GIRISH KUMAR PUNGALIA, MUMBAI V. DCIT - CC-5(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2842/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1800 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAITNYA ANJARIA
• Assessee Lawyers: A K GHOSH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 250; 132

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 ITA NO.2842/MUM/2018 AY. 2014 - 15 GIRISH KUMAR PUNGALIA VS. DY. CIT, CC - 5(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2842 /MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 ) GIRISH KUMAR PUNGALIA FLAT NO.D - 11/12, 2 ND FLOOR, KRISHNA LEELA SOCIETY, BANGUR NAGAR, GOREGAON (W), MUMAI 400 090 VS. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), ROOM NO. 1928,19 TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, MUMBAI 400 021 PAN AABPP4827H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI A.K. GHOSH, A .R RESPONDENT BY: SHRI CHAITNYA ANJARIA , D.R DATE OF HEARING: 02 .05.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13 .0 6 .2019 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) - 53, MUMBAI, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC.143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT ACT) , DATED 22.03.2016. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILI NG THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH IS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.29,26,148/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH. P A G E | 2 ITA NO.2842/MUM/2018 AY. 2014 - 15 GIRISH KUMAR PUNGALIA VS. DY. CIT, CC - 5(1) 3. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND BAD IN LAW. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND, ALTER OR DELETE ALL OR ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 132 ( 1) OF THE ACT , W ERE CONDUCTED ON 24.09.2013 IN THE CASE OF ANAND RATHI GROUP AND ITS GROUP CONCERNS . THE ASSESSEE WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE WITH M/S AMIT CAPITAL AND SECURITIES PVT. LTD. , WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE BROKING, MERCHANT BANKING ACTIVITIES, FINANCIAL ADVISORY AND DEPOSIT O RY SERVICES WAS ALSO COVERED UNDER THE SAID SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION S . THE ASSESSEE HAD E - FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2014 - 15 ON 01.1 1.2014 , DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.18,36,980/ - . 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS, DIAMOND/GOLD JEWELLERY WAS FOUND/SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES AND BANK LOCKERS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE AN D HIS WIFE , NAMELY MRS. POONAM P O NGALIA , AS UNDER : PARTICULARS OF PREMISES GOLD JEWELLERY VALUATION OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY (IN RS.0 VALUATION OF SILVER WARE (IN RS.) TOTAL VALUE (IN RS.) WEIGHT IN GRAMS VALUATION (IN RS.0 RESIDENCE 446.060 8,98,881 3,60,469 2,20,000 14,79,350 LOCKER NO. 324, SBBJ 933.600 24,95,224 15,61,800 68,661 41,25,685 LOCKER NO. 1283, BANK OF BARODA 466.800 11,61,151 4,35,848 NIL 15,96,999 TOTAL 1846.46 45,55,256 23,58,117 2,88,661 72,02,034 INSOFAR , THE JEWELLERY ITEMS FOUND FROM THE RESIDEN CE OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CONCERNED , IT WAS EXPLAINED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 24.09.2013 THAT MOST OF THE JEWELLERY ITEMS WERE PURCHASED BY HIM OUT OF HIS PERSONAL FUNDS , WHILE FOR SOME OF THOSE WERE RECEIVED AS GIFTS. AS REGARDS THE JEWEL LERY ITEM S WHICH WERE FOUND FROM THE BANK LOCKER NO. 1283 MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH BANK P A G E | 3 ITA NO.2842/MUM/2018 AY. 2014 - 15 GIRISH KUMAR PUNGALIA VS. DY. CIT, CC - 5(1) OF BARODA, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT CONSIDERING HIS FAMILY BACKGROUND THE JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT FOUND COULD SAFELY BE HELD TO BE REASONABLE . APART THERE FR OM, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE AFORESAID GOLD JEWELLERY WAS PART OF THE I STRIDHAN OF HIS WIFE AND MOTHER. THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO IMPRESS UPON THE SEARCH OFFICIALS , THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE AFORESAID LOCKER BELONG ED TO H IS MOTHER , WHICH AFTER BEING REMOULDED INTO NEW DESIGNS WAS LYING WITH HIM AND HIS WIFE. FURTHER , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE , THAT AS HIS AVERAGE SALARY WAS MORE THAN 20 LACS PER YEAR, THEREFORE, HE HAD SUBSTANTIAL CASH WITHDRAWALS WHICH JUSTIF I ABLY EXPLAINED THE INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM TOWARDS PURCHASE OF GOLD JEWELLERY . INSOFAR THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SEARCH OFFICIALS THAT THOUGH HE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY DETAILS OR INVOICES ISSUED BY ANY JE WELLER, HOWEVER, HE COULD FULLY JUSTIFY THE SOURCE FROM WHERE INVESTMENT TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE SAID JEWELLERY WAS MADE BY HIM . AS REGARDS THE JEWELLERY ITEMS LYING IN LOCKER NO. 324 WITH STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR , THE ASSESSEE CAME FORTH WITH THE SAME EXPLANATION THAT WAS ADVANCED BY HIM IN RESPECT OF THE JEWELLERY ITEMS THAT WERE RECOVERED FROM HIS LOCKER NO. 1283 WITH BANK OF BARODA. FURTHER , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE , THAT PART OF THE AFORE SAID JEWELLERY WAS INHERITED BY HIM AND , ALSO RECEIVED BY WAY OF GIFTS FROM FRIEND S AND RELATIVES AT VARIOUS OCCASIONS , VIZ. BIRTHDAYS, ANNIVERSARIES AND FESTIVALS ETC. HOWEVER, IT WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SEARCH OFFICIALS THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE ANY KIND OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EXPLAINING THE MODE OF ACQUISITION AND ALSO, THE EXACT SOURCE FOR PURCHASING THE SAID JEWELLERY ITEMS. AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY CREDI BLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE AFORESAID GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1846.46 GMS THAT P A G E | 4 ITA NO.2842/MUM/2018 AY. 2014 - 15 GIRISH KUMAR PUNGALIA VS. DY. CIT, CC - 5(1) WAS FOUND FROM HIS RESIDENCE/LOCKERS DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS . HOWEVER, THE SEARCH OFFICIALS TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE F ACT THAT THERE WERE TWO MARRIED LADIES, TWO MALE MEMBERS AND ONE UNMARRIED LADY IN THE ASSESSES FAMILY, THEREFORE, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CBDT I NSTRUCTION N O. 1916 , TREATING 1450 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY FROM THEIR DISCLOSED SOURCES, THUS, SEIZED ONLY THE BALANCE 564.80 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY. ALSO , THE ENTIRE DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF A VAL U E OF RS.15,61,800/ - THAT WAS FOUND FROM THE ASSESSES LOCKER NO. 324 WITH STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR WAS ALSO SEIZED. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROC EEDINGS, ALONGWITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. IN REPLY , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE , AS UNDER : WITH REGARD TO JEWELLERY FOUND, I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT AS UNDER : WITH REGARD TO JEWELLERY FOUND OF RS.72,02,683/ - FOUND AT F LAT NO. D 11/ 12, 2ND FLOOR, KRISHNA LEE/A SOCIETY BANGUR NA G AR, GORE G AON (W) MUMBAI - 400 090 AND AT BANK LOCKERS, I WOULD LI KE TO SUBMIT AS UNDER: SR. NO. LOCATION OF PREMISES JEWELLERY FOUND JEWELLERY SEIZED 1. FLAT NO. D 11/12, 2 ND FLOOR, KRISHNA LEEL A SOCIETY BANGUR NAGAR, GOREGAON (W) MUMBAI 400 090 RS.14,80,000.00 NIL 2. BANK OF BARODA GOREGAON (W) LOCKER NO. 1283A RS.15,96,998.50 NIL 3. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR GOREGAON (W) LOCKER NO. 324 RS.10,31,742.00 RS.30,93,943.00 WITH REGARD TO ABOVE JEWELLERY FOUND, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT I AM A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT QUALIFIED IN 1990 AND FILING INCOME TAX RETURNS SINCE LAST 25 YEARS. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MY FAMILY IS JOINT FAMILY AND THE STAYING TOGETHER AS PER THE CUSTOM. I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT THE SAID JEWELLERY BELONGS TO MY JOINT FAMILY. THE MY FAMILY CONSIST OF MRS. POONAM PUN G ALIA( WIFE), MRS. JAMKU DEVI PUNGALI A (MOTHER), MASTER HITESH (SON) AND MS. VIDHI (DAUGHTER). IN THIS REGARD WE ORE ENCLOSING THE COPY OF VALU ATION REPORT OF JEWELLERY AS ON 31.03.2007 OF MYSELF, MY WIFE AND MY MOTHER. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE JEWELLERY CONSIST OF MY ANCESTRAL JEWELLERY WHICH IS BELONGING TO MY ANCESTORS P A G E | 5 ITA NO.2842/MUM/2018 AY. 2014 - 15 GIRISH KUMAR PUNGALIA VS. DY. CIT, CC - 5(1) WHICH WAS PASSED ON TO MY MOTHER ON ACCOUNT OF INHERITANCE THEREFORE, QUEST ION OF SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR ACQUISITION OF SUCH JEWELLERY DOES NOT ARISE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT JEWELLERY ALSO CONSIST OF JEWELLERY BROUGHT BY MY FATHER (WHO WAS SERVE AS A BRANCH MANAGER IN BANK) AT THE TIME OF MY MARRIAGE AS WELL AS ACQUIRED OUT OF THE DRAWINGS FROM TIME TO TIME. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RESPECTIVE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS WERE NOT LIABLE TO TAX UNDER THE WEALTH TAX PROVISION AND ACCOR DINGLY INDIVIDUAL WEALTH TAX RETURNS WERE NOT FILED. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACT AND THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY ME DURING THE POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, ALL THE JEWELLERY WERE RELEASED EXCEPT J EWELLERY SEIZED OF RS.30,93,943/ - AND RS.4,35,900/ - P O WAS TAKEN BY INVESTIGATION TEAM. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WE ARE FIVE MEMBERS IN THE FAMILY AND CONSIDERING THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUND IS WITHIN THE LIMITS AND EARNING CAPACITY AS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR ABOUT 25 YEARS. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT / DO NOT HAVE ANY SOURCE OF EARNING ANY UNACC OUNTED MONEY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS PRAYED THAT NONE OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN CASE OF MY FAMILY CAN BE TREATED AS OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, WE WOULD LIKE TO RELY ON THE INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 (F.NO.286 / 63 / 93 - IT (INV - II) (COPY ENCLOSED), IT IS SUBMITTED THAT WE HAVE PREPARED A CONSOLIDATED CHART EXPLAINING THE TOTAL GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS SHOWN ABOVE. IT IS TO CLARIFY THAT THE DETAILS OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE AS UNDER: GIRISH PUNGALIA - SELF 100 GMS. POONAM PUNGOLIA - WIFE 500 GMS. JAMKU DEVI PUNGALIA - MOTHER 500 GMS. MASTER HITESH PUNGALIA - SO N 100 GMS. VIDHI PUNGALIA - DAUGHTER 250 GMS. 1450 GMS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THE GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND AT RESIDENCE AND LOCKER WHICH IS AGGREGATING TO 1846.46 GRAMS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE CIRCULAR THE JEWELLERY IS EXCEEDING WITH 396 GRAMS ONLY WHICH IS PURCHASED OF OUT OF MY TAXABLE INCOME FROM TIME TO TIME (BILLS ARE ENCLOSED). IN VIEW OF ABOVE I ALSO PRAY TO RELEASE JEWELLERY SEIZED FROM BANK LOCKER AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. I ALSO REQUEST YOU TO RELEAS E A SUM OF RS.4,35,900/ - AND RS.98,000/ - DEPOSITED WITH INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. FURTHER , THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 12.03.2016 RELIED UPON A V ALUATION REPORT OF A GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER, FOR THE YEAR 200 1 AND 200 7 IN RESPECT OF DIAMOND AND SILVER JEWELLERY. APART THERE FROM, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE COPY OF THE PENSION CARD OF HIS MOTHER , ALONG WITH HER PASS BOOK , IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY BY HER. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE , THAT HIS FATHER WHO WAS EMPLOYED AS A BRANCH MANAGER WITH STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR USED TO INVEST HIS SAVINGS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY AND OTHER TANGIBLE ASSETS. I N ORDER TO IMPRESS UPON THE A.O THAT THE JEWELLERY THAT WAS OWNED BY HIM, HIS MOTHER P A G E | 6 ITA NO.2842/MUM/2018 AY. 2014 - 15 GIRISH KUMAR PUNGALIA VS. DY. CIT, CC - 5(1) SMT. JAM K U DEVI AND HIS WIFE SMT. POONAM PUNGLIA WAS ACQUIRED OUT OF EXPLAIN ED SOURCES, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COP IES OF THE VALUATION REPORT IN SUPPORT THEREOF. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF BILLS OF 3 STANDARD GOLD BARS WEIGHING 166.21 GMS, WHICH WERE CLAIMED BY HIM TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED THROUGH BANKING CHA NNELS O N 3 OCCASIONS FROM A JEWELLER VIZ. M/S SUN I L KUMAR R. AGGARWAL, 60 - A , KAVI NIRAV G ALI, SHOP NO. 12 , Z HAVER I BAZAR , MUMBAI. THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE A.O TRIED TO TAKE SUPPORT OF THE FACT , THAT AS HE WAS A C HARTERED A CCO UNTANT WHO HAD QUALIFIED 26 YEARS BA C K AND , WAS EARNING HANDSOME SALARY SINCE THEN, CO U PLED WITH THE FACT THAT HIS FATHER WAS A BRANCH MANAGER IN A NATIONALISED BAN K , THEREFORE, HIS FAMILY HAD SUFFICIENT FINANCIAL MEANS TO ACQUIRE THE AFORESAID JEWELLERY FROM EXPLAINED SOURCES . T HE A.O AFTER DELIBERATING AT LENGTH ON THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED , THAT AS PER THE CBDT I NSTRUCTION NO. 1916 [FILE NO. 286/63/93 - IT (INV - II)], JEWELLERY WEI GHING 145 0 GMS COULD BE TREATED AS ACQUIRED FROM EXPLAINED SOURCES. FURTHER, THE THREE GOLD BARS HAVING AGGREGATE WEIGHT OF 166.21 GMS FOR WHICH BILLS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , WERE ALSO HELD BY THE A .O TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM EXPLAINED SOURCES. INSOFAR THE BALANCE OF THE EXCESS JEWELLERY WEIGHING 230.25 GMS WAS CONCERNED, THE A.O TREATED THE SAME AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT AS THE AFORESAID JEWELLERY FORMED PART OF THE V ALU ATION REPORT OF A GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER FOR THE YEAR 2001 AND 2007, HENCE THE SAME COULD NOT BE TREATED AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE A.O. IN FACT, THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW , THAT NOW WHEN THE BENEFIT OF I NSTRUCTION NO 1916 OF CBDT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORT ING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF P A G E | 7 ITA NO.2842/MUM/2018 AY. 2014 - 15 GIRISH KUMAR PUNGALIA VS. DY. CIT, CC - 5(1) ACQUISITION OF THE BALANCE EXCES S JEWELLERY WEIGHING 230.25 GMS NO FURTHER BENEFIT COULD BE GIVEN TO HIM . AS REGARDS THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF RS. 23,58,117/ - THAT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS , THE SAME WAS ALSO TREATED BY THE A.O AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE A.O MADE A N ADDITION OF RS. 29,26,148/ - VIZ. (I) GOLD JEWELLERY (230.25 GMS ) : RS.5,68,031/ - ; AND (II) DIAMOND JEWELLERY : RS.23,58,117/ - , BY TREATING THE SAME AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTENTION S ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PERSUADED TO ACCEPT THE SAME. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE A.O HAD ALREADY GRANTED THE REQUISITE BENEFIT AND, HAD HELD THE GOLD JEWELLE R Y OF 1450 GMS AS EXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS . FURTHER, IT WAS OBSERVED BY HIM , THAT THE A.O HAD ALSO NOT MADE ANY ADDITION INSOFAR THE SILVERWARE ITEMS OF RS. 2 .88 LACS THAT WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. IN THE BACKDROP OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE CIT(A) DISMISS ED THE APPEAL. 6. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. T HE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A . R) FOR THE ASSESSEE, TOOK US THROUGH THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O IN CONTEXT OF THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. A.R DR EW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DETAILS OF THE GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY THAT WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARC H PROCEEDINGS , AT PAGE 1 OF THE A SSESSE S PAPER B OOK (FOR SHORT APB). FURTHER, THE LD. A.R DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DETAILS OF THE GOLD & DIAMOND JEWELLERY , WHICH AS CLAIMED BY HIM , WERE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR AS PER TH E V ALUATION REPORT OF A G OVERNMENT APPROVED REGISTERED P A G E | 8 ITA NO.2842/MUM/2018 AY. 2014 - 15 GIRISH KUMAR PUNGALIA VS. DY. CIT, CC - 5(1) VALUER ON 31.03.2007 ( PAGE 14 OF APB). THE LD. A.R ALSO TOOK US THROUGH THE V ALUATION REPORT, DATED 08.07.2007 OF THE G OVERNMENT APPOINTED VALUER VIZ. JAYANT PRAFULLA KUMAR BHANSALI , WHEREIN THE LA TTER HAD CERTIFIED THE WEIGHT/VALUE OF GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY HELD BY THE ASSESSEE , HIS MOTHER AND HIS WIFE. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A.O HAD FAIL ED TO APPRECIATE THAT AS THE AFORESAID GOLD & DIA MOND JEWELLERY W ERE DULY REPORTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER IN HIS VALUATION REPORT , DATED 08.07.2007, THEREFORE, NO PART OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS COULD BE HELD AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R , THAT THE A.O HAD ADOPTED A CONSIDERA TE APPROACH AND F OLLOWING THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 , HAD AFTER CONSIDERING THE STRUCTURE OF THE ASSESSES FAMILY TREATED 1450 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AS HAVING BEEN ACQUIRED FROM EXPLAINED SOURCES. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R , THAT AS NO INFIRMITY DID EMERGE FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DEVOID AND BEREFT OF ANY MERIT WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISS ED . 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES , PERUSED THE ORD ERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1846.46 GMS WAS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES/LOCKERS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. APART THERE FROM, DIAMOND JEWELLERY WORTH RS.15,61,800/ - WAS ALSO FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE LOCKER NO. 324 OF THE ASSESSEE WITH STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR. AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE JEWELLERY WAS CONCERNED, WE FIND , THAT THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SUPPORTING P A G E | 9 ITA NO.2842/MUM/2018 AY. 2014 - 15 GIRISH KUMAR PUNGALIA VS. DY. CIT, CC - 5(1) PURCHASE BILLS COULD SUBSTANTIATE PURCHASE O F ONLY THREE GOLD BARS HAVING AN AGGREGATE WEIGHT OF 166.21 GMS, WHICH WERE PURCHASED BY HIM VIDE CHEQUE PAYMENTS ON THREE OCCASIONS FROM A JEWELLER VIZ. M/S SUNEEL KUMAR R. AGGARWAL, 60A KAVI NIRAV GALI, SHOP NO. 12, JHAVERY BAZAR, MUMBAI. AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THE A.O OBSERVING THAT THERE WERE TWO MARRIED LAD IES, TWO MALE MEMBERS AND ONE UNMARRIED LADY IN THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE , HAD THUS, BY DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 OBSERV ED, THAT JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1450 GMS COULD SAFELY BE HELD AS HAVING BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS FROM EXPLAINED SOURCES. AS REGARDS THE BALANCE G OLD J EWELLERY WEIGHING 230.25 GMS O F A VALUE OF RS.5,68,031/ - AND , DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF RS.23,58,117/ - , IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF ANY COGENT MATERIAL , THEREFORE, HE TREATED THE SAME AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HIS HAND. 9. WE HAVE DELIBERAT ED AT LENGTH ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND , ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R , THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD ERRED IN TREATING THE GOLD JEWELLERY (WT. 230.25 GMS) OF A VALUE OF RS.5,68,031/ - AND , DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF RS.23,58,117/ - , AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE . ADMITTEDLY, AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES , THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THREE STANDARD GOLD B ARS WEIGHING 166.21 GMS THAT WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. APART THERE FROM, THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT FOR RAISING UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS , HAD HOWEVER FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE , WHICH WOULD IRREFUTABLY EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF THE BALANCE GOLD/DIAMOND JEWELLERY. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW , THAT THE A.O HAD IN ALL FAIRNESS AFTER CONSIDERING THE INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 [F. P A G E | 10 ITA NO.2842/MUM/2018 AY. 2014 - 15 GIRISH KUMAR PUNGALIA VS. DY. CIT, CC - 5(1) NO.286/63/93 - IT (INV. II)], CONCLUDED THAT GOLD JEWELLERY OF 1450 GMS COULD BE HELD AS EXPLAINED IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. APART THERE FROM, IT IS A FACT BORNE FROM THE RECORDS, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SOURCE OF PURCHASE/A CQUISITION OF THE BALANCE GOLD/DIAMOND JEWELLERY THAT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. AS REGARDS THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. A.R ON THE V ALUATION REPORT, DATED 08.07.2007 OF A GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER , IN HIS ATTEMPT TO IMPRES S UPON US THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WAS DULY DISCLOSED AND , COULD NOT BE CHARACTERISED AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, WE ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND THAT AS TO HOW THE SAID STAND ALONE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED DOCUMENT COU LD SUPPORT THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY BY THE BENCH , AS TO ON WHAT BASIS THE SAID V ALUATION REPORT WOULD PROVE THAT THE GOLD/DIAMOND JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSE E WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS EXPLAINED SOURCES , THE LD. A.R FAILED TO GIVE ANY PLAUSIBLE REPLY. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENGTH ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND , ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE UNSUBSTANTIATED VALUATION REPORT OF THE GOV ERNMENT APPROVED VALUER, T HE AUTHENTICITY OF WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN SCRUTINISED AND , THEREIN VERIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT , CAN IN NO WAY SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R, THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS EXPLAINED SOURCES. THE LD. A.R COULD NOT DRAW OUR ATTENTION TO ANY SUCH DOCUMENT /RECORDS , WHICH WOULD LEND CREDENCE AND JUSTIFY THE VERACITY OF THE SAID VALUATION REPORT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE LD. A.R , THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE BEING ASSESSED TO W EALTH T AX AND , THE AFORESAID VALUATION REPORT CONTAINING THE DETAILS AS REGARDS THE GOLD/DIAMOND JEWELLERY HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS P A G E | 11 ITA NO.2842/MUM/2018 AY. 2014 - 15 GIRISH KUMAR PUNGALIA VS. DY. CIT, CC - 5(1) FAMILY MEMBERS WAS FURNISHED WITH THE DEPARTMENT IN THE COURSE OF ANY SUCH PROCEEDING S. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE STAND ALONE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED VALUATION REPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER , WOULD IN NO WAY ASSIST THE ASSESSEE FOR CHARACTERI SI NG THE JEWELLERY FOUND FROM HIS RESIDENTIAL PREMISES/LOCKERS , AS AN INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM FROM EXPLAINED SOURCES. WE THUS NOT BEING A BLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE LD. A.R , THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD ERRED IN TREATING THE JEWELLERY FOUND FROM HIS PREMISES/LOCKERS DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDING S, AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THUS REJECT THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE . 10. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 .06.2019 SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 13 .06.2019 PS. ROHIT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) P A G E | 12 ITA NO.2842/MUM/2018 AY. 2014 - 15 GIRISH KUMAR PUNGALIA VS. DY. CIT, CC - 5(1) , / ITAT, MUMBAI