRORES I N RESPECT OF PAINTING AT SR. NUMBER 246 OF INVENTORY THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE GIF T CONFIRMATION AS EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SAID PAINTING RECEIVED FROM SHRI RAMANAND T. PATEL ON TH E FLIMSY GROUND THAT THE SIGNATURE OF R. T. PATEL IS WAY BEYOND HIS NAME AND THE DATE OF THE CO NFIRMATION IS NOT ON THE DAY OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE APPELLANT AND FAILED TO APPRECIATED THE FACT TH AT THE SAID PAINTING WAS PURCHASED IN 1997 BY JAYA P. PATEL, 72, BELLA VISTA, PEDDAR ROAD, MUMBAI-400026 PAN: AAIPP9415A VS DCIT CC-42, MUMBAI. 2 ITA NO. 2324 MUM 2011 JAYA P.PATEL PATEL FAMILY AND SAID GIFT CONFIRMATION HAS ALREADY BEEN SEIZED BY THE INVESTIGATING WING IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 4B. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,00,0001- (TWO CROR ES). 5A. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE GIFT CONFIRMATION 1 A FFIDAVIT OF THE ARTIST OR FROM THE NEXT OF KIN OF T HE ARTIST AS EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CHILDREN OF SUCH ARTIST WERE NOT WITNESSED TO THE SALE OR GIFT OF THE PAINTING AND FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE F ACT THAT SOME OF THE PAINTINGS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE SAME ARE REFLEC TED IN THE ALBUM AND ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY COVERED BY SUCH AFFIDAVITS. 5B. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,81,52,500/- ON THE BA SIS OF AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. 6A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 60,5 0,000/- IN RESPECT OF 2 PAINTINGS REFLECTED AT SR. NO. 244 & 245 ON FLIMSY GROUND THAT THE DESCRIPTION GIVEN BY THE VALUER DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE DESCRIPTION IN THE BILL OR THE BILL DO NOT INDICATE THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PAINTING. 6B) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE NAME OF THE AR TIST MENTIONED BY THE VALUER TALLIES WITH THE NAME OF THE ARTIST MENTIONED IN THE BILL AND FURTHE R FAILED TO CONSIDER THE AMOUNT PAID BY CHEQUES AND THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE VENDOR OF THE PAINTI NGS. 6C) THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE REJECTING THE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF PAINTING AT SR. NUMBER 244 & 245 ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT ONE BILL DATED 14/11/99 IS HAVING INVOICE NUMBER AND OTHERS ARE BLANK AND BILLS DO NOT INDICATE THE DESCRIPTION AND FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE A.O. HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE EVIDENCE OF ONE BILL DATED 20/11/99 WH ICH IS SIMILAR TO OTHER BILLS. 7A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. C/T(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,00,000/- MADE ON ESTIMATED BASIS FOR VALUE OF 176 PAINTINGS. 7B) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT SETTING OFF THE VALUE OF 176 PAINTINGS AGAINST THE 245 PAINTIN GS PURCHASED FROM TIME TO TIME FOR WHICH THE BILLS AND PROOF OF PAYMENTS WERE FURNISHED. 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE VALUE OF PAINTINGS AT RS.4,01,45,000/- VALUED BY TH E VALUERS AND REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT SOME OF THEM ARE OUT OF 245 PAINTING S PURCHASED FROM TIME TO TIME FOR WHICH THE BILLS WERE PRODUCED AND OTHERS ARE VERY OLD EITHER DECLARED IN VDS 1975 OR ACQUIRED AS HOBBY IN THE PAST. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY OF THE GROUNDS TAKEN HEREI N ABOVE THE APPELLANT FURTHER TAKES THE GROUND AS UNDER: 9) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING THE AMOUNT OF VALUATION MAD E BY SO CALLED VALUERS AND FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE VALUATION MADE B Y THE VALUERS ARE AT EXORBITANT HIGHER AMOUNT AND ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THEY AR E NOT AUTHORIZED VALUER WITHIN THE MEANING OF DIRECT TAXATION LAWS. 10) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE VALUATION OF THE PAIN TING AT SR. NO. 240 AT RS. 95 LAKHS AND FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT SUCH PAINTING IS FAKE AND FAILED TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. 3 ITA NO. 2324 MUM 2011 JAYA P.PATEL 11) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE WRONG CALCULATION AT RS. 35,62,500/- MADE BY THE AO . WHILE APPLYING THE THEORY OF VALUING THE PAINTING VALUED BY VALUERS AT RS.23,01,85,00/- AS A GAINST THE CORRECT WORKING AT RS.22,66,22,500/-. 12A. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING UPON FINDING OF THE AO. THAT THE INVESTMENT IN 275 PAINT INGS IS OUT OF CONCEALED INCOME OF VARNA APPARELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. FOR AY. 2000-01, 2001-02 , 2002-03 AND 2003-04. 12B. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS SET ASI DE THE ASSESSMENT OF VARNA APPARELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. FOR AY. 2000-01 AND 2001-02 AND FURTHER F AILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE BOMBAY IT AT HAS SUBSTANTIALLY KNOCKED OUT THE ADDITIONS IN AY. 2002 -03 OF VARNA APPARELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 13. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AS PER LETTER DATED 13/121 2010 ALONG-WITH PAPER BOOK NO. II INDEXED AT SR. NO. 135 - 236. 14. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,08,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH. 15. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,16,.500/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED I NADEQUATE DRAWINGS 16. THE APPELLANT CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE(AR) OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THOUGH THERE WERE FIFTEEN GROUND OF APPEAL,BUT THE EFFECTI VE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE ONLY THREE I.E. GROUND NO.1, 14 &15,THAT GROUNDS NO. 2 TO 13 WERE IN SUPPO RT OF GROUND NO.1. 2. ASSESSEE,AN INDIVIDUAL,IS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF V AMA APPARELS (I) PVT. LTD. AND IS CONTROLLING THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE COMPANY.THERE WAS A SU RVEY ACTION U/S.133 OF THE ACT,IN NOVEMBER, 2002,AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE COMPANY.RESIDE NTIAL PREMISES OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY,WERE COVERED U/S.132 OF THE ACT.ASSESSING O FFICER(AO) FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT ON 29. 12.2008 DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT R S.25.64CRORES. 2.1. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL DEALS WITH INVESTMENT IN PAI NTINGS.DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH,THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE IN POSSESSION OF 275 PAINT INGS AT HER RESIDENCE THAT WERE INVENTORISED. INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 132(1 ) OF THE ACT,THOSE PAINTINGS WERE PUT UNDER CONSTRUCTIVE SEIZURE.SHE WAS DIRECTED TO EXPLAIN TH E SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PAINTINGS, DETAILS OF OWNERSHIP OF PAINTINGS AND PURCHASE-BILLS FOR TH OSE PAINTINGS.IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME SHE FILED A LETTER DATED 23.06.2006 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE-A, B & C. THE ANNEXURE B CONTAINED THE BILLS OF SOME OF THE PAINTINGS.AFTER ANALYSING THE BILLS AT SERIAL NO. 1 TO 34 OR 138,THE AO HELD THAT SAME 4 ITA NO. 2324 MUM 2011 JAYA P.PATEL WERE NOT RELIABLE, THAT THE PURCHASE BILLS DID NOT GIVE DETAILS OF DESCRIPTION OF THE PAINTINGS.FOR VALUATION PURPOSES THE PAINTINGS FOUND IN HER POSSE SSION WERE REFERRED TO THE FACULTY MEMBERS OF SIR J.J.SCHOOL OF ART.THE SAID TEAM WAS SUPPLIED CD S CONTAINING THE PICTURE OF ALL PAINTINGS INVENTORISED AT THE RESIDENCE ALONG WITH PRINT OUTS OF PAPER.AFTER INSPECTING THE PAINTINGS THE TEAM FURNISHED THE VALUATION REPORT ON 23.06. 2006 WHERI N 96 PAINTINGS WERE VALUED AT RS. 27.59 CRORES.THE COLLECTION OF PAINTINGS WERE ALSO GOT VA LUED THROUGH ART GALLERY OWNER,ASHISH BALRAM NAGPAL.HE VALUED 53 PAINTINGS,OUT OF WHICH 50 PAINT INGS WERE COVERED IN THE LIST OF 96 PAINTINGS VALUED BY THE TEAM OF SIR J.J.SCHOOL OF ART.THE REM AINING 3 PAINTINGS WERE VALUED BY HIM FOR AGGREGATE SUM OF RS. 2.09 CRORES.SHE WAS GIVEN AN O PPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT.SHE FILED HER LETTER DATED 04.11.2008 AN D 13.12.2008. SHE CHALLENGED THE VALUATION MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE EXPERTS. SHE FUR THER STATED THAT MOST OF THE PAINTINGS WERE ACQUIRED BY HER AND HER CONCERN AND WERE IN HER POS SESSION PRIOR TO AY 1999-2000,THAT THE PAINTING AND THERE VALUATION FOR INVESTMENT WAS BEY OND THE PURVIEW OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 153A OF THE ACT. SHE SUBMITTED A PHOTO ALBUM OF HER LATE FA THERS 75TH BIRTHDAY CELEBRATIONS CONDUCED ON 02.06.1999 AND ALBUM CONTAINING FAMILY PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE PAINTINGS.SHE ALSO SUBMITTED SOME BILLS,LETTERS OF VENDER,GIFT CONFIRMATION BEFORE TH E AO. 2.2. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE,T HE AO HELD THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL PAINITINGS 19 PAINTINGS COULD BE ACCEPTED AS PURCHASED PRIOR T O 1999 ON THE BASIS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES I.E.ALBUM CONTAINING BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION OF HER LA TE FATHER.ABOUT THE THREE BILLS OF VADHERA ART GALLERY ;DATED 14.11.1999, 20.11.1999 AND 13.12.199 9;THE AO HELD THAT OUT OF THE THREE BILLS ONLY ONE BILL,DATED 20.11.1999,HAD DESCRIPTION OF THE PA INTINGS.ON THAT BASIS HE ACCEPTED THE PURCHASE OF ONE PAINTING AT SERIAL NO. 243 IN 1999.CONSIDERI NG THE GIFT CONFIRMATION CERTIFICATE OF SANJAY MEHTA, HEBBAR ART FOUNDATION, AQUEELA HUSAIN,VASUDE O KAMATH AND P BENDRE,HE HELD THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED LETTERS FROM THE CHILDREN OF THE FAMILY AND SAME COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE QUANTIFIED VALUE O F PAINTINGS HAD TO BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PAINT INGS IN THE YEAR 2007-08.FOR THAT PURPOSE HE 5 ITA NO. 2324 MUM 2011 JAYA P.PATEL TOOK THE PRICE ON THE HIGHER SIDE WHERE THE RANGE WAS GIVEN AND WHERE-EVER IT IS VALUED ONLY BY SIR J.J.SCHOOL OF ART TEAM.WITH REGARD TO THE PAINT INGS VALUED BY BOTH THE VALUERS HE ADOPTED THE HIGHEST VALUE.WITH REGARD TO 3 PAINTINGS VALUED ONL Y BY ASHISH NAGPAL THE INVENTORY OF THE VALUE WAS TAKEN AS PER HIS ESTIMATE. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE REMAINING 176 PAINTINGS WERE NOT VALUED BY THE VALUER, THAT SAME WERE TO BE CONSIDERED AS ORDI NARY PAINTINGS, THAT THEY HAD TO BE VALUED @ RS. 25,000/- EACH, BEING THE LOWEST VALUE ADOPTED I N THE VALUATION REPORT. FINALLY, HE WORKED OUT THE VALUE OF PAINTINGS AS UNDER: VALUE OF 3 PAINTINGS VALUED ONLY BY MR. ASHISH NAGP AL RS. 2,08,75,000/- VALUE OF 76 PAINTINGS VALUED BOTH BY SR. J.J.SCHOOL OF PROFESORS & BY MR. ASHISH NAGPAL AFTER EXCLUDING 20 PAINTINGS RS. 23,01,85,000/- REMAINING 176 PAINTINGS (275-99) OUT OF TOTAL 275 P AINTINGS @ RS. 25,000/- RS. 44,00,000/- TOTAL RS. 25,54,60,000/- 2.3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILE D AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA).BEFORE HIM IT WAS STATED THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SHE HAD SUBMITTED MOST OF THE PAINTINGS WERE ACQUIRED B Y HER AND HER CONCERN PRIOR TO 01.04.2000, THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED IN THIS R EGARD,THAT SHE HAD FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION OF PURCHASE OF PAINTINGS IN SOME CASES FROM VENDORS/AR TISTS AND IN SOME CASES FROM THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE ARTISTS,THAT METHOD OF VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE VALUER WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR AUTHENTICITY.WITH REGARD TO 70 PAINTINGS IT WAS STA TED BEFORE HIM THAT THE PAINTINGS AS APPEARING AT THE SPECIFIED SERIAL NUMBER IN THE VALUATION REPORT WERE ALSO APPEARING IN THE ALBUM PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO.WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMATION OF M/S VA SHDEO KAMATH, IT WAS STATED THAT HE HAD CONFIRMED THAT PAINTINGS WERE ACQUIRED BY THE ASSES SEE AND INDU PATEL FROM HIS EXHIBITION HELD IN THE 1ST WEEK OF APRIL 1999.,THAT HE HAD CONFIRMED T HE SALE OF PAINTINGS,THAT HE HAD SIGNED ON THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF EACH PAINTINGS.IN THIS BACKGROUND IT WAS CLAIMED THAT 9 PAINTINGS WERE ACQUIRED BY HER OR FAMILY PRIOR TO 31.03.2000,THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED CONFIRMATION FROM PADMANABH BENDRE S/O LATE A. BENDRE ABOUT 23 PAINTINGS AND S TATED THAT A. BENDRE HAD EXPIRED IN 1992, THAT 6 ITA NO. 2324 MUM 2011 JAYA P.PATEL PHOTOGRAPH OF SUCH PAINTINGS WERE SIGNED BY MRS. PA NMANABH BENDRE.IT WAS ALOS ARGUED THAT 12 PAINTINGS WERE ACQUIRED FROM K.K. HEBBEAR, THAT HIS PAINTINGS WERE ACQUIRED PRIOR TO 1996,THAT THAT SHE HAD SUBMITTED A CERTIFICATE FROM THE DAUGH TER OF M.F. HUSSAIN CONFIRMING THAT PAINTINGS WERE GIFTED BY HER FATHER TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF NA TURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION AS THE ASSESSEE AND AKILA HUSSAIN WERE CLOSE CHILDHOOD FRIENDS, THAT PAINTING S IN QUESTION FOR WHICH CONFIRMATION HAD BEEN FILED BY THE DAUGHTER OF M F HUSSAIN AND THE PHOTOG RAPHS FOR THE SAME REFLECTED IN THE ALBUM.BEFORE HIM A REFERENCE WAS ALSO MADE TO THE C ONFIRMATION OF SANJAY MEHTA,A BROKER FOR INDORE REGARDING PAINTINGS AND IT WAS ARGUED THAT S ANJAY MEHTA THROUGH HIS CERTIFICATE HAD CATEGORICALLY CONFIRMED SELLING OF 9 ARA PAINTINGS TO THE ASSESSEE IN EARLY 1998 AS A BROKER FOR A SUM OF RS. 55,000/-. ABOUT THE PAINTINGS AT SERIAL NO. 246, CLAIMED TO THE PAINTINGS OF RAJA RAVI VARMA IT WAS STATED THAT THE SAID PAINTINGS WAS NAM ED AS BEGAM, THAT THE PAINTINGS WERE PURCHASED ON BEHALF OF THE RAMANLAL T. PATEL IN AN AUCTION ON 15.11.1997, THAT A GIFT CERTIFICATE OF RAMANLAL T. PATEL WAS PRODUCED,THAT THERE WAS NO DI SPUTE ABOUT PURCHASE OF PAINTINGS,NAMELY BEGAM OF RAJA RAVI VARMA ON 15.11.1997, THAT FROM T HE NEWSPAPER CUTTING OF INDIAN EXPRESS,DATED 17.11.1997,IT WAS CLEAR THAT PATEL FA MILY OF VAMA GROUP HAD PURCHASED THE PAINTINGS.IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THREE PAINTINGS P URCHASED FROM VADHERA ART GALLERY,WERE PURCHASED BY VAMA APPAREL(I) PVT.LTD.,THAT SAME HAD BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THAT COMPANY, THAT THOSE PAINTINGS COUL D NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, THAT ALL THE THREE PAINTINGS PURCHASED WITHIN A PER IOD OF 1 MONTH,THAT THE PAYMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE BILLS, THAT THE BILL CONTAINED THE NAME OF A RTIST. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED TH E PURCHASE BILLS OF VARIOUS PAINTINGS, THAT THE SOME OF THE BILLS CONTAINED THE NUMBER OF PAINTINGS AND AMOUNTS INVOLVED IN SUCH BILLS, THAT THE SOME BILLS DID NOT CONTAIN THE NUMBERS,THAT THE DET AILS OF PURCHASE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OF 23 PAINTINGS WERE ALSO FURNISHED, THAT THE PURCHASE OF VARIOUS PAINTINGS WAS BETWEEN 1998 TO APRIL 2006, THAT THE BILLS FOR THESE 23 PAINTINGS WERE SU PPORTED WITH THE PAYMENT MADE BY CHEQUE WHENEVER SAME WERE PURCHASED AFTER 01.04.2000, THAT THE ABOVE BILLS CONTAINED THE TOTAL QUANTITY 7 ITA NO. 2324 MUM 2011 JAYA P.PATEL OF 245 PAINTINGS,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN HOBBY OF COLLECTING PAINTINGS, THAT IN THE YEAR 1975, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED CERTAIN PAINTINGS VALUED OF R S. 15,000/- IN HER VDIS RETURN, THAT THE INCREASE FOR PRICE OF THE PAINTINGS IN 35 YEARS COU LD BE SEVERAL FOLDS, THAT THE VALUE OF PAINTINGS PURCHASED IN 1997 HAD BECOME MORE THAN SIX TIMES WI THIN THE PERIOD OF 9 YEARS.IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT VALUE OF PAINTING WERE AT SERIAL NO. 24 0,MADE BY ASHISH NAGPAL,AT RS. 95 LAKHS WAS MADE WITHOUT VERIFYING WHETHER THE SAID PAINTINGS W AS FAKE OR NOT, THAT ASHISH NAGPAL WAS NOT A QUALIFIED VALUER BUT A MERE ART DEALER.IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT HE HAD MADE VALUATION OF OTHER PAINTINGS AT EXORBITANT AND UNREALISTIC PRICE FOR T HE PAINTINGS AT SERIAL NO. 63,83,84 AND 91,THAT HIS REPORT COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON,THAT THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE WHERE VALUATION OF ASHISH NAGPAL WAS EITHER LOWER THAN OR EQUAL TO THAT OF TH E VALUERS FROM J.J.SCHOOL OF ARTS, THAT ASSESSEE HAD INFORMED THE AO THAT HE HAD VALUED EVEN A FAKE PAINTING, THAT THE AO EVEN THEN DID NOT SUMMON THE VALUER TO JUSTIFY HIS VALUATION.THE ASSE SSEE HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTION THAT THE PAINTING (SERIAL NO. 240) WAS A FAKE PAINTING AND VALUATION MADE BY THE VALUER WAS TOTALLY WRONG, THAT THE VALUERS WERE NOT RECOGN IZED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THAT THE AO HAD ADOPTED THE MAXIMUM VALUER RANGE AS THE POSSIBL E VALUE ON THAT PARTICULAR DATE AND HAD IGNORED THE VALUATION MADE BY THEM AT MINIMUM RANGE . 2.3.1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, FAA CRYSTALLIZED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER: A.THE ASSESSEE HAS HOBBY OF COLLECTING ART AND SHE HAD ALSO DECLARED SOME INVESTMENT IN ART IN THE VDIS 1975. B.HER FATHER LATE P.T. PATEL CELEBRATED HIS 75TH BI RTHDAY ON JUNE 2ND 1999 AND ON THAT OCCASION MANY PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN WHEREIN THESE PAINTINGS WERE VISIBLE. C.DURING THE VARIOUS SOCIAL OCCASIONS OF THE FAMILY THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PAINTING WERE TAKEN. 8 ITA NO. 2324 MUM 2011 JAYA P.PATEL 4.AFFIDAVITS BILLS ETC. PERTAINING TO VARIOUS PAINT INGS DULY SIGNED BY THE ART GALLERY/PAINTINGS OF THEIR BALANCE OF THE PAINTINGS CONFIRMED THAT THE P AINTINGS WERE GIFTED OR SOLD BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE VALUERS APPOINTED BY THE DEPARTMENT WERE NOT AU THORISED TO VALUE THE PAINTINGS. HE OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH 275 PA INTINGS WERE FOUND,THAT THE PAINTINGS WERE INVENTORIED AND BY THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT, THAT THE AO HAD FURNISHED THE VALUERS REPORT TO THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE CD CONTAINING THE PICTURES OF ALL PAINTINGS WERE INVENTORISED,THAT VALUERS FROM J.J.SCHOOL OF ARTS HAD PERSONALLY VISITED THE SEARCH PREMISES TO SEE AN ACTUAL PAINTINGS,THAT PURSUANT TO COMPARING THE ACTUAL PAINTINGS THE VAL UERS FROM J J SCHOOL OF ATRS COULD MAKE VALUATION OF JUST 96 PAINTINGS, THAT ASHISH BALRAM NAGPAL HAD MADE A VALUATION FOR 53 PAINTINGS ONLY OUT OF 275 PAINTINGS, THAT OUT OF THE 53 PAINT INGS VALUED BY ASHISH BALRAM NAGPAL 50 PAINTINGS WERE COMMON IN BOTH THE VALUATIONS, THAT A TOTAL NUMBER OF 99 PAINTINGS IN ALL WAS VALUED BY BOTH THE VALUERS PUT TOGETHER, THAT REMAI NING 176 PAINTINGS HAD NOT BEEN VALUED BY ANY OF THEM, THAT THE REASON BEING THAT THOSE PAINTINGS WERE FROM RENOWNED ARTIST AND MIGHT NOT BE WORTH A VALUATION,THAT THE AO ESTIMATED THE VALUATI ONS OF 176 PAINTINGS @ RS 2500/- EACH AND HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.44 LAKHS TO THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. FAA HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A HOBBY OF COLLECTING ART, THAT IT WAS NOT KNOWN AS T O FROM WHICH ORDER HE STARTED COLLECTING THE PAINTINGS,THAT THERE WAS NO RECORD OF ACQUISITION O N PAINTINGS AND THE PRICE FOR WHICH PAINTINGS WERE PURCHASED, THAT THERE WAS NO REGISTER LIKE A S TOCK REGISTER MAINTAINED FOR THE PAINTINGS ACQUIRED, THAT THERE WAS LOT OF DIFFICULTY IN IDENT IFYING THE PAINTINGS, THAT HER FATHER HAD CELEBRATE D HIS 75TH BIRTHDAY IN JUNE 1999, THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH S OF THE ALBUM DID NOT HAVE ANY DATE, THAT THE VERACITY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS BEING TAKEN ON THE SAME DATE WAS NOT PROVIDES BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT MORPHING OF PHOTOGRAPHS WAS POSSIBLE, THAT IN ABSEN CE OF CLINCHING EVIDENCES IT WAS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE SAME AS EVIDENCE, THAT THE AO HAD ACCEPT ED AND ALLOWED 19 PAINTINGS BASED ON THE ALBUM AS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCES, THAT THOSE PAINTING S HAD BEEN ALLOWED AS THEY COULD EASILY BE SEEN AND IDENTIFY, THAT THE REMAINING PAINTINGS WER E DIFFICULT TO LOCATE, THAT THE BALANCE PAINTINGS 9 ITA NO. 2324 MUM 2011 JAYA P.PATEL SEEN IN THE ALLEGED PAINTINGS WERE DIFFICULT TO COR RELATE WITH THE ACTUAL PAINTINGS PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT, THAT THE EVIDENCES PRODUCE D BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED BILLS OF 245 PAINTINGS, THAT SHE HERSELF WAS NOT ABLE TO CORRELATE EACH PAINTING PURCHASED WITH THE PURCHASE BILLS, THAT OU T OF 245 PAINTINGS, 226 PAINTINGS HAD BEEN PURCHASED FROM THE YEAR 2000, THAT THE FACT OF PURC HASE OF PAINTINGS SHOWED HER INTEREST OF PAINTINGS DREW IN THE LATTER YEARS, THAT 114 PAINTI NGS WERE PURCHASED FROM AY 2004 TO 2006, THAT IN ABSENCE OF STOCK REGISTER IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE CONFIRMATION REGARDING THE PAINTINGS EITHE R IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVITS OR OTHERWISE AS WERE FROM THE CHILDREN OF THE ARTISTS AND NOT FROM THE A RTIST THEMSELVES, THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS WERE REGARDING SALE/GIFT OF THE PAINTINGS FEW YEARS BACK , THAT SUCH CONFIRMATION HAD NO LOCUS STANDI AND COULD NOT BE RELIED ON, THAT THE GIFT CONFIRMATION REGARDING THE PAINTING OF RAJA RAVI VARMA, NAMED 'BEGAM BATH', THAT THE SIGNATURE OF RAMAN LAL T. PATEL WAS WAY BEYOND WHERE HIS NAME WAS WRITTEN, THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THE PAINTING IN 1997, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE GIFT IN THE YEAR 2006, THAT GETTING A GIFT IN 2006, AFTER T HE BIRTH OF HER DAUGHTER, WAS AFTERTHOUGHT AND COULD NOT BE RELIED ON, THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF VAL UERS WAS NOT OBJECTED TO BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT THERE WAS NO OVER VALUATION OF THE PAINTINGS, THAT ASSESSEE HAD RAISED OBJECTION ONLY FOR 5 PAINTINGS, OUT OF THE 53 PAINTINGS VALUED BY ASHISH BALRAM NAGPAL, THAT SHE HAD NEITHER IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH NOR IN THE STA TEMENT RECORDED AFTERWARDS GAVE A SPECIFIC ANSWER TO THE ISSUE OF ACQUISITION OF THOSE PAINTIN GS, IF THE PAINTINGS WERE GIFTED TO HER BY ARTISTS SHE WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY MENTIONED THE FACTS, THAT ALBUM RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE BY THE VEHEMENTLY, WAS NOT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH, THAT SHE HAD NOT ANY TIME IN THE PAST SHOWN IN INVESTMENT IN PAINTINGS IN HER BOOKS OF AC COUNTS, THAT BIFURCATION OF THE PAINTINGS OWNED BY HER AND HER MOTHER WAS NOT GIVEN, THAT IT WAS AL SO NOT KNOW THAT INHERITED PAINTINGS WERE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER FATHER, THAT THE 3 BILLS TO V ADHERA ART GALLERY WERE IN THE NAMES OF VAMA APPARELS I) PVT.LTD., THE BILLS DID NOT INDICATE TH E DESCRIPTION OF PAINTING, THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT RELIABLE.FINALLY, HE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A0 . 10 ITA NO. 2324 MUM 2011 JAYA P.PATEL 2.4. BEFORE US,AR ARGUED THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE AO TO FILE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE PAINTINGS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH, THAT S TATEMENTS WERE RECORDED AFTER TWO MONTHS OF THE SEARCH,THAT THE VALUATION WAS DONE BY THE VALUERS A S ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, THAT INVESTMENT IN THE PAINTING WAS MADE LONG TIME BEFORE, THAT ASSESSEE H AD ACQUIRED PAINTINGS EVEN IN 1975, THAT SHE HAD NEVER SOLD ANY PAINTINGS, THAT ONE OF THE PAINT ING TREATED AS FAKE BY THE TEAM OF J.J. SCHOOL OF ART WAS VALUED BY ASHISH NAGPAL AT VERY HIGH RATE,T HAT ADOPTING THE RATE OF RS.25,000/- FOR 176 PAINTINGS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, THAT TEAM OF J.J.SCHOO L OF ART HAD TREATED THE SAID PAINTING AS OF NO VALUE,THAT THE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASING THE PAINTINGS WAS MADE THROUGH CHEQUE, THAT THERE WAS NO PROOF THAT ALL THE PAINTINGS WERE PURCHASED IN 2007 -08,THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR ADDING THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IN THE SAID YEAR,THAT AO HAD NOT PROVED THAT SHE HAD SOLD 245 OLD PAINTINGS AND HAD PURCHASED 176 NEW PAINTINGS, THAT NO INQUIR Y ABOUT THE BILLS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE.HE REFERRED TO PAGE 24 OF PAPER BOOK-1, PAGE 2 7 AND 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK 2, AND CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAD NOT COMMENTED UPON THE PAPERS PRODU CED BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE VALUATION TEAM OF J.J.SCHOOL OF ARTS HAD VALUED PAINTING NO. 240 A T NIL.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA AND STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE S BEFORE THE AO/FAA. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ACTION U/S.1 32(1)OF THE ACT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE 275 PAINTINGS WERE FOUND,THAT VALUATION OF THE PAINTING WAS DONE BY TWO VALUERS,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED WITH THE INVENTORY OF THE PAI NTINGS AND THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE VALUERS,THAT J J SCHOOL OF ARTS TEAM AND ASHISH NAG PAL HAD VALUED THE PAINTINGS AT DIFFERENT PRICES ,THAT VALUERS OF J J SCHOOL WERE OF THE OPINION THA T CERTAIN PAINTINGS COULD NOT BE VALUED AS SAME WERE OF NOT RENOWNED ARTISTS,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SOLD ANY PAINTING,THAT IN 1975 SHE HAD MADE SOME DISCLOSURE,THAT THE AO HAD ADMITTED THAT AT LE AST 19 PAINTINGS WERE POSSESSED BY HER AT THE TIME OF BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION OF HER FATHER,THAT SHE HAD PRODUCED SOME BILLS/DOCUMENTS ABOUT SOME OF THE PAINTINGS,THAT SHE HAD OBJECTED THAT ONE OF THE PAINTINGS WAS FAKE AND HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT 11 ITA NO. 2324 MUM 2011 JAYA P.PATEL IN THIS REGARD,THAT THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2 5.54 CRORES TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE,THAT WHILE ADOPTING THE VALUE HE HAD TAKEN THE HIGHER RA NGE OR HIGHER VALUATION. IN OUR OPINION,THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO ADOPT THE MARKET VALUE I.E.VALUE OF THE PAINTING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH,FOR DETERMINING THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE.AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON AS TO HOW HE HAD ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT INV ESTMENT IN ALL THE PAINTINGS WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION.WE ARE NOT AWARE AS WH ETHER ANY MATERIAL IN THIS REGARD WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OR NOT.AT LEAST THE AO HAS NOT IN CORPORATED SUCH MATERIAL IN HIS ORDER. SECONDLY,THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT ONE OF THE P AINTINGS (SN.240)WAS FAKE AND ONE OF THE VALUERS HAD NOT VALUED IT WHEREAS THE OTHER VALUER HAD VALUED IT AT RS.95 LAKHS.WE FIND THAT AO AND THE FAA HAS NOT DEALT THE ISSUE.WHETHER THE PAI NTING WAS FAKE OR NOT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THIRD VALUER.ALLEGED MORPHING OF PICTUR ES COULD EASILY BE DETECTED WITH SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION.THEREFORE,WITHOUT ANY BASE TO HOLD OR TO SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS MORPHING OF PICTURES IS NOT PROPER.WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ALBUM PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO A CERTAIN EXTENT I.E.FOR 19 PAINTINGS.B UT,FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR OTHER PAINTINGS IN FORM OF OTHER EVIDENCES,NO R EASON HAS BEEN GIVEN.IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A O FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION.HE IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD A R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,IN PART. 4 .SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT ADDITION OF RS.1. 08 LAKHS.DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS FOREIGN CURRENCY OF 2200 $ AND TRAVELER S CHEQUE WORTH 500 US $ WERE FOUND.IN HER STATEMENT THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE FOREIGN CURR ENCY AND TRAVELERS CHEQUE BELONGED TO SHIRISH PATEL.THE AO DIRECTED HER VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 10. 10.2008 TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF ABOVE ASSETS.AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EXPLA NATION IN THIS REGARD,SO,THE AO HELD THAT RS. 1.08 LAKHS (EQUIVALENT VALUE OF 2700/- US $ @ RS.40 /-) HAD TO BE ASSESSED IN HER HANDS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL . 12 ITA NO. 2324 MUM 2011 JAYA P.PATEL 4.1. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,THE ASSESSEE STATE D THAT THE FOREIGN CURRENCY FOUND WITH HER BELONGED TO SIRISH PATEL HER COUSIN,THAT SIRISH PAT EL WAS AMERICAN CITIZENS,THAT HE WAS SPENDING ALMOST 6 MONTHS IN INDIA FOR BUSINESS,THAT HE WAS A LSO LOOKING AFTER THE WELL-BEING OF THE ASSESSEE'S FATHER.AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, FAA HELD THAT HER ARGUMENTS WERE DEVOID OF FACTS AND MERITS, THAT SHE DID NOT F ILE ANY CONFIRMATION OF SIRISH PATEL OWNING THE CURRENCY, THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AS TO WHEN SIRISH PATEL LEFT THE CURRENCY BEHIND.HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO IN THIS REG ARD. 4.2. BEFORE US,THE AR STATED THAT ISSUE COULD BE DECIDED BY THE BENCH ON MERITS.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA.WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFO RE THE AO OR THE FAA ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE FOREIGN CURRENCY AND TRAVELERS CHEQUES FOUND DU RING THE ACTION TAKEN U/S.132(1)OF THE ACT.SO, SHE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE OWNER OF THE SAID A SSET.IN OUR OPINION,THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY.SO,CONFIRMING H IS ORDER WE DECIDE GROUND NO.2 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5 .THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT HOUSE HOLD EXPE NSES.DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS,ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT HOUSE HOLD EXP ENSES WERE MADE BY HER FATHER WHO HAD EXPIRED ON 20.11.2006.THE AO HELD THAT THE HOUSE HO LD EXPENSES FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION MUST HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE.IN ABSENCE OF ANY INFORMATION AND AFTER CONSIDERING WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCO UNT AMOUNTING TO RS. 20,000/- PER MONTH, HE ESTIMATED FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 50,000/- PER MONTH FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. FINALLY,HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2.16 LAKHS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE PERIOD OF 4 MONTHS APPROXIMATELY @ 50,000/- PER MONTH. 5.1. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT WAS ARGUED BEFORE T HE FAA THAT SHE PAID ONLY FOR PETTY EXPENSES BUT THAT THE MAJORITY OF EXPENSES WERE PAI D BY CHEQUES FROM HER ACCOUNT OF VAMA APPARELS(I) PVT.LTD.,THAT MANY PAYMENTS WERE ALSO M ADE BY CREDIT CARD, THAT COPY OF LEDGER 13 ITA NO. 2324 MUM 2011 JAYA P.PATEL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF VAMA APPARE LS (I) PVT.LTD. WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO, THAT IN THOSE LEDGER ACCOUNTS DRAWINGS WERE REF LECTED.THE FAA, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE HELD THAT SHE HAD NOT MENTIONED WHAT WAS THE TOTAL A MONTHLY HOUSE HOLD EXPENSE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THAT WHO WAS PAYING FOR THE SA ME SINCE THE DEATH OF HER FATHER, THAT THE REPLY FILED BY HER WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS.HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 852. AR LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH.AR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE FAA.WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED NECESSARY DETAILS OF WI THDRAWAL BEFORE THE AO OR THE FAA.ONCE THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO FOR LOW WITHDRAWAL,IT W AS HER DUTY TO LEAD EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT SHE HAD WITHDRAWN SUFFICIENT MONEY FROM HER KNOWN S OURCES OF INCOME FOR THE PERIOD UNDER APPEAL. BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO F ILE NECESSARY DETAILS WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE FAA AND DECIDE LAST GROUND AGAINST HER. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 0)1 '() 2 3 + 4 VA'KR% 5) + ) 67. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN TH E OPEN COURT ON 08TH AUGUST, 2014 . 9 + -.# : ;' 8 VXLR VXLR VXLR VXLR 201 4 . + 4 < SD/- SD/- ( / VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( / RAJENDRA ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, ;' / DATE: 8TH AUGUST, 2014 S.K. 9 9 9 9 + ++ + &) &) &) &) =#) =#) =#) =#) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / $% 2. RESPONDENT / &'$% 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ > ? , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / > ? 5. DR I BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / @4 &)' , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ 4 0 ') ') ') ') &) &)&) &) //TRUE COPY// 9' / BY ORDER, A / 6 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI