M.Rajendran, Kumbakonam V. ITO, Kumbakonam

ITA 2987/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8602 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B SMC BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ ITA NOS.2985, 2986, 2987 & 2988/MDS/2014 # $%# / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 TO 2004-05 SHRI M. RAJENDRAN, 41, PERIATHAMBI NAGAR, KUMBAKONAM 612 001. PAN : AAIPR 7441 Q V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), KUMBAKONAM. ('(/ APPELLANT) ()*'(/ RESPONDENT) !./ ITA NOS.2980, 2981, 2982, 2983 & 2984/MDS/2014 # $%# / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1999-00 TO 2002-03 & 2004-05 SHRI K. PALANISAMY, BY L/H P. SATHISHKUMAR, 14, PONNUSAMY NAGAR, KUMBAKONAM 612 001. PAN : AAKPP 2961 P V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), KUMBAKONAM. ('(/ APPELLANT) ()*'(/ RESPONDENT) '( + , / APPELLANTS BY : SHRI N. QUADIR HOSEYN, ADVOCATE SHRI B. NATARAJAN, CA )*'( + , / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT - $ + ./ / DATE OF HEARING : 20.06.2016 01% + ./ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.09.2016 2 I.T.A. NOS.2985 TO 2988/MDS/2014 / O R D E R ALL THE APPEALS OF THE TWO INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES A RE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARI SES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THESE APPEALS, I HEARD THESE A PPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDI TION TOWARDS INTEREST ON MONEY LENDING IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE A SSESSEES. 3. SHRI N. QUADIR HOSEYN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED INTEREST INCOME FROM HAND LOAN. HOWEVE R, NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DING, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS OF THE HAND LOAN OUTSTANDING. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATERIALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MADE ADDITION. THE LD.COUNSE L FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE D ETAILS WITH REGARD TO HAND LOAN AND INTEREST RECEIVED, ETC. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPROD UCED THE SAME AT PAGE 2 OF HIS ORDER. THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED TH E ADDITION 3 I.T.A. NOS.2985 TO 2988/MDS/2014 WITHOUT GOING INTO THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS ARBITRARY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE RAT E OF INTEREST AS 24 TO 30% IN THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, 24 TO 30% IS VERY UNREASONABLE. THEREFORE , THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PA RTNER IN NUMBER OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, RECEIVING SALARY AND INT EREST INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ENGAGED INDEPENDENTLY IN MONEY LEN DING BUSINESS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DETAILS REGARDING THE NAME AND AD DRESS OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE LOAN WAS ADVANCED, RATE OF INTE REST AND SETTLEMENT OF LOAN, ETC., THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FACT ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2002-03, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AGREED FOR ESTIMATION OF INTEREST AT ` 2,50,000/-. CONSIDERING THE RATE OF INTEREST CHARG ED AS PER THE INFORMATION FURNISHED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REASON ABLY ESTIMATED THE INTEREST AT 25%. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE L D. D.R., NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 4 I.T.A. NOS.2985 TO 2988/MDS/2014 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHE R SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT WAS HAND LOAN, THE WAY IN W HICH THE ASSESSEE CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS SHOWS THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE SHOWED THE AMOUNT OF HAND LOAN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.1999 AT ` 2,50,000/- AND INTEREST INCOME OFFERED WAS ` 44,000/-. THIS COMES TO 17.6%. SIMILARLY, FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31.03.2000, THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWE D HAND LOAN OF ` 1,25,000/- AND THE INTEREST INCOME OFFERED WAS ` 45,000/-. SIMILARLY, FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31.03.2001, THE OU TSTANDING HAND LOAN WAS ` 2,25,000/-. THE INTEREST INCOME OFFERED WAS ` 40,000/-. THE RATE OF INTEREST WORKED OUT TO 17.7%. THE ASSE SSEE HIMSELF OFFERED INTEREST INCOME EXORBITANTLY HIGHER FIGURE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF OFFERED THE HIGHER RATE OF INTERES T FROM MONEY LENDING BUSINESS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT ESTIMATING THE INTEREST INCOME DOES NOT ARISE FOR C ONSIDERATION. MOREOVER, THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AT 25% IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING MATERIA L. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE ESTIMATION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF OFFERED THE INT EREST INCOME AT 5 I.T.A. NOS.2985 TO 2988/MDS/2014 HIGHER RATE, IT MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED TO ESTIMATE TH E INTEREST INCOME ANY FURTHER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS DELETED. 6. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO INCO ME FROM AGRICULTURE IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE. 7. SHRI N. QUADIR HOSEYN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AGRICULTURA L INCOME BY PRODUCING NECESSARY MATERIAL. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY BASIS, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. I HAVE HEARD SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, THE LD. DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COPY OF PATTA AND DETAILS OF THE CROP CULTIVATED. THE CIT(APPEALS) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED BILLS OR VOUCHERS. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT AGR ICULTURAL SECTOR CONTINUES TO REMAIN UNORGANIZED. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES ARE SOLD IN AN UNREGULATED MARKET. THEREFORE, EXPECTIN G BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IS NOT JU STIFIED. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COPIES OF THE PATTA TO SUBST ANTIATE THE LAND 6 I.T.A. NOS.2985 TO 2988/MDS/2014 HOLDING AND THE DETAILS OF THE CROP, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTUR E. EXPECTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS FROM THE AGRICULTURIST FOR SALE OF AGR ICULTURAL PRODUCE IS SOMETHING WHICH COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BY THE ORDINA RY AGRICULTURIST. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT MAINTAINING A NY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COPIES OF THE PATTA AND THE DETA ILS OF THE CROP CULTIVATED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS D ELETED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL TAKE THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE. 9. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO LOAN RECEIVED FROM SHRI K. PUGAZHENDI AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN TH E CASE OF SHRI M. RAJENDRAN. 10. SHRI N. QUADIR HOSEYN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED LOAN FROM SHRI K. PUGAZHENDI. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE CREDITOR. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. 7 I.T.A. NOS.2985 TO 2988/MDS/2014 COUNSEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ANY ADDITION. 11. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF B ANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI PUGAZHENDI, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT T HE FUNDS WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH DEMAND DRAFTS. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE BANK ACCOUNT INDICATES THE CREDIT S RECEIVED THROUGH DEMAND DRAFTS FROM THE CREDITOR AND NO OTHE R CREDIT WAS FOUND. THIS INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OPENED THE BANK ACCOUNT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCOMMODATION OF TH E AMOUNTS HE PLANNED TO RECEIVE FROM THE SAID SHRI PUGAZHENDI. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASON FOR CREDITIN G THE AMOUNT BY DEMAND DRAFT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE CREDIT FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOTHING BUT INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO REPRODUCED THE CREDITS I N THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE AND DD. ACCORDI NG TO THE LD. D.R., WHENEVER THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED FUNDS, DD WAS ISSUED FROM THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI PUGAZHENDI. BEFORE ISSUING THE DD, THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI PUGAZHENDI. T HEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IT IS NOTHING BUT ROUTIN G THE MONEY BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. 8 I.T.A. NOS.2985 TO 2988/MDS/2014 12. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING A PECULIAR PATTERN OF GIVING CREDITS FOR TH E AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SHRI PUGAZHENDI. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS T HAT DD WAS TAKEN FROM THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI PUGAZHENDI BY DEPOSI TING CASH. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPO SITED THE CASH FOR ISSUE OF DD. NO MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECOR D TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED THE CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI PUGAZHENDI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PRESUMPTION O BSERVED THAT MONEY BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE WAS DEPOSITED. THE F ACT REMAINS THAT DD WAS ISSUED FROM THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI PUGAZHE NDI. THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI PUGAZHENDI. T HEREFORE, IT IS FOR SHRI PUGAZHENDI TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR MAKIN G DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES IT APPEARS THAT THE SAID SHRI PUGAZHENDI WAS EXAMINED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND HE CONFIRMED THE FACT OF GIVING THE MON EY TO ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPARENTLY DISBELIEVED THE ST ATEMENT OF SHRI PUGAZHENDI ON THE GROUND THAT A SUM OF ` 3 LAKHS WAS ENTRUSTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAINTAIN SHRI PUGAZHENDIS MOTHER. THE FACT REMAINS THAT MONEY WAS GIVEN BY SHRI PUGAZHENDI TO THE ASSESSEE BY DD AND THE DD WAS ISSUED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT O F THE ABOVE 9 I.T.A. NOS.2985 TO 2988/MDS/2014 SAID SHRI PUGAZHENDI. THEREFORE, AS OBSERVED EARLI ER, ADDITION, IF ANY, HAS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI PUGAZHENDI AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. 13. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADD ITION MADE TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN CHITS IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES. 14. SHRI N. QUADIR HOSEYN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND DURING T HE COURSE OF SURVEY THAT ONE OF THE PARTNERS, SHRI P. RAMASWAMY ADMITTED UNACCOUNTED CHIT AUCTION WITH SEVERAL PERSONS. BAS ED ON QUESTION NO.21 RECORDED FROM SHRI P. RAMASWAMY, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ESTIMATED THE YEARLY CONTRIBUTIONS AND ARRIVED AT I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM CHIT CONTRIBUTIONS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CHIT CONTRIBUTION WAS USED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. 15. I HAVE HEARD SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THAT THE INCOME FROM CHIT SCHEME WAS THE SOURCE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. THE DETA ILS OF 10 I.T.A. NOS.2985 TO 2988/MDS/2014 INVESTMENT MADE AND SUBSCRIPTION TO THE CHIT FUNDS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE CHIT CONTR IBUTIONS WERE MADE FROM AVAILABLE FUNDS AND FROM THE INTEREST EAR NED ON THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. IN THE EARLY PART OF THIS ORDER, THIS TRIBUNAL DELETED THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS INTEREST ON MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE ASSE SSEES CONTRIBUTION ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT SAID TO BE RECORDED FROM ONE SHRI RAMASAMY. OTHER THAN THIS STATEMENT OF SH RI RAMASAMY, NO OTHER MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER PRESUMED THAT THE TOTAL CONTRIBUTION WAS ` 96 LAKHS AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE WAS ` 16 LAKHS. FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI RAMASAM Y, IT APPEARS THAT THEY ARE CONDUCTING 3 LAKH AND 5 LAKH CHITS AN D EACH GROUP HAD 20 MEMBERS. THE CHIT WAS CONDUCTED BY A PARTNERSHI P FIRM CONSISTING OF SIX PERSONS. THEREFORE, THE CONTRIBU TION TO THE CHIT WAS MADE BY 20 MEMBERS AND THE FIRM CONSISTING OF SIX P ARTNERS IS ACTING AS FOREMAN. THE CONTRIBUTION TO CHIT WAS MA DE BY OTHER MEMBERS AND NOT BY THE PARTNERS. THEREFORE, THE AD DITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IF AT ALL ANY ADDITION IS TO BE MADE, IT HAS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF 20 MEMBE RS WHO CONTRIBUTED / SUBSCRIBED TO THE CHITS. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS 11 I.T.A. NOS.2985 TO 2988/MDS/2014 UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET AS IDE AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. 16. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IN THE CASE OF OF SHR I K. PALANISAMY IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF JEWELLERY. 17. SHRI N. QUADIR HOSEYN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, THE ASSE SSEE HAS SHOWN A SUM OF ` 3,84,000/- TOWARDS SALE OF JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CAPITAL LOSS IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM SALE OF JEWELLERY AT ` 3,84,000/- AND WORKED OUT THE LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2,66,899/- AFTER ADJUSTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF 960 GRAM S OF JEWELLERY CLAIMED AT THE COST OF ` 6,50,899/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY BILLS OR VOUCHERS FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOLD JEWELLERY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNS EL, THE ASSESSEE IN FACT SOLD THE GOLD JEWELLERY AND SUFFERED A LOSS . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ANY AD DITION. 18. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MAD E IN THE 12 I.T.A. NOS.2985 TO 2988/MDS/2014 ABSENCE OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS ON SALE OF JEWELLERY. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE SOLD GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 3,84,000/- AND CLAIMS CAPITAL LOSS AT ` 2,66,899/-, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE NECESSARY BILLS FOR PURCHASE AN D SALE OF GOLD JEWELLERY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS WITH REGA RD TO SALE OF JEWELLERY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED CASH CREDIT AT ` 2 LAKHS. 19. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A SUM OF ` 3,84,000/- IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AS SALE OF GOLD JEWELLERY. JEWELLERY CANNOT BE SOLD TO A D EALER WITHOUT BILLS. THE ACQUISITION OF GOLD JEWELLERY MAY BE INCIDENTAL ONE AND THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PRODUCE PURCHASE BILL F OR PURCHASING THE GOLD JEWELLERY. HOWEVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE SEL LS THE GOLD JEWELLERY TO A GOLDSMITH OR ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL, S ALE BILLS/INVOICE MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE SOLD JEWELLERY FOR ` 3,84,000/- AND CLAIMS CAPITAL LOSS OF ` 2,66,899/- THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN VIEW OF THE SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED, THE ASSESSEE CANN OT BE BLAMED FOR NON-PRODUCTION OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS. SINCE TH E SMALL TIME GOLDSMITHS ARE ALSO PURCHASING JEWELLERY WITHOUT IS SUING BILLS, THE 13 I.T.A. NOS.2985 TO 2988/MDS/2014 ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITI ON. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE A ND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. 20. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS W ITH REGARD TO COST OF CONSTRUCTION. 21. SHRI N. QUADIR HOSEYN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE COST OF CO NSTRUCTION AT ` 82,75,777/-. HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION O FFICER ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT ` 90,81,900/-. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DISCLOSED BY THE A SSESSEE AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER IS LESS THAN 15%. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 22. I HAVE HEARD SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE L D.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS LESS THAN 15% OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION. IN FACT, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AT ` 82,75,777/-, WHEREAS, THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER HAS VALUED AT ` 90,81,900/-. 14 I.T.A. NOS.2985 TO 2988/MDS/2014 ADMITTEDLY, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS ONLY LESS THAN 15%. THE ALLOWANCE FOR SUPERVISION AND PURCHASE OF MATER IAL BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD GO TO REDUCE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTIO N MORE THAN 20%. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE T OWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS DELETED. 23. TO SUM UP THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF BOTH T HE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 1 ST SEPTEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 3! /DATED, THE 1 ST SEPTEMBER, 2016. KRI. + ).45 65%. /COPY TO: 1. '( /APPELLANT 2. )*'( /RESPONDENT 3. - 7. () /CIT(A), TIRUCHIRAPPALLI 4. - 7. /CIT-II, TRICHY 5. 5$8 ). /DR 6. 9# : /GF.