GOVERDHAN VANANI, MUMBAI V. ACIT (OSD) 1 CIR 7, MUMBAI

ITA 3271/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 327119914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 13-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR BORA
• Assessee Lawyers: B V JHAVERI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Question of law; Valuation report

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G , BENCH MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA , A M & SHRI SANJAY GARG , J M ./ ITA N O. 3271 / MUM/20 1 2 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 7 - 08 ) SHRI GOVARDHAN VANANI, 113, THE JEWEL, OPERA HOUSE, TATA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400004 VS. ACIT(OSD), CR - 7, MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A A BPV 5861 F ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.V.JHAVERI /REVENUE BY : SHRI VIJAY KUMAR BORA / DATE OF HEARING : 1 3 /0 4 / 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08/07 /2015 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 40 , MUMBAI , DATED 12 - 3 - 2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 7 - 0 8 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153A OF THE I.T.ACT . 2 . RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A S EARCH WAS CARRIED OUT ON 04.10.2006 AT THE ASSESSEE S RESIDENCE, AS PART OF A SEARCH ON THE NIRU GROUP. DURING THE SAID ACTION, GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 49,84,841/ - WAS FOUND, AS PER VALUATION REPORT OF SHRI SURAJ RATAN AGARWAL. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ENTIR E DIAMON D JEWELLERY FOUND DURING SEARCH HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE HANDS OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. AS REGARDS THE GOLD ITA NO. 3271 /1 2 2 JEWELIERY OF 1,372.20 GMS FOUND DURING SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE ST ATED THAT IT CONSTITUTES 'STREEDHAN' OF THE FEMALE MEMBERS STAYING AT HIS RESIDENCE VIZ. SMT. AMRUTA VANANI, SMT. NIDHI DEVANI, MS. RUBY VANANI, SMT. ASHA A. VANANI AND SMT. KEWAL A. VANANI. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ID.AO DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY BY THE SA ID LADIES . WHILE NO DOCUMENTARY E V IDENCE WAS PROD UCED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE JEWELLERY, IND I VIDUA L DETAILS OF JEWELLERY OF EACH PERSON WERE F ILED. THE AO, THERE F ORE, CONC LUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE JEWELLERY WORTH RS.11,00,996/ - BELONGED TO THE SAID LADIES. HE, THERE F ORE, TREATED THE JEWELLERY AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER, SINCE THE SAID FEMALES , ARE MOSTLY MARRIED, HE GAVE A BENE F IT OF STREEDHAN AT RS. 50,000/ - PER PERSON ( RS. 50,000 X 5) AND ADDED RS. 8,50,996/ - (I.E. 1100996 250000) AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE ACT. 3. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF OF RS.1 LAKH PER PERSON IN RESPECT OF MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEES FAMILY IN PLACE OF RELIEF OF RS.50,000/ - GRANTED BY THE AO. THUS, THE ADDITION WAS FURTHER REDUCED BY RS. 2,50,000/ - AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION : - 3.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLA NT, IT IS A FACT THAT MOST INDIAN LADIES, DEPENDING UPON HER STATUS AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, POSSESS ORNAMENTS AND JEWELLERY. AS AN ESTABLISHED CUSTOM, JEWELLERY IS ACQUIRED ON CEREMONIAL OCCASIONS AND IS GIFTED/ PRESENTED BY RELATIVES AND FRIENDS, T HE SAID CBDT INSTRUCTION NO, 1916 WAS ISSUED IN RECOQNTTION OF THIS REALITY, THE INSTRUCTION PROVIDES SOME ACCEPTABLE BENCHMARK ILL RESPECT OF JEWELLERY FOUND, DEPENDING UPON THE SOCIAL STATUS/ CUSTOMS/ PRACTICES OF A FAMILY, THIS HAS BEEN AFFIRMED IN A NU MBER OF CASES, INCLUDING IN THE RECENT CASE OF ASHOK CHADDHA (ITA/2011 DATED 05,07,2011, DELHI), UPON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT IN HIS CASE, THE JEWELLERY FOUND IS FAR BELOW THE 'ACCEPTABLE BENCHMARKS' LAID ITA NO. 3271 /1 2 3 DOWN BY THE CBDT, WHILE THE JEWELLERY FOUND FALLS WITHIN THE YARDSTICK SET BY THE CBDT, THE AO HAS NOT ADOPTED ANY VALID OR PROPER YARDSTICK TO ALLOW THE ACCEPTANCE OF RS.50,000/ - PER FEMALE MEMBER OF THE APPELLANT'S FAMILY, THE REAL PROBLEM IN THE CA SE IS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN A VERY GENERAL EXPLANATION TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CBDT INSTRUCTION WITHOUT GIVING THE ACTUAL DETAILS OF EACH FAMILY MEMBER'S BELONGINGS, MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS AN INSTRUCTION FOR GUIDANCE OF THE INVESTIGATION WING/THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED BY THE CBDT IN THIS REGARD, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANY AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED, THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF BELONGING OF EACH PERSON AND HOW AND WHEN THE SAME WERE ACQUIRED, WHI LE CONSIDEI ING SUCH EXPLANATION, THE AO COULD HAVE BEEN GUIDED BY THE SAID INSTRUCTION, IT IS FAIRLY POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY DO NOT POSSESS ANY JEWELLERY ARID THE ID.AO IS NOT OBLIGED TO ALLOW SOME SET OFF IN THEIR RESPECT, IT IS S EEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN INDIVIDUAL POSSESSIONS AND, THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE INCORRECT TO ALLOW THE SET OFF FOR ALL THE JEWELLERY FOUND. UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE AND EXPLANATIONS TENDERED, IT WOULD SERVE THE PURPOSE OF JU STICE IF THE SET OFF OF RS.50,000/ - PER PERSON IN RESPECT OF MEMBERS ALLOWED BY THE AO IS RAISED TO RS.1,00,000/ - PER PERSON, THE ID,AO IS, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SET OFF AT RS.1,00,000/ - PER PERSON WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.5,00,000/ - , THE APPELLA NT GETS RELIEF OF RS.2,50,000/ - AND THE REMAINING ADDITION IS CONFIRMED, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS, CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUND FROM THE RECORD THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS A GUJARATI BUSINESSMAN, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DIAMOND TRADING. HE HAS A TR A DITIONAL FAMILY BACKGROUND AND LIVES IN A JOINT FAMILY WITH HIS FAMILY AS WELL OF TH AT OF HIS SON AND NEPHEW, AT 101/201 - B VIKAS TOWER, WALKESHWAR ROAD, MUMBAI, WHERE A SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT ON 04.10.2006. THE FOLLOWING WAS THE VALUATION OF JEWELLERY, AS INVENTORISED/VALUED BY SHRI SURAJ RATAN AQARWA, GOVT. VALUER, VIDE HIS REPORT DATED 04.10.2006 : ITA NO. 3271 /1 2 4 DESCRIPTION GROSS WEIGHT (GM) NET WEIGHT (GMS) VALUE (RS.) GOLD JEWELLERY 1468 1372.30 11,00,896.00 DIAMOND JEWELLERY - - 38,19,945.00 SILVER ARTICLES - 4 KG 64,000.00 TOTAL 49,84,841.00 THE FOLLOWING ARE THE FEMALE MEMBERS STAYING AT THE RESIDENCE AS WAS NOTED BY THE DDI(INV.) : - SM T. AMRULABEN VARIANI - WIFE SMT. RARNUBCN VANANI - MOTHER SMT. NIDHI DEVANI - DAUGHTER SMT. ASHA A. VANANI - DAUGHTER - IN - LAW SMT. KEWAL A. VANANI - DAUGHTER - IN - LAW MS. RUBY VANANI - UNMARR IED DAUGHTER 6. THE INVENTORY OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE INDICATES THAT IT WAS OF PRIMARILY OF FEMALE DESI G N/USE AND RELATED T O THE WOMEN WHO RESIDED THERE. IT IS NOT OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION THAT STR EEDHAN IN INDIA IS A SIGN OF DIGNITY, PRES TIGE, SOCIAL STATUS SYMBOL AND WEALTH TOR A LADY. AS AN ESTABLISHED CUSTOM, JEWELLERY IS ACQUIRED ON CEREMONIAL OCCASIONS LIKE MARRIAGES, BIRTHDAYS, ANNIVERSARIES, IMPORTANT FESTIVALS/RITUALS ET C . IT IS GIFTED AND PRESENTED BY RELATIVES AND FRIENDS. EVERY IND I AN LADY, DEPENDING UPON HER STATUS AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES IS PRESUMED TO POSSESS JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS OF SOME VALUE. NO MARRIAGE IS PERFORMED WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS TO THE BRIDE AND ALSO TO SOME EXTENT THE BRIDEGROOM. GIFTS AND PRESENTS MAY COME FROM THE PARENTS, PARENTS IN LAW, FRIENDS AND OTHER RELATIONS. THEREFORE IT CASTS A RESPONSIBILITY IN LAW ON EVERY AUTHORISED OFFICER TO GIVE DUE WEIGHT TO THESE ESTABLISHED SOCIAL CUSTOMS OF INDIA. IT WAS IN RECOGNITION OF THI S REALITY THAT THE INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 WAS ISSUED BY THE CSDT (SUPRA), THAT ITA NO. 3271 /1 2 5 THE AO MUST ACCEPT A MINIMUM QUANTUM OF 500 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY IN THE CASE OF EV E RY MARRIED LADY, 250 GMS IN THE CASE OF EVERY UNMARRIED FEMALE MEMBER AND 100 GMS IN CASE OF EA CH MALE MEMBER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH ON 4TH OCTOBER 2006, WHEN THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER WAS VALUING THE GOLD JEWELLERY THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE IDENTIFIED THEIR GOLD JEWELLERY AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE HAD FI LED THE STATEMENTS IDENTIFYING THE GOLD JEWELLERY BELONGING TO HIS WIFE, SMT. AMRITA GOVARDHAN VANANI, DAUGHTER IN LAW, SMT. ASHA AMIT VANANI, TWO DAUGHTERS, VIZ., MS. NIDHI G. VANANI (MRS. NIDHI DEVANI) AND MS. RUBY G. VANANI AND THE ASSESSEE'S NEPHE W'S W IFE, SMT. KEWAL ANIL VANANI. T HE GOLD JEWELLERY BELONGING TO THE FIVE FEMALE MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE'S FAMILY WHO WERE RESIDING WITH THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAME PREMISES WERE AS UNDER: SR.NO. NAME GROSS WEIGHT(GRAMS) NET WEIGHT (GRAMS) VALUE (RS) AS PER DVO 1. AMRITA G. VANANI 233.300 233.300 1,86,640/ - 2. SMT. ASHA AMIT VANANI 348.200 340.000 2,72,000/ - 3. MS. NIDHI G. VANANI 454.100 454.100 3,60,000/ - 4. MS. RUBY G.VANAI 88.600 88.000 72,756/ - 5. MRS. KEWAL ANIL VANANI 343.800 343.800 2,09,500 - FRO M THE AFORESAID CHART, IT IS CLEAR THAT EACH OF THE FEMALE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING LESS THAN 500 GMS. OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS EXPLAINED JEWELLERY CONSIDERING THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN DIAMONDS FOR MORE THAN THREE DECADES. IN THIS RESPECT INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT BEARING NO.1916 DATED 11 TH MAY, 1994 WHEREIN THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT WERE DIRECTED NOT TO SEIZE GOLD JEWELLERY ITA NO. 3271 /1 2 6 AND ORNAMENTS TO THE EXTEN T OF 500 GMS. PER MARRIED LADY, 250 GMS. PER UNMARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS. PER MALE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY IN THE CASE OF A PERSON WHO IS NOT ASSESSED TO WEALTH - TAX. 7. IN VIEW OF TH E AFORE S AID IN STRUCTION OF THE CBDT TH E GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND FROM THE PREMIS ES OF THE ASSESSEE FROM FIVE FEMALE MEMBERS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS EXPLAINED AS THE SAME IS MUCH LESSER THAN THE LIMIT OF GOLD ORNAMENTS NOT TO BE SEIZED IN A CASE OF A PERSON NOT ASSESSED TO WEALTH - TAX. THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF KISHINCHAND UTTAMCHANDANI V. DCIT IN ITA(SS)A NO.77/MUM/2007 DATED 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2011, AFTER CONSIDERING THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT HELD AS UNDER: ' 8 . WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS ALSO CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.1916 DT. 11.5.1994 AND THE DECISIONS CITED BY LD. AR (SUPRA). ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATIONS OF SAID DECISIONS OF COO RDINATE BENCHES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE INTENTION OF CBDT IN ISSUING THE SAI D INSTRUCTION IS THAT JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GMS IN THE CASE OF A MARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS PER MALE MEMBER SHOULD BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED AND NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. FURTHER, THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDEN CE ON RECORD THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THE SIZE AND STATUS OF THE FAMILY AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE NORMAL CUSTOMS, ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED GIFTS OF GOLD AND SILVER ITEMS DURING THE OCCASIONS OF MARRIAGES AND FESTIVALS ETC. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT LD. CIT(A) HA S NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS TO GIVE BENEFIT OF 300 GMS FOR EACH DAUGHTER - IN - LAWS AND 50 GMS FOR EACH MALE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY AS EXPLAINED JEWELLERY AND NOT CONSIDERING THE QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY MENTIONED IN CBDT CIRCULAR I.E. 500 GMS IN THE CASE OF A MARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS PER MALE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF CBDT INSTRUCTION N0.1916 DT. 11TH MAY, 1994 AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE DECISIONS OF CO ORDINATE BENCHES (SUPRA), THE AGGR EGATE QTY. OF 1400 GMS JEWELLERY I.E. 500 GMS IN THE CASE OF EACH MARRIED LADY I.E. TWO DAUGHTERS - IN - LAW, AND 100 GMS PER MALE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY (NAMES GIVEN AT PAGE 14 OF PAPER BOOK) IS TO BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED. THUS WE DELETE THE CONFIRMATION OF AD DITION OF RS.2, 88 ,000 / - MADE BY LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY. HENCE. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL TAKEN BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED.' ITA NO. 3271 /1 2 7 8 . IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RATANLAL VYPARILAL JAIN (339 ITR 351, GUJARAT) THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COU RT HELD AS UNDER: 'THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE JEWELLERY HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WAS WELL WITHIN THE LIMIT LAID DOWN UNDER THE CBDT CIRCULAR AND ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE WHOLE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE JEWELLERY HELD BY EACH OF T HE FAMILY MEMBERS WAS BELOW THE LIMITS SPECIFIED IN THE SAID CIRCULAR. THOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1916, DT D. 11 TH MAY, 1994 LAYS DOWN GUIDELINES FOR SEIZURE OF JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS IN THE COURSE OF S EARCH THE SAME TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE QUANTIT Y OF JE WE L LERY BE HELD BY FAMILY MEMBERS OF AN ASSESSEE BELONGING TO AN ORDINARY HINDU HOUSEHOLD. THE APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FOLLOWING THE SAID CIRCULAR AND GIVING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE, EVEN FOR EXPLAINING THE SOURCE IN RESPECT O F THE JEWELLERY BEING HELD BY THE FAMILY IS CONSONANCE WITH THE GENERAL PRACTICE IN HINDU FAMILIES WHEREBY JEWELLERY IS GIFTED BY THE RELATIVES AND FRIENDS AT THE TIME OF SOCIAL FUNCTIONS, VIZ., MARRIAGES, BIRTHDAYS, MARRIAGE ANNIVERSARY AND OTHER FESTIVAL S. THESE GIFTS ARE CUSTOMARY AND CUSTOMS PREVAILING IN A SOCIETY CANNOT BE IGNORED. THUS ALTHOUGH THE CIRCULAR HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF NON - SEIZURE OF JEWELLERY DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE BASIS FOR THE SAME RECOGNIZES CUSTOMS PREVAILING IN HINDU SOCIETY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS THE REVENUE SHOWS ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY, IT CAN SAFELY BE PRESUMED THAT THE SOURCE TO THE EXTENT OF THE JEWELLERY STATED IN THE CIRCULAR STANDS EXPLAINED. THUS, THE APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CONSIDER ING THE EXTENT OF JEWELLERY SPECIFIED UNDER THE SAID CIRCULAR TO BE A REASONABLE QUANTITY, CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED ANY LEGAL ERROR SO AS TO GIVE RISE TO A QUESTION OF LAW. 9. THIS HAS BE E N RECOGNISED IN A CATENA OF CASES INCLUDING THE RECENT CASE OF ASHOK CHHADA (DELHI HIGH COURT), WHEREIN OVER 900 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WERE ACCEPTED IN THE CASE OF LADY MARRIED FOR OVER 20 - 25 YEARS, IN VIEW OF HER STATUS AND BACKGROUND. AS P ER I NSTRUCTION NO. 1916 OF CBDT, THE ACCEPTABLE/EXPLAINED JEWELLERY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE 3050 GMS, AS AGAINST 1372 GMS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE MANDAT O RY INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE SUM OF RS. 8,50,996/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH REPRESENTS STR E EDHAN OF ITA NO. 3271 /1 2 8 FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEES FAMILY. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE SAME. 10 . THE AO HAS ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,75,773/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. FROM THE RECORD WE FOUND THAT D URING THE SAID SEARCH ACTION, CASH OF RS. 3,05 , 773/ - WAS FOUND, IT WAS STATED THAT RS. 2,25,000/ BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT'S MARRIED DAUGHTER WHO WAS THEN STA YING WITH HIM, THE BALANCE RS. 80,773/ - BELONGED TO HIS NEPHEW ANIL VANANI, FROM WHOSE BANK ACCOUNT IT WAS WITHDRAWN AND WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S NIRU IMPEX. HOWEVER, NO CONFIRMATION FROM NIDHI DEVANI OR EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO SOURCE OF GENERATION OF CASH IN HER HANDS HAS BEEN FILED. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT SHE IS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX AND HAS NOT DEFINITE SOURCE OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,25,000/ - TREATED BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED CASH. IN RESPECT OF RS. 80,77 3/ - , WE FOUND THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN BY ANIL VANANI, NEPHEW OF ASSESSEE FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND WAS REFLECTED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S NIRU IMPEX. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 80,773/ - WHICH WAS DULY EXPLAINED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 11 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 08/07 / 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( ) ( SANJAY GARG ) ( . . ) ( R.C.SHARMA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 08/07 /201 5 . . /PKM , . / PS ITA NO. 3271 /1 2 9 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//