N.Viswanath, Tirunelveli V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 237/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95890 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Source of fund

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , ! ' , # $% & [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.234/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SMT. V. DHANALAKSHMI 176-F TRIVANDRUM ROAD TIRUNELVELI 627 003 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(1) CHENNAI [PAN AEMPD 1549 K] ( '( / APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.320/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(1) CHENNAI VS. SMT. V. DHANALAKSHMI 176-F TRIVANDRUM ROAD TIRUNELVELI 627 003 ( '( / APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.237/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI N. VISWANATH 176-F TRIVANDRUM ROAD TIRUNELVELI 627 003 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(1) CHENNAI [PAN ADFPV 9302 A] ( '( / APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 2 -: ./ I.T.A.NO.238/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI V. THIYAGARAJAN 176-F TRIVANDRUM ROAD TIRUNELVELI 627 003 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(1) CHENNAI [PAN AAXPT 5914 D] ( '( / APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.239/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI N. MANICKAVASAGAM 176-F TRIVANDRUM ROAD TIRUNELVELI 627 003 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(1) CHENNAI [PAN ACVPM 6898 B] ( '( / APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.240/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI K. MAHESH 176-F TRIVANDRUM ROAD TIRUNELVELI 627 003 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(1) CHENNAI [PAN ABCPM 8540 N] ( '( / APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.318/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(1) CHENNAI VS. SHRI K. MAHESH 176-F TRIVANDRUM ROAD TIRUNELVELI 627 003 ( '( / APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 3 -: ./ I.T.A.NO.598/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI P. PRANAV KUMARASWAMY L/R OF LATE SHRI K. PONANAND 176-F TRIVANDRUM ROAD TIRUNELVELI 627 003 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(1) CHENNAI [PAN AFEPP 8258 E] ( '( / APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.319/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(1) CHENNAI VS. SHRI K. PONANAND 176-F TRIVANDRUM ROAD TIRUNELVELI 627 003 ( '( / APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 14-07-2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-08-2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ALL APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX(APPEALS)-I, CHENNAI, DATED 30.11.2012. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARIS E FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THE APPEALS, WE HEARD THEM TOG ETHER AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 4 -: I.T.A.NO.234/MDS/2013 SMT. V. DHANALAKSHMI 2. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH RE GARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON ` 83.50 LAKHS AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS HOUSING LOAN. 3. SHRI G. BASKAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AT 176- F, TRIVANDURM ROAD, VANNARAPETTAI, TIRUNELVELI. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS LET OUT TO RMKV GROUP OF FIRMS BY AN AGREEMENT DATED 19.10.2007. A CCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH OTHER CO-OWNER S, AVAILED HOUSING LOAN OF ` 5 CRORES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BU ILDING. IN FACT, THE ABOVE SAID ` 5 CRORES WAS DISBURSED BY INDIAN BANK, TIRUNELVELI BRANCH ON FOUR INSTALLMENTS. OUT OF TH E FIRST INSTALLMENT OF ` 25 LAKHS RECEIVED ON 28.6.2007, A SUM OF ` 13.50 LAKHS WAS UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF THE LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 206.5 CENTS. SINCE ` 13.50 LAKHS WAS UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF THE LANDED PROPERTY, A CCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF INTEREST TO THAT EXTENT. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS MADE AN ENDORSEME NT IN THE FILE TO THIS EFFECT. NOW THE DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO INT EREST ON THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 70 LAKHS. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SECOND AND THIRD INSTALLMENTS OF ` 1 CRORE AND ` 2 CRORES RESPECTIVELY, WAS IN FACT USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION BY TRANSFERRING THE AMOUNT TO THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF RMKV & SONS, R.K. SALAI, CHENNAI. ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 5 -: THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF THE FINAL INSTALLMENT OF ` 175 LAKHS, A SUM OF ` 70 LAKHS WAS PAID TO VARIOUS TEMPLES ON BEHALF OF RMKV & SONS AS PER THE ORDER OF THE HINDU CHARIT ABLE & RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS (HR&CE). ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH OTHER CO-OWNERS, BORROWED A SUM OF ` 5 CRORES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING AT 176-F, TRIVANDRUM ROA D, IN FACT, THE CONSTRUCTION COST WAS INITIALLY MADE BY RMKV & SONS AND THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER CO-OWNERS HAVE TO REPAY THE COST INCURRED BY RMKV & SONS. SINCE THERE WAS A DIRECTION FROM HR&CE TO GIVE DONA TION OF ` 70 LAKHS TO VARIOUS TEMPLES, RMKV & SONS REQUESTED THE ASSE SSEE AND OTHER CO-OWNERS TO PAY THE DONATION OF ` 70 LAKHS DIRECTLY TO THE TEMPLES AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE HR&CE. THEREFORE, THIS AM OUNT OF ` 70 LAKHS WAS IN FACT PAID TO FOUR TEMPLES AS PER THE DIRECTI ON OF HR&CE ON BEHALF OF RMKV & SONS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THEREFO RE, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THE LOAN AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF PAYING TO RMKV & SONS, IT WAS PAID DIRECTLY TO THE TEMPLES AS DONATION. 2. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR W HICH THE DONATION WAS MADE, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED TH AT THE ADJACENT LAND BELONGS TO ARULMIGHU MUTHARAMMAN TEMPLE, PALAY AMKOTTAI, TO THE EXTENT OF 50 CENTS. INITIALLY, THE SAID LAND W AS GIVEN ON LEASE TO ONE SHRI VELU. AFTER THE DEATH OF SHRI VELU, HIS L EGAL HEIRS CONTINUE TO CULTIVATE THE LAND AND SUBSEQUENTLY THEY TRANSFERRE D THEIR RIGHT TO ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 6 -: CULTIVATE THE LAND TO SHRI MAHESH OF RMKV TEXTILES. HOWEVER, THIS WAS OBJECTED BY HR&CE. SUBSEQUENTLY, AN ORDER WAS PASS ED BY THE COMMISSIONER, HR&CE, ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE J OINT COMMISSIONER, GRANTING LEASE OF THE SAID LAND FOR THREE YEARS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT DONATION HAS TO BE PAID TO T HE TEMPLES. IN FACT, THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTED TO PAY DONATIONS AS FOLLO WS: I ARULMIGHU MUTHARAMMAN TEMPLE, PALAYAMKOTTAI - ` 20 LAKHS II MANIMURTHY EASWARAR VINAYAGAR TEMPLE - ` 15 LAKHS III ANBU ASHRAM MANAGED BY ARULMIGU NELLAIAPPAR TEMPLE - ` 15 LAKHS IV KUTHALAM ARULMIGU PARASAKTHI LADIES COLLEGE - ` 20 LAKHS 3. CONSEQUENT TO THIS DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSIONER, H R&CE, RMKV & SONS INSTRUCTED THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER CO-O WNERS TO PAY ` 70 LAKHS DIRECTLY TO THE RESPECTIVE TEMPLES. ACCOR DINGLY, THE SAME WAS PAID AND AN AGREEMENT WAS ALSO ENTERED INTO BETWEEN ARULMIGHU MUTHARAMMAN TEMPLE, PALAYAMKOTTAI AND RMKV & SONS R EPRESENTED BY SHRI MAHESH. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER CO-OWNERS HAD A LIABILITY TO REIMBURSE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING TO RMKV & SONS, THEREFORE, INSTEAD OF REPA YING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION TO RMKV & SONS, THE CO-OWNERS/ ASSESS EE PAID THE AMOUNT DIRECTLY TO THE TEMPLES AS PER THE DIRECTION OF HR&CE. THEREFORE, THE INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON ` 70 LAKHS HAS TO BE ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 7 -: ALLOWED. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD. COUNSEL CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A PARTNER IN RMKV & SONS. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, LD. DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PAR TNER IN RMKV GROUP OF CONCERNS. THIS IS APPARENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS CIT(A)S ORDER. A SEARCH OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED I N THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF RMKV & SONS AND THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISE S OF SHRI K. SIVAKUMAR AND SHRI VENKATESH. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASS ESSEE AND OTHER CO-OWNERS BORROWED A SUM OF ` 5 CRORES TOWARDS HOUSING LOAN. A SUM OF ` 83 LAKHS WAS NOT UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION AND THE SAME WAS DIVERTED TO THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS INCLUDING THE A SSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE INTEREST ON LO AN OF ` 83 LAKHS. NOW, BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE LD. COUNSEL CLAIMS T HAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THE GROUND WITH REGARD TO DIVERSION OF THE AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 13.50 LAKHS. THEREFORE, NOW DISPUTE IS ONLY IN RE SPECT OF ` 70 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THIS AMOUN T OF ` 70 LAKHS WAS DIRECTLY PAID TO FOUR TEMPLES AS DONATION BY THE A SSESSEE AND OTHER CO-OWNERS. EVEN THOUGH 50 CENTS OF LAND WAS TAKEN ON LEASE BY RMKV & SONS FOR THEIR BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE BEING AN I NDIVIDUAL, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ABOVESAID PAYMENT OF DONATIO N. THE DONATION WAS TO BE MADE ONLY BY RMKV & SONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING THE PIECE OF 50 CENTS OF LAND BELONG TO ARULMIGHU MUTHA RAMMAN TEMPLE, ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 8 -: PALAYAMKOTTAI FOR THREE YEARS ON LEASE. THE ASSES SEE, BEING AN INDIVIDUAL IS NOT EXPECTED TO MAKE ANY DONATION OUT OF THE HOUSING LOAN BORROWED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. REFERRING TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS ONLY A REIMBURSE MENT OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, ACCORDING THE LD. DR, THERE IS NO MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT WHAT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TEMPLES AS DONATION IS TOWARDS REPAYMENT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTI ON INCURRED BY RMKV & SONS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, T HE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 5. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, INSPITE OF SPECIFIC QUERY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE NEX US BETWEEN THE AMOUNT SPENT BY THE FIRM AND THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE TEMPLES BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE NOT FURNISHED. IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE CIT(A) HAS R IGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON LOAN OF ` 83.50 LAKHS AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE L D. COUNSEL VERY FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT A SUM OF ` 13.50 LAKHS WAS DIVERTED FOR PURCHASING THE LAND THEREFORE, HE IS NOT PRESSING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON THIS ` ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 9 -: 13.50 LAKHS. NOW THE DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO ` 70 LAKHS WHICH WAS GIVEN TO FOUR TEMPLES AS DONATION. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT RMKV & SONS CONSTRUCTED THE BUILDING BY USING THEIR FUNDS THEREFORE, THIS SUM OF ` 70 LAKHS HAS TO BE REIMBURSED TO THEM. INSTEAD OF REIMBURSING THAT AMOUNT TO RMKV & SONS, IT WAS PAID TO VARIOUS TEMPLES ON THE INSTRUCTION OF RMKV & SONS. IT IS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH THAT RMKV & SONS TOOK 50 CENTS OF LAND FROM ARULMIGHU MUTHARAMMAN TEMPLE, PALAYAMKOTTAI, O N THE BASIS OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER, HR&CE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THEY GIVE DONATION TO FOUR TEMPLES AS INDICATED IN THE ORDER AND THE LEASE PERIOD IS FOR THREE YEARS. THE COPY OF THE L EASE AGREEMENT SAID TO BE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND RMKV & SONS IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AS PER THIS LEASE AGREEMENT, THERE IS NO REFERENCE ABOUT THE LIABILITY OF THE A SSESSEE TO REIMBURSE ANY OF THE EXPENDITURE SAID TO BE INCURRED BY RMKV & SONS, PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE LEASE PERIOD IS FOR 20 YEARS FROM 19.10.2007. APART FROM RENTAL DEPOSIT OF ` 50 LAKHS, RMKV & SONS HAS TO PAY RENT OF ` 3,75,000/- PER MONTH INCLUSIVE OF SERVICE TAX. TH EREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT RMKV & SONS HAS INVESTE D THEIR FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO REIMBURSE THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. THER EFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 10 -: DIVERTED A SUM OF ` 70 LAKHS BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OTHER THAN CONSTRUCTION. UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT, THE INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE LOAN BORROWED HAS TO B E ALLOWED ONLY FROM THE RENTAL INCOME. SINCE THE LOAN BORROWED WA S DIVERTED FOR THE PURPOSE OTHER THAN CONSTRUCTION, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISA LLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO I NDICATE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE UTILIZATION OF FUNDS BY RMKV & SONS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND REPAYMENT OF DONATION BY THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS T EMPLES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT( A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. IF AT ALL, THERE WAS ANY O BLIGATION FOR REIMBURSING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN DEFINITELY THERE SHOULD BE A REFERENCE IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 19.10.2007 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND RMKV & SONS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REFERENCE ABOUT THE INVESTMENT OF FUNDS BY R MKV & SONS AND THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO REIMBURSE THE SAM E, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE DONATION PAID TO THE TEMPLES IS ONLY REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY IN FIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 7. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST ADDITION TOWAR DS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SILVER ARTICLES TO THE EX TENT OF 18.23 KGS. ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 11 -: 8. SHRI G. BASKAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND 43.28 KGS OF SILVER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE SILVER DECLARED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN TO THE EXTENT OF 15.05 KGS AND TREATED ANOTHER 10 KGS OF SILVER AS STREEDHAN PROPE RTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE BALANCE 28.23 KGS OF SILVER AS UNEXPLAINED. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED ANOTHER 18KG S OF SILVER. THEREFORE, NOW THE DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO 18.23 KGS OF SILVER. THE LD. COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THE REVENUE HAS ALTHOU GH FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING 10KGS OF S ILVER, ACCORDING THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ENTIRE JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED AS S TREEDHAN AND GIFT FROM VARIOUS RELATIVES. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGH T TO HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, LD. DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITI ES FOUND 43.28 KGS OF SILVER JEWELLERY DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF FOUND 15.05 KGS OF JE WELLERY WAS DECLARED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN THEREFORE, IT WAS ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO WAS VERY REASONABLE IN DEDUC TING 10KGS OF SILVER JEWELLERY AS STREEDHAN PROPERTY AND MADE ADDITION O NLY THE VALUE OF SILVER JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 28.23 KGS. HOWEV ER, THE CIT(A) FOUND ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 12 -: THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED ANOTHER 10 K GS OF SILVER JEWELLERY AS GIFT DURING THE PAST 25 YEARS. THEREF ORE, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TOWARDS 18.23 KGS OF SILVER JEWELLERY. 10. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FILED APPEAL CHALLENGING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) GIVING RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 10 KGS OF SILVER ARTICLES ON THE GROU ND THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED GIFT FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS. AC CORDING TO THE LD. DR, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE THAT SHE MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED 10 KGS OF SILVER ARTICLES FOR T HE PAST 25 YEARS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT T O HAVE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AD MITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEES FAMILY IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS AT TIRUNEL VELI AND CHENNAI. BECAUSE OF THE BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEES FAMILY IS HAVING A STATUS IN THE SOCIETY, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE OR HER MOTH ER MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED STREEDHAN PROPERTY DURING THEIR MARRIAGES. GIVING STREEDHAN PROPERTY DURING THE COURSE OF MARRIAGE TO THE GIRL CHILDREN IS VERY COMMON IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY. MOREOVER, GIVI NG STREEDHAN PROPERTY IS ALSO RECOGNIZED UNDER THE HINDU MARRIAG ES ACT. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SILVER JEWELLER Y WAS RECEIVED AS STREEDHAN DURING THE MARRIAGE OF HER MOTHER AND HER MARRIAGE ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 13 -: CANNOT BE TOTALLY RULED OUT. ASKING FOR EVIDENCE O F STREEDHAN PROPERTY IS TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE SINCE THE STREEDHAN PROPERTY WAS GIFTED BY THE RESPECTIVE PARENTS, THEREFORE, EXPECTING DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE FOR THE STREEDHAN PROPERTY MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, T HE STREEDHAN HAS TO BE ESTIMATED DEPENDING UPON THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE RESPECTIVE FAMILY IN THE SOCIETY. SIMILARLY, DEPENDING UPON T HE SOCIAL STATUS, IT CANNOT BE TOTALLY RULED OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF RECE IVING GOLD AND SILVER ORNAMENTS AS GIFT. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS MARRIED FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS AND THERE ARE MANY OCCASIONS FOR THEM TO R ECEIVE GIFT FROM THE CLOSE RELATIVES. HERE AGAIN, EXPECTING DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE RECEIPT OF GIFT IS IMPOSSIBLE ONE. T HEREFORE, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ESTIMATED DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS OF EAC H CASE BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FAMILY IN THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THEY ARE LIVING. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED GIFT OF 15 KGS OF SILV ER ARTICLES AS STREEDHAN PROPERTY DURING HER MARRIAGE. SIMILARLY, FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS OF MARRIED LIFE THEY MIGHT HAVE ALSO RECEIVED 10 KGS OF SILVER ARTICLES AS GIFT. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRI BUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THAT THE BALANCE REMAINS TO BE EXPLAINED IS ONLY 13.23 KGS OF SILVER ARTICLES. IT IS MADE CLEA R THIS ESTIMATION IS MADE BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE BUSINESS OF T HE ASSESSEES FAMILY AND THE SOCIAL STATUS MAINTAINED BY THEM IN THE AREA IN WHICH ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 14 -: THEY ARE LIVING. THEREFORE, THE BALANCE SILVER ART ICLE REMAINS TO BE EXPLAINED IS ONLY 13.23 KGS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDE RS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE MODIFIED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO MAKE ADDITION ONLY IN RESPECT OF 13.23 KGS OF SILVER ART ICLES. I.T.A.NO. 320/MDS/2013 12. IN THIS REVENUES APPEAL, THE FIRST GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF ` 3,76,470/- TOWARDS JEWELLERY PURCHASES WITHOUT INV OICES. 13. SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIO N, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND THE FOLLOWING JEWELLERY EVEN THOU GH THE SAME WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY INVOICES: (I) SHOBA HAZAR JEWELLERY VALUING ` 1,77,500 (II) JAIPUR GEMS - JEWELLERY VALUING ` 1,98,970/- SINCE THE ABOVE PURCHASES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY VOUCHERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE PU RCHASE OF THE ABOVE JEWELLERY WAS SUPPORTED BY BOOK ENTRIES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI G. BASKAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITI ON OF ` 13,32,652/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY WHICH I NCLUDES ` 3,76,470/-. THOUGH THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION , THE ENTIRE ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 15 -: UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF ` 13,32,652/- EXCEPT THE VALUE OF 2.38 CARATS OF DIAMOND, THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL ONL Y IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY OF ` 3,76,470/- AND THE VALUE OF 2.38 CARATS OF DIAMOND. THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION MADE TO THE EXTENT OF NEARL Y ` 10 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE PURCHASE OF JEWEL LERY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 3,76,470/- IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS EVEN THOUGH T HE SUPPORTING VOUCHERS WERE NOT AVAILABLE. THE PAYMENT REFERENCE WERE AVAILABLE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH I CICI BANK. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, EVEN THOUGH AN AD DITION WAS MADE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 13,32,652/-, THE REVENUE IS CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ONLY IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF ` 3,76,470/- TOWARDS PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY AND THE VALUE OF 2.38 CARATS OF DIAMON D. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY HAS A REFERE NCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ICICI BANK AND THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUES. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 3,76,470/- WAS MADE THROUGH KNOWN SOURCES OF INCOME THE ADDITION OF ` 3,76,470/- HAS ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 16 -: RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 16. NOW COMING TO THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T IN 2.38 CARATS OF DIAMOND, SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, LD. DR S UBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS VALU E OF 2.38 CARATS OF DIAMOND WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THA T THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE SAID DIAMOND FROM HER MOTHER-IN-LAW. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED 2.38 CARATS OF DIAMOND FROM HER MOTHER -IN-LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION. 17. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI G. BASKAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES FAMILY IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS AT TIRUNELVELI AND CHENNAI, THEREFORE, INHERITANCE OF 2.38 CARATS OF DIAMOND FROM HER MOTHER-IN-LAW CANNOT BE DOUBTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT 2.38 CARATS OF DIAMOND WAS INHERITED FROM HER MOTHER- IN-LAW, CANNOT BE DOUBTED SINCE THE STATUS OF THE F AMILY IN SOCIETY WOULD INDICATE THAT THEY ARE USED TO WEAR DIAMOND J EWELLERY. THIS ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 17 -: TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS NO T KNOWN HOW THE ASSESSEE COULD ESTABLISH BY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO IN DICATE THE INHERITANCE OF 2.38 CARATS OF DIAMOND FROM HER MOTH ER-IN-LAW. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN VIEW OF THE SMALLNESS OF THE VALUE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDIT ION. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS MADE ADDITION OF ` 65,071/-. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 19. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT IN SILVER ARTICLES. WE HAVE DISCUSSED T HIS ISSUE ELABORATELY IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER IN ASSESSEES AP PEAL. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING THEREIN, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. I.T.A.NO. 238/MDS/2013 SHRI V. THIYAGARAJAN 20. IN THIS APPEAL, THE FIRST GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN BORROWED BY THE ASSESS EE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 83.50 LAKHS. 21. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE VERY FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE DOES NOT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSE L HAS ALSO MADE AN ENDORSEMENT IN THE FILE THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THI S GROUND. THE LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION TO DISMISS THIS GROUND AS NOT PRES SED. ACCORDINGLY, ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 18 -: THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO DI SALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN TO THE EXTENT OF ` 83.50 LAKHS IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 22. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT IN GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 407.3 GMS AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,38,800/-. 23. SHRI G. BASKAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND 1998.30 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 9.93 CARATS OF DI AMOND JEWELLERY. AFTER EXCLUDING IMPURITIES, THE NET WEIGHT OF GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND WAS 1864.71 GMS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 1071 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLER Y. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM TOWARDS 9.93 CARATS OF DIAMOND JE WELLERY WAS REJECTED IN TOTO. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MADE ADDITION TOWARDS THE VALUE OF 923.3 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AN D 9.93 CARATS OF DIAMOND. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIO N TO THE EXTENT OF 516 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY. HOWEVER, HE SUSTAINED TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF VALUE OF 407.3 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND THE VALUE OF 9.93 CARATS OF DIAMOND J EWELLERY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROS S AND NET WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY COMES TO 133.59 GMS. IF THIS IS EXCLUDED , THE DIFFERENCE ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 19 -: WOULD BE ONLY 274 GMS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSE L, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY ONE DAUGHTER WHO WAS MARRIED. THE ASSESS EES SON-IN-LAW IS LIVING AT CHENNAI. BEING AN ONLY ONE DAUGHTER, SHE USED TO LIVE WITH THE ASSESSEE AT TIRUNELVELI. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, EVEN THE GRANDCHILDREN IS STUDYING AT TIRUNELVELI BY STAYING IN THE ASSESSEES HOUSE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, PART OF THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTERS JEWELLERY WAS KEPT IN THE ASSESSEES HOUSE. THERE FORE, IF THAT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. THERE FORE, THE ENTIRE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AND THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. REFERRING TO THE ANSWER GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO QUESTION NO.3 RECOR DED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE LD. COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT ABOUT 80 SOVEREIGNS OF GOLD JEWELLERY BELONGS TO ASSESSEES DAUGHTER WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CLAIM ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 417 GMS. THE BALANCE JEWELLE RY ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER SUBSEQUENT TO HER MARRIAGE TO T HE EXTENT OF 248 GMS WAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED. REFERRING TO THE DIAM OND JEWELLERY, THE LD. COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MARR IED 45 YEARS BACK. BY CONSIDERING THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE FAMILY IN T HE SOCIETY, THE GIFT ITEM OF JEWELLERY ON THE OCCASION OF MARRIAGE IN TH OSE DAYS IS NORMALLY 2 CARATS OF DIAMOND EAR STUD AND 0.5 CARATS OF DIAM OND RING. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, ONE RING IS FOR THE B RIDE AND THE OTHER FOR ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 20 -: THE BRIDEGROOM. APART FROM THAT, THERE IS A USUAL PRACTICE IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY TO GIFT A DIAMOND NECKLACE OF 5 TO 7 CARATS TO THE BRIDE BY THE PARENTS OF THE BRIDEGROOM. THIS FACT WHICH PREVAILS IN THE SOCIETY WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE MAKI NG THE ADDITION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSIDERING THE AGE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS NOW COMPLETED 70 YEARS AND ENGAGED HIMSELF IN A REPUTED FAMILY BUSINESS IN TEXTILE OVER THE DECADES OF PERIOD, ACC ORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ENTIR E ADDITION. 24. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, LD. DR SUBMITTE D THAT THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 407.3 GMS AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,38,800/-. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT PART OF THE JEWELLERY BELONGS TO HIS DAUGHTER WHO IS STAYING IN ASSESSEES HOUSE, NO EVIDENCE WAS AV AILABLE ON RECORD. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DURING MARRIAGE OCC ASIONS THEY USED TO RECEIVE DIAMOND JEWELLERY AS GIFT IS ALSO NOT ESTAB LISHED BY PRODUCING ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 25. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES CANNOT CLOSE THEIR EYES TO THE CUSTOMARY PRACTICE P REVAILING IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS A USUAL PRAC TICE IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY TO GIVE STREEDHAN TO THE BRIDE BY THE RESPE CTIVE PARENTS AND ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 21 -: EVEN THE BRIDEGROOMS PARENTS USED TO GIFT GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY TO THE BRIDE AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. WHAT IS PROH IBITED BY LAW IS DOWRY AND NOT THE STREEDHAN PROPERTY. IN OTHER WOR DS, THE CUSTOMARY PRACTICE OF GIVING STREEDHAN IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. THEREFORE, NOBODY COULD FIND F AULT IN THE PRACTICE OF GIVING STREEDHAN BY WAY OF GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWE LLERY AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESS EES FAMILY IS ENGAGED IN TEXTILE BUSINESS OVER DECADES OF PERIOD. THE A SSESSEE IS ALSO ADMITTEDLY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTA NCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT RECEIVING OR GIFT ING OF STREEDHAN PROPERTY CANNOT BE TOTALLY RULED OUT. IT IS ALSO A N UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ONLY ONE DAUGHTER AND IT IS NOT UNCOMMON THAT THE DAUGHTER TO COME AND STAY WITH HER PARENTS ESPE CIALLY WHEN THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHILDREN. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PART OF THE JEWELLERY WHICH WAS GIFTED TO THEIR DAUGHTER WA S LEFT IN THEIR HOUSE CANNOT BE DOUBTED. MOREOVER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A SSESSEES DAUGHTER HAS ACQUIRED 240 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY SUB SEQUENT TO THE MARRIAGE ALSO CANNOT BE RULED OUT BY TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION THEIR FAMILY STATUS. OF COURSE, MATERIAL EVIDENCE IS NEC ESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIM IN THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND AT THE VE RY SAME TIME, THE CUSTOMARY PRACTICE PREVAILS IN THE SOCIETY CANNOT B E RULED OUT TO ESTIMATE THE AVAILABLE JEWELLERY WITH THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, THIS ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 22 -: TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT 240 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER MIGHT HAVE BEEN KEPT IN THE HOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW THE DIFFERENCE IS 133.59 GMS . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROS S AND NET WEIGHT. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD. COUNSEL EXPLAINE D THAT THIS DIFFERENCE IS DUE TO THE WEIGHT OF THE STONE EMBEDD ED IN THE JEWELLERY AND IMPURITIES. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT IT IS COMMON PRACTICE IN ALL JEWELLERY SHOP THAT STONES A RE VALUED AT THE GOLD RATE AND IN ADDITION TO THE RATE WHICH PREVAIL S FOR THE GOLD. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO REQUIRED TO PAY CHARGES FOR WASTA GE, MAKING CHARGES BESIDES THE APPLICABLE TAXES. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS AND NET WEIGHT OF 133.59 GMS CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 26. NOW, COMING TO THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY, THE DISPUTE I S ONLY WITH REGARD TO 9.93 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. A S RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL, IT IS USUAL PRACTICE IN CUSTOM TO GIFT DIAMOND EAR STUD AND DIAMOND RING TO THE BRIDE AND BRIDEGROOM A PART FROM DIAMOND NECKLACE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS MARRIED 45 YEARS BACK AND NOW AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO PR ODUCE MATERIAL EVIDENCE MAY NOT BE PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE. THEREFOR E, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT BY TAKING INTO CONSI DERATION THE CUSTOMARY PRACTICE WHICH PREVAILS IN THIS PART OF T HE COUNTRY AND THE ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 23 -: SOCIAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE NATURE OF B USINESS ENGAGED BY THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE EARNED THE VALUE OF 9.93 CARATE S OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR WI TH REGARD TO THE VALUE OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF 9.93 CARATS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE MODIFIED AND THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS DIRECTED TO MAKE ADDITION ONLY WITH REGARD TO VALUE OF 133.59 G MS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DIF FERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS AND NET WEIGHT. I.T.A.NO. 237/MDS/2013 SHRI N. VISWANATH 27. IN THIS APPEAL, THE FIRST GROUND RELATES TO DISALLO WANCE OF INTEREST ON THE HOUSING LOAN TO THE EXTENT OF ` 83.50 LAKHS. BOTH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF SMT. V. DHANALAKSHMI IN I.T.A.NO.234/MDS/2013. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AS DI SCUSSED ELABORATELY IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER IN TH E CASE OF SMT. V. DHANALAKSHMI, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LOWER AU THORITIES IS SUSTAINED. 28. THE NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF 600.2 GMS OF GOLD JEWEL LERY. 29. SHRI G. BASKAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND 1594.5 GMS OF GOLD JE WELLERY AND 11.35 ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 24 -: CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY IN THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. OUT OF THE ABOVE JEWELLERY, 599 GMS WAS FOUND IN THE RESID ENCE OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 600 GMS AND THE BALANCE 1092.2 GMS WAS AD DED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE JEWELLERY. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) DELETED ADDITION OF 492 GMS OF JEWELLERY . HOWEVER, SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO THE EXTENT OF 600.2 GMS OF JEWELLERY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNS EL, THE ASSESSEES MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE 11 YEARS BACK AND ABOUT 1200 GM S OF GOLD JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED AS STREEDHAN PROPERTY BY HIS WIFE. OUT OF THIS 601 GMS WAS FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE BALANCE 599 GMS JEWELLERY WAS FOUND IN THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SOM E OF THE JEWELLERY WERE EXCHANGED AND CONVERTED INTO NEW JEWELLERY. T HE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ABOUT 200 GMS OF JEWELLERY W AS RECEIVED BY HIS TWO CHILDREN WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE PURCHASED 192 GMS OF JEWELLERY FROM THE DRAWINGS MADE IN THE DUE COURSE AND HE ALSO ACCEPTED THAT THE TWO MINOR CHILDREN MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED 100 GMS EACH JEWELLERY. ACCORD INGLY, THE CIT(A) ADMITTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT O F 492 GMS. ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 25 -: HOWEVER, THE ADDITION TOWARDS THE BALANCE 600.2 GMS OF JEWELLERY WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 30. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, IN FACT, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND 1692.2 GMS OF GROSS WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY WHEREAS THE NET WEIGHT WA S 1594.5 GMS. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS AND NET WEIGHT IS 97.7 GMS. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CREDIT FOR SUBSEQUENT ACQU ISITION OF JEWELLERY BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 31. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, LD. DR SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ANY JEWELLERY IN THE WEA LTH TAX RETURN AT ALL. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. THE CASH DRAWINGS STATEMENT FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE HAS NO SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN JEWELL ERY. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT T HE GROSS WEIGHT OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND WAS 1692.2 GMS AND THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE NET WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY AT 1594.5 GMS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER VALUED THE GOLD AT ` 13,67,440/- AND THE DIAMOND AT ` 3,81,250/-. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 492 GMS. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JU STIFIED IN DELETING ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 26 -: THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE E XTENT OF VALUE OF 492 GMS OF JEWELLERY. 32. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TH E ONLY DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TOWARDS THE VALUE OF GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. ADMITTEDLY, 1692.2 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WAS FOUND AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE F OR 492 GMS OF JEWELLERY AND THE BALANCE 600 GMS WAS TAKEN AS UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT ANOTHER 492 GMS OF JEWELLERY MIGHT HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FROM THE DRAWINGS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSES SEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2.41 LAKHS AND THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE JEWELLERY OF TWO MINOR SONS TO TH E EXTENT OF 100 GMS EACH. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO B E BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED 1200 GMS OF STREEDHAN JEWELLERY BELONGS TO HIS WIFE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ACCEPTED ONLY 492 GMS OF JEWELLERY. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF TH E CONSIDERED OPINION THAT GIFTING JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE IS C OMMON IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY. BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SOCI AL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEES FAMILY AND THE NATURE OF BUSINESS THEY A RE CARRYING ON, THE ASSESSEES WIFE MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 27 -: 1000 GMS. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONS IDERED OPINION THAT THIS FACT WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. IF THIS IS CONSIDERED THEN THE BALANCE JEWELLERY REMAI NS UNEXPLAINED WOULD BE 200.2 GMS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT DIFF ERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS AND NET WEIGHT OF THE JEWELLERY IS 97.7 H AS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHILE PURCHASING JEWELLERY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MAKE PAYM ENT ON THE GROSS WEIGHT AND NOT ON THE NET WEIGHT. THE STONES WHICH FORM PART OF JEWELLERY WOULD BE WEIGHED ALONGWITH THE GOLD AND T HE ASSESSEE HAS TO NECESSARILY PAY THE COST OF THE STONE AT GOLD RA TE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR EXCLUDING THE DIFFEREN CE BETWEEN THE GROSS AND NET WEIGHT OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT 97.7 GMS OF JEWELLERY BEING THE DIFFE RENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS AND NET WEIGHT HAS TO BE EXCLUDED CANNOT BE A CCEPTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE BALANCE REMAINS TO BE EXPLAINED I S 200.2 GMS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS MO DIFIED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ADD THE VALUE OF 2 00.2 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. I.T.A.NO.598/MDS/2013 & REVENUES APPEAL I.T.A.NO. 319/MDS/2013- SHRI P. PRANAV KUMARAWSWAMY 33. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT SHRI P. PRANAV KUMAR ASWAMY IS THE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI K. PONANAND. ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 28 -: 34. THE FIRST GROUND ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS UNEXPL AINED INVESTMENT IN THE GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY. 35. SHRI G. BASKAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND 2511.2 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 24.99 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWEL LERY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR 1007 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY. HOWEVER, HE REJECTED THE EXP LANATION IN RESPECT OF THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEAR CH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTE NT OF 1504.2 GMS AND 24.99 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE E XTENT OF 1100 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND ALSO 13.25 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF 404 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 11.74 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. THEREFORE, BOTH ASSESSEE AND T HE REVENUE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 36. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSE L POINTED OUT THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS AND NET W EIGHT OF JEWELLERY COMES TO 228.2GMS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, M ERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRESERVE THE BILLS FOR ACQUISITI ON OF JEWELLERY, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CANNOT MAKE ANY ADDITION. ACCO RDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS A ND THE JEWELLERY ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 29 -: WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE KNOWN SOURCES OF INCOME. THE REFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 37. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT( A) DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 1100.2 GMS AN D SUSTAINED THE ADDITION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 404 GMS OF GOLD JEWE LLERY AND 11.74 CARATS OF DIAMOND. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CREDIT FOR PERSONAL JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 100 GMS FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ANOT HER 100 GMS WAS GIVEN CREDIT FOR THE ASSESSEES SON. THE CIT(A) H AS ALSO GIVEN CREDIT FOR THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER 250 GMS OF GOLD JEWELL ERY. THE CIT(A) FURTHER ACCEPTED EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO DIAMOND JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 13.25 CARATS. THE ACQUI SITION OF JEWELLERY BY DRAWINGS MADE FROM THE BUSINESS WAS ACCEPTED TO THE EXTENT OF 650.2 GMS. THEREFORE, NO MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE ON RECOR D EITHER TO SUPPORT THE INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY FROM THE DRAWINGS SAID TO BE MADE FROM THE BUSINESS OR RECEIPT OF STREEDHAN PROPERTY. THE REFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 38. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADM ITTEDLY, 2511.2 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 24.99 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWEL LERY WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE MIGHT HAV E RECEIVED ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 30 -: STREEDHAN PROPERTY OF 800 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND THE ASSESSEES MOTHER MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EX TENT OF 150 GMS AND THE JEWELLERY DECLARED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN WAS 57 GMS AND THE REMAINING JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 1504.2 GMS AND 24.99 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENT. THE CIT(A) BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE STATUS OF T HE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED ANOTHER 1100 GMS OF OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 13.25 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE B EFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE RECEIPT OF STREEDHAN PROPERTY OR ACQUISITION OF JEWELLERY INVESTING THE MONEY DRAWN FROM THE BUSINESS. IT IS COMMON TO GIFT GOLD JEWELLERY DURING THE COURSE OF MARRIAGE IN THIS PAR T OF THE COUNTRY. PEOPLE USED TO GIFT DEPENDING UPON THEIR FAMILY STA TUS AND CAPABILITY. THE ASSESSEE BEING AN OUTSTANDING BUSINESSMAN IN T EXTILES, MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED STREEDHAN PROPERTY OF 1000 GMS OF GOL D JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. SIMILARLY, ASSESSEES MOTHER MI GHT HAVE ALSO RECEIVED JEWELLERY. GIFTING OF DIAMOND EAR RINGS A ND RINGS ARE ALSO COMMON IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY DURING THE COURS E OF MARRIAGE. THE ASSESSEE, BEING AN OUTSTANDING BUSINESSMAN IN TEXTI LES, THERE IS POSSIBILITY OF PURCHASING GOLD JEWELLERY BY DRAWING MONEY FROM THE BUSINESS ALSO CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE ONLY CONTEN TION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT NO SUPPORTING MATERIAL WAS AVAILAB LE EITHER FOR ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 31 -: ACQUISITION OF THE JEWELLERY OR FOR RECEIPT OF STRE EDHAN. DURING THE COURSE OF MARRIAGE, THE PARENTS OF THE GIRL WOULD G IFT JEWELLERY. EXPECTING RECEIPT FROM THE PARENTS OF THE GIRL IS S OMETHING WHICH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BY ANYONE. THEREFORE, THIS TRI BUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE RECEIPT OF STREEDHAN HA S TO BE ESTIMATED BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FAMILY STATUS WHIC H WAS ENJOYED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SOCIETY. BY TAKING INTO CONSI DERATION THE FAMILY STATUS AND OTHER WARRANTING CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS T RIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED 1000 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO BY DRA WING MONEY FROM THE BUSINESS MIGHT HAVE PURCHASED 650.2 GMS OF AS F OUND BY THE CIT(A). THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED 24.94 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWELLE RY BOTH BY STREEDHAN AND FROM HER WIFE AND MOTHER AND ALSO MIG HT HAVE PURCHASED IN THE COURSE OF PERIOD. THEREFORE, THI S TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MAKING ADDITION TO THE EXTE NT OF 11.74 CARATS OF DIAMOND MAY NOT BE CORRECT. AFTER ESTIMATING TH E GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 1000 GMS AS STREEDHAN, THE BALANCE RE MAINS IS ONLY 204 GMS OF JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMS THE DI FFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS AND NET WEIGHT TO THE EXTENT OF 224.6 GMS . AS ALREADY OBSERVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO NECESSARILY PAY THE PRICE OF THE JEWELLERY ON THE GROSS WEIGHT AND NOT ON THE NET WE IGHT, THEREFORE, THE ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 32 -: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS WEIGHT AND NET WEIGHT CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE VALUE. AFTER GIVI NG DEDUCTION OF 1000 GMS INSTEAD OF 800 GMS AS STREEDHAN JEWELLERY TO THE ASSESSEES WIFE, THE BALANCE REMAINS TO EXPLAIN IS ONLY 204 GM S OF GOLD JEWELLERY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AR E MODIFIED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO MAKE ADDITION TO T HE EXTENT OF 204 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY. 39. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AN ADDITIONAL GROUND RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF I NTEREST ON THE HOUSING LOAN TO THE EXTENT OF ` 83.50 LAKHS. BOTH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E SUBMIT THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF SMT. V. DHANALAKSHMI IN I.T.A.NO.234/MDS/2013. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AS DI SCUSSED ELABORATELY IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER IN TH E CASE OF SMT. V. DHANALAKSHMI, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LOWER AU THORITIES IS SUSTAINED. I.T.A.NO. 239/MDS/2013 SHRI N. MANICKAVASAGAM 40. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISALLOW ANCE OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN OF ` 83.5 LAKHS. 41. BOTH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT THAT THE FACTS A RE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF SMT. V. DHANALAKSHMI IN I.T.A.NO.234/MDS/2013. IN VIEW OF THE ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 33 -: ABOVE, AS DISCUSSED ELABORATELY IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER IN THE CASE OF SMT. V. DHANALAKSHMI, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS SUSTAINED. I.T.A.NO.240/MDS/2013 & REVENUES APPEAL 318/MDS/20 13 SHRI K. MAHESH 42. BOTH ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL. THE FI RST GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISA LLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN OF ` 83.5 LAKHS. 43. BOTH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT THAT THE FACTS A RE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF SMT. V. DHANALAKSHMI IN I.T.A.NO.234/MDS/2013. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AS DISCUSSED ELABORATELY IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER IN THE CASE OF SMT. V. DHANALAKSHMI, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS SUSTAINED. 44. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT MADE IN GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 261.54 GMS. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF 798 .54 GMS OF JEWELLERY. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF 537 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY. THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING 537 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY. ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 34 -: 45. SHRI G. BASKAR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIUON, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND 1932 GMS OF GROSS GOLD JEWELLERY. THE NET WEIGHT OF THE GOLD JEWELLERY IS 1776 GMS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 1133.46 GMS AND MADE ADDITION OF 798.54 G MS OF GOLD JEWELLERY. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDIT ION TO THE EXTENT OF 537 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY, HOWEVER, SUSTAINED THE A DDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 261.54 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS AND NET WEIGHT COM ES TO 156 GMS. IF THIS IS DELETED THEN THERE WILL BE A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ONLY ON ESTIMATE BA SIS THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE HAS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, WHEN COMPARED TO NET WEIGHT, TH E DIFFERENCE IS HARDLY 6%, THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE HAS TO BE EXC LUDED. AT THE BEST, AN ADDITION COULD BE MADE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 106 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY. 46. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT( A) DELETED THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD JEWELLER Y TO THE EXTENT OF 537 GMS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE CIT(A ) TO DELETE 537GMS ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 35 -: OF GOLD JEWELLERY. REFERRING TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT SOME OF THE JEWELLERY WERE P URCHASED OUT OF THE DRAWINGS, THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT ORIGINALLY TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE JEWELLERY WERE RECEIVED IN GIFT AT THE TIM E OF OPENING OF THE BRANCHES IN CHENNAI AND TIRUNELVELI. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITY THAT THE SAME WA S PURCHASED OUT OF THE DRAWINGS. IN VIEW OF THE CONFLICTING CLAIM MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HA VE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 47. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT O F 800 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY TOWARDS STREEDHAN OF HIS WIFE AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO TAKEN CREDIT OF 150 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY DECLARED BY HIS MOTHER SMT SELVAVINAGATHAMMAL IN TH E WEALTH TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS ALSO ACCEPTED PURCHASE OF GOLD JEWELLERY OF 122.46 GMS. TOTALLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED EXPLANATION OF THE ASSE SSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 1133.46 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY. IN THE CASE OF O THER ASSESSEES, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED 1 000 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AS STREEDHAN DURING THE MARRIAGES. THERE FORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEES W IFE ALSO MIGHT HAVE ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 36 -: RECEIVED 1000 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. IF THAT 1000 GMS IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THE TOTAL GOL D JEWELLERY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE COMES TO 1233.46 GMS. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CREDIT FOR PURC HASE OF 437 GMS OF JEWELLERY WITH CASH AVAILABLE OUT OF DRAWINGS DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. ULTIMATELY, WHILE CONCL UDING, THE CIT(A) SUBTRACTED 537 GMS. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF CLAIMED ONLY 437 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AS PURCHASED FROM THE CASH AV AILABLE OUT OF DRAWINGS IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. THE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND GIVEN CREDIT FOR CASH PURCHASES. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO GIVEN CREDIT WITH R EGARD TO PERSONAL JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 100 GMS. TOTALLY, THE C IT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 5 37 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE PURCHASED BY INVESTING THE CASH DRAWN IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 JEWELLERY TO T HE EXTENT OF 437 GMS AS FOUND BY THE CIT(A). POSSESSION OF GOLD JEW ELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 100 GMS CANNOT ALSO BE TOTALLY RULED OUT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT( A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 437 GMS OF GO LD JEWELLERY. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT INSTEAD OF 800 GMS OF JEWELLERY FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS STREEDH AN ON THE OCCASION ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 37 -: OF MARRIAGE, CREDIT HAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE EXTENT O F 1000 GMS. THEREFORE, THE BALANCE COMES TO ONLY 61.54 GMS OF J EWELLERY. AS ALREADY OBSERVED IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEES, T HE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS AND NET WEIGHT CANNOT BE TAKEN IN TO CONSIDERATION SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY THE PRICE FOR THE GR OSS WEIGHT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE C ONSIDERED OPINION THAT 61.54 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY REMAINS TO BE UNEXPLAIN ED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE MODIFIED AN D THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO MAKE ADDITION OF 61.54 GS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 48. NOW COMING TO THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY, LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOU ND 38.01 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR 17.40 CARATS AND MADE ADDITION OF 20.61 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 10.75 CARATS OF DIAMO ND JEWELLERY. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF 9.86 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSE SSEE GOT MARRIED TEN YEARS BACK AND HIS FATHER-IN-LAW WAS A RICH MAN RES IDING AT DUBAI. IT IS VERY COMMON, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, TO GI FT BANGLES, EAR RINGS ETC DURING THE OCCASION OF MARRIAGE. THE LD. COUNS EL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED 2.38 CARATS OF DIAMOND FROM HIS MOTHER ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 38 -: SMT SELVAVINAGATHAMMAL WHICH WAS DECLARED IN THE WE ALTH TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. 49. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE T O THE EXTENT OF 17.40 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. THE CIT(A) DEL ETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF 10.7 5 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. IN FACT, THE REVENUE HAS NOT F ILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETION MADE BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THERE IS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SHOW TH AT THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED STREEDHAN DURING HER MARRIAGE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 50. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS VERY COMMON TO GIFT BANGLES, EAR RINGS, DIAMOND NECKLACE ETC. DUR ING THE MARRIAGE OF GIRL CHILD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSE ES FATHER-IN-LAW WAS RESIDING IN DUBAI. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ENGAGED I N BUSINESS AT TIRUNELVELI AND CHENNAI. BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERAT ION THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE IN SOCIETY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THA T THE ASSESSEES WIFE RECEIVED STREEDHAN DURING HER MARRIAGE CANNOT BE RU LED OUT. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL, IT IS COMMON IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 39 -: TO GIVE STREEDHAN TO THE GIRL CHILD DURING HER MARR IAGE IN THE FORM OF GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBU NAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED 38.01 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY DURING HER MARRIAGE. T HEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION OF ENTIRE 38.01 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION TOWARDS 38.01 CARATS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY. 51. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT IN SILVER ARTICLES. 52. SHRI G BASKAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND 28.17 KGS OF SILVER A RTICLES DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE NET WEIGHT WAS 43. 28 KGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 10.60 KGS AND THE DIFFERENCE OF 17.57 KGS WAS TAKEN AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. H OWEVER, ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION T O THE EXTENT OF 10 KGS SILVER ARTICLES AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF 7 .57 KGS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED STREEDH AN PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE. ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 40 -: 53. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SILVER ARTIC LES FOUND WERE MOSTLY KAMATCHI LAMPS, KUTHUVILAKKU, PANNER FA N, CAMPHOR STAND, KUMKUM BOWK, SANDAL BOWL AND PLATES. NUMBER OF TUMBLERS WHICH ARE USED DURING GATHERING WERE ALSO FOUND BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THEY AR E ACQUIRED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, RECEIVED AS GIFT ON VARIOUS OCCASIO NS AND FAMILY FUNCTIONS. 54. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMS THAT SILVER ARTICLES WERE RECEIVED DURING HI S MARRIAGE AS GIFT. NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED STREEDHAN AS SILVER ARTICLES AND AS GIFT. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 55. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT I S NOT IN DISPUTE THAT WHAT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIO N ARE MOSTLY POOJA ARTICLES LIKE KUTHUVILAKKU, PANNER FAN, CAMPH OR STAND, KUKUM BOWK, SANDAL BOWL AND PLATES ETC BESIDES TUMBLERS. BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEES FAMILY IN THE SOCIETY AND THE NATURE OF BUSINESS, IT IS NOT UNCOMMON TO RECEIVE S ILVER ARTICLES AS GIFT ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS, FAMILY FUNCTIONS ETC. IT IS ALSO COMMON IN THIS ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 41 -: PART OF THE COUNTRY TO RECEIVE SILVER ARTICLES AS G IFT DURING MARRIAGE TIME. APART FROM THAT THE ASSESSEES FATHER-IN-L AW BEING A RESIDENT IN DUBAI, THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED SOME GIFT AS STREEDHAN PROPERTY. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL I S OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED 28.1 7 KGS OF SILVER ARTICLES AS GIFT DURING HIS MARRIAGE. THEREFORE, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF 28.17 KGS OF SILVER A RTICLES FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION. 56. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE REVENUES APPEALS I.T.A.NO.318/MDS/2013, 319/MDS/2013 & 320/MDS/2013 AND THE ASSESSEES APPEALS I.T.A.NO.234/MDS/2013, 237/MDS/2 013, 238/MDS/ 2013, 240/MDS/2013 & 598/MDS/2013 ARE PARTLY ALLOWE D. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL I.T.A.NO.239/MDS/2013 IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 TH AUGUST, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ) ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI ! / DATED: 07 TH AUGUST, 2015 RD ITA NOS.234/13 ETC :- 42 -: !' # $% &% / COPY TO: 1 . '( / APPELLANT 4. ) / CIT 2. #*'( / RESPONDENT 5. %+, # - / DR 3. ) () / CIT(A) 6. ,/ 0 / GF