DCIT, JODHPUR V. Shri Punaram Jangid, JODHPUR

ITA 361/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83000 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT KOTHARI SHRI DEEPAK ARORA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Capital asset; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Additional evidence; Valuation report; Retraction; Revised return; Documents seized
• Section: 40A(3); 54F; 153A; 234B; 133(6); 139; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH: J ODHPUR ( BEFORE SHRI H ARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) I.T.A. NO. 236/JODH/2014 (A.Y. 2005 - 06) I.T.A. NO. 237/JODH/2014 (A.Y. 2006 - 07) I.T.A. NO. 238/JODH/2014 (A .Y. 2007 - 08) I.T.A. NO. 239/JODH/2014 (A.Y. 2008 - 09) I.T.A. NO. 240/JODH/2014 (A.Y. 2009 - 10) I.T.A. NO. 241 /JODH/201 4 (A.Y. 20 10 - 11 ) SHRI PUNA RAM JANGID, VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, G - 132, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR. JODHPUR. PAN NO. ADCPJ8220C I. T.A. NO. 361/JODH/2014 (A.Y. 2006 - 07) I.T.A. NO. 362/JODH/2014 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) I.T.A. NO. 363/JODH/2014 (A.Y. 2008 - 09) I.T.A. NO. 364/JODH/2014 (A.Y. 2010 - 11) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, VS SHRI PUNARAM JANGID, JODHPUR. G - 132, SHASTRI NAGAR, J ODHPUR. PAN NO. ADCPJ8220C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : - SHRI AMIT KOTHARI. SHRI DEEPAK ARORA DEPARTMENT BY : - SHRI O.P. MEENA - CIT - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 0 9 /0 9 /201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 / 0 9 /2014 2 O R D E R P E R BENCH : THIS I S A BUNCH OF TEN APPEALS SIX BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOUR BY THE REVENUE, INVOLVING INTERCONNECTING ISSUES, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY WE ARE DECIDING THEM TOGETHE R . 2. FACTS OF THE CASE LEADING TO THE SE APPEALS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED IN ITA NOS. 242/JU/2014 TO 245/JU/2014 AND 358/JU/2014 TO 360/JU/2014 IN SMT. PREM LATAS CAS E, WIFE OF SHRI PUNA RAM JANGID DECIDED BY US VIDE ORDER DATED 26.09.2008. AS A RESULT OF SAME SEARCH THE ASSESSMENT S IN THI S CASE WERE FRAMED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08, 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11. 2.1 ITA NO. 236/JODH/2014 (A.Y. 2005 - 06) FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06, ONLY THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL AND THERE IS NO APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. THE APPELLANT H A S RAI SED THE F OLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL : 3 1 (A) THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.1, 80 , 000 / - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOW HOUSE EXPENSES. THE ADDITION SO MADE IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS AND OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153 A. (B) THE ADDITION MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS IS BAD IN LAW PARTICULARLY WHEN NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND TO ESTIMATE THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT HIGHER AMOUNT. THE LD. AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD ALSO ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY OTHER FAMILY MEMBER S. 2(A) . THE ID. A.O HAS ERRED IN MAKI NG THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,49,730 / - BEING EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT. (B) THE ID. A.O WHILE DEALING WITH THE INCOME SHOWN FROM DEALING WITH ANSALS AND W RONGLY SUSTAINED OTHER ADDITION WHICH WAS NOT ARISING FROM THE ADDITION UNDER CHALLENGE. (C) THE ENHANCEMENT MADE BY MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS 3 . THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING TELESCOPING EFFECT O F INCOME ALREADY SURRENDERED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE VARIOUS YEARS AND HAS ALSO FURTHER ERRED IN NOT GRANTING TELESCOPING EFFECT OF THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED. 4 . THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234B AND 234C IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. 4 5. THE APPELLANT PRAY FOR SUITABLE COSTS. 2.2 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE RECORD. BOTH PARTIES HAVE REITERATED THEIR STAND TAKEN BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 2.3 THE FACTS APROPOS GROUND NO. (1) ARE THAT THE A.O. HAS ESTIMATED HOUSE - HOLD EXPENDITURE OF ASSESSEES FAMILY AT RS. 2,40,000/ - AS PER PARA 7 (PAGE 2) OF HIS ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH HEAD WISE DETAILS OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND HAS CONFIRMED RS. 1,80,000/ - AND HAS GRANTED RELIEF OF RS. 60,000/. THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER AGGRIEVED. 2.4 AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE HAVE FOUND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT (R.R.) FROM THE A.O. ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. AS PER LD. A.R. THAT THIS ADDITION IS BA SELESS AND NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS FOUND, REGARDING HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES, DURING SEARCH. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 1,00,000/ - HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AT ALL. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. CIT(DR) HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) . WE HAVE FOUND IT FOR A FACT THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH IN THIS REGARD. AS PER LETTER DATED 17.10.2011, COPY ENCLOSED AT PAPER BOOK 5 PAGE 106 (107) VIDE PARA VIII THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE WITHDREW RS. 1 LAKH TOWARDS HO USE HOLD EXPENSES BUT DAY TO DAY DETAILS OF WITHDRAWALS ARE NOT MAINTAINED. HOWEVER THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES. WE ARE ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT IT BECOMES VERY CUMBERSOME TO KEEP EVERY DETAIL ITEM WISE EXPENDITURE IN HOUSE HOLD ON DAY TO DAY BASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN WITHDRAWALS AND HAS CLAIMED THAT OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ALSO CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. THEREFORE, THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL THE SE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 2 ,40,000/ - MADE BY THE A.O. IS BASELESS AND DESERVES TO BE DELE TED. OUR THIS VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF JODHPUR BENCH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF VIMAL RAJ SINGHVI VS. ACIT (2006) 104 TTJ (JD) 321. 2.5 GROUND NO. (2) IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.1 ,49,730/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME RECEIVED FROM SALE OF LAND TO ANSALS. THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT DURING SEARCH DOCUMENTS / PAPERS FOUND AND SEIZED AS PER ANNEXURE AS - 8, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD PROPERTY TO M/S. APIL. THE A.O ALSO GATHERED INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. IS OF THE OPINION THAT THIS RECEIPT HAS NOT SHOWN BY ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 26,88,484/ - AS INCOME RECEIVED FROM ANSALS. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), ON ASSESSEES 6 DETAILED WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS, A R.R. WAS CALLED WHICH WAS SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 07.03.2014. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT TOTAL SALE PROCEEDS AGAINST THIS SALE WAS RECEIVED AT RS. 2,71,54,525/ - FROM M/S. APIL (ANSALS). SMT. PREM L ATA JANGID HAD 30% SHARE AMOU NTING TO RS. 91,51,468/ - . SHE HAS DECLARED RS. 83,65,574/ - (RS. 80,40,574/ - + RS. 3,25,000/ - ) ONLY. OUT OF ADJUSTMENT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 26,58,249/ - MADE BY ANSALS AT THE TIME OF FINAL PAYMENTS, ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,25,000/ - HAD BEEN SHOWN AS I NCOME BY HER AND THE REMAINING RS. 2 3,33,249/ - HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT ADDITION OF RS. 8,34,932/ - HAS TO BE MADE IN HER HANDS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN A.Y. 2006 - 07. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,49,730/ - OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 26,88,484/ - AND HAS GRANTED RELIEF OF RS. 25,38,754/ - . AGAINST THIS RELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FILED APPEAL. HOWEVER, AGAINST THE SUSTAINED ADDITION OF RS. 1,49,730/ - . ACCORDING TO LD . CIT(A) COMMISSION OF RS. 5,60,000/ - WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE BY ANSALS, AS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME OF RS. 4,10,270/ - , THEREFORE, DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS. 1,49,730/ - HAS BEEN SUSTAINED OR MADE BY LD. CIT(A). 7 2.6 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS PER LD. A.R. THIS ADDITION IS MADE ON A NEW REASON RELATED TO SOME OTHER ISSUE. THE ADDITION IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT AND NOT LEGALLY JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN BROKERAGE INCOME OF RS. 5,60,000/ - AND AFTER SETTING OF F THE EXPENSES F OR THE YEAR NET INCOME OF RS. 4,10,270/ - HAS BEEN SHOWN. 2.7 P ER CONTRA LD. CIT(DR) HAS RELIED ON THE R.R. AND H A S EXTRACTED ITS RELEVANT POSITION IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. FOR READY REFERENCE WE ALSO EXTRACT THE SAME AS UNDER: - THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS INCLUDING OF RS. 26,88,484/ - WERE RECEIVED THROUGH A/C PAYEE CHEQUES BY SMT. PREMLATA JANGID W/O SHRI PUNA RAM JANGID AND WHICH WAS ALSO ALREADY SHOWN BY THE HER (AYS 2006 - 0 7, 2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09) AND SHRI PUNA RAM JANGID, TH E ASSESSEE (A. Y. 2008 - 09) IN THE REGULAR RETURNS OF INCOME FILED, PRIOR TO SEARCH. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED JOINTLY WITH SMT. PREMLALA JANGID INTO SOME PROPERTIES TRANSACTION ALONGWITH M/S AN SAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY DETAILS THEREOF DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, INFORMATION U/S. 133(6) WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE ABOVE NAMED ANSAL GROUP COMPANY. IN RESPONSE, IT HAS FURNISHED THE DESIRED INFORMATION, ON PERUSAL OF WHICH, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE 8 HAD RECEIVED HIS COLLABORATION SHARE @ 40% , AS BELOW, ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF VARIOUS LANDS/PROPERTIES OWNED BY HIM AND HIS WIFE, ALONGWITH ABOVE COMPANY. A. Y. AMOUNT 2005 - 06 26 88484 (1641484+1047000 : SHOWN AS SECURITY DEPOSIT RECEIVED) 20 0 6 - 0 7 4131820 2007 - 0 8 2267270 THE ABOVE PROFITS ON SALE MADE AND/ OR DEVELOPMENT OF DIFFERENT PROPERTIES BY THE ABOVE NAMED COMPANY WERE NOT BEEN FULLY FOUND TO BE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE DIFFERENT RETURNS OF INCOME FILED U/S. 139(1)/ 153A, THUS, THE SAME REMAINED UNDISCLOSED/UNDECLARED. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 26,88,484/ - WAS BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE A. Y. 2005 - 06. AS ALSO STATED BY THE APPELLANT, DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION, CERTAIN LOOSE PAPER FILES SEIZED (FROM RESIDENCE) AS PER ANNEXURE AS - 8, ALSO CURTAINED DETAILS, PAPERS MOU/COLLABORATION AGREEMENTS ETC. RELATING TO M/ S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. (M/S APIL) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S ANSAL TOWNSHIP & LAND DEVELOPMENT LTD. (M/S AT& LDL). SIMILARLY, COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURN FILED ORI GINALLY U/S 139(1) FOR THE A.Y S 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 WERE ALSO SEIZED AS PER ANNEXURE AS - 3. 9 ON VERIFICATI ON OF THE DETAILS/ INFORMATION G ATHERED U/S 133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT . 1961 WITH THE TRANSACTIONS/ INCOME SHOWN AS PER THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED FOR DIFFERENT A. Y . BY SHRI PUNA RAM JAN G ID AND SMT. PREMLATA JAN G I D, THE PIC TURE EMERGES AS UNDER : S. NO. PAYMENTS MADE BY M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., (M/S APIL) TRANSACTION/ INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RETURNS FILED DATE TOTAL TDS NET AMOUNT SMT. PREMLATA JANGID SH. PUNARAM JANGID REMARKS A. A.Y. 2005 - 06: 1 . 24/08/2004 368500 20268 348232 N.A. SHOWN ONLY RS. .410270/ - SHOWN AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BROKERAGE OF RS. 4,10,270/ - ONLY.. TOTAL 560000 N.A. 410270/ - DIFFERENCE OF RS. 149730/ - REQUIRES TO BE ADDED IN A. Y. 2005 - 06. 12/03/2005 10,00,000 1 000000 1000000 N.A. SHOWN AS SECURITY DEPOSIT. 12/03/2005 641484 641484 641484 N.A. SHOWN AS SECURITY DEPOSIT. TOTAL 1641484 - 1641484 1641484 N.A. TRANSACTIONS SHOWN IN RETURNS. A.Y. 2006 - 07: 14/10/2005 325000 325000 325000 N.A. PROFIT 325000 SHOW N IN AY 2006 - 07 17/09/2005 726000 726000 NOT SHOWN. N.A. TOTAL AMOUNT REQUIRES TO BE ADDED/ ENHANCED IN A.Y. 2006 - 07. 01/05/2005 TO 31/03/2006 4131820 4131820 4131820 N.A. PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND OF RS. 50,13,560/ - (57,73,04 - 7,59,744) SHOWN IN AY 2006 - 07 01/05/2005 TO 31/03/2006 523500 523500 523500 N.A. SECURITY DEPOSIT SHOWN ADJUSTED. 08/02/2006 104823 5881 98942 N.A. NOT SHOWN. NOT SHOWN BY SH. PUNA RAM JANGID. REQUIRES TO BE ADDED RS. 1,04,823/ - IN A.Y. 2006 - 07. A. Y.. 2007 - 08 : 18/09/2006 2267270 2267270 2267270 N.A. PROFIT OF RS. 20,81,110/ - SHOWN IN AY 2007 - 08 ON THE LAND. 18/09/2006 325000 325000 325000 N.A. SECURITY DEPOSIT SHOWN AS CLOSING BALANCE IN A. Y. 2007 - 8 A.Y.. 2009 - 10: 18/04/2008 608333 608333 N.A. NOT SHOWN. TOTAL AMO UNT REQUIRES TO BE ADDED/ ENHANCED IN A.Y. 2009 - 10. A. Y. 2010 - 11: 03/09/2009 913000 913000 N.A. 618886 BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 294114/ - REQUIRES TO BE ADDED/ ENHANCED IN A.Y. 2010 - 11. 10 THUS, FROM THE INFORMATION/ DATA TABULATED ON TH E BASIS OF THE ANAL YSIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED U/S 133(6) AND AS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOMES FILED, AS PER THE ABOVE TABLE IT IS CLEARLY EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEES NAMELY, SH. PUNA RAM JANGID AND SMT. PREM LATA JANGID HAVE ONLY PARTLY DISCLOSED THE INCOME EARNED FROM THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE MADE THROUGH MOU/ COLLABORATION AGREEMENT WITH M/S APIL (FORMERLY M/S AT&LDL) IN DIFFERENT A. YS AND NOT THE FULL RECEIPTS/ INCOMES RECEIVED HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION, AS ABOVE. THUS, THE FOLLOWING INCOMES ARE FOUND TO BE NOT OFFERED AS INCOMES FOR TAXATION IN THE DIFFERENT RETURNS OF INCOME F LED BY THEM FOR DIFFERENT A. YS : TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S ANSA L PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(M/S APIL FORMERLY M/S AT & LDL) WHICH ARE FOUND TO BE NOT DISCLOSED/ ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASS ESSEE SHRI PUNA RAM SHRI PUNA RAM JANGID AND SMT. PREML ATA JANGID: AY. 2005 - 06 : SHRI PUNARAM JANGID: AS PER THE DETAILS/ INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS. 5,60,000/ - WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR ON 24/ 08/2004 AND 06/09/2004 OF RS. 3,68,500/ - AND RS. 1,91,500/ - (A.Y. 2005 - 06) BUT TOTAL INCOME RS. 4,10,270/ - WAS ONLY SHOWN BY SH. PUNA RAM JANGID IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06. THUS, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 1,49,730/ - (RS. 56 0000 - 410270) REQUIRES TO BE FURTHER ADDED/ENHANCED AS INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES IN THE CASE OF SHRI PUNA RAM JANGID FOR THE A.Y. 2005 - 06. 11 A Y. 2006 - 07: SMT. PREMLATA JANG ID: AS PER THE DETAILS RECEIVED FROM M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD . RELATING TO LAND SOLD BY SMT. PREMLATA JANGID TO M/S NIRMAN OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. THROUGH M/S APIL VIDE SALE DEED NO. 2005001930 DATED 22/09/2005FOR LAND 15 BISWA AT KH. NO. 74/MIN 5, VILLAGE FOR RS. 7,26,000/ - , PAYMENT OF WHICH WAS MADE THROUGH CHEQUE NOS. 346548 TO 346551 OF HDFC BANK DATED. 17/09/2005 AGGREGATING TO RS. 7,26,000/ - . HOWEVER ON VERIFICATION OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 BY SMT. PREMLATA JANGID, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED AS INCOME/GAIN FOR TAX ATION PURPOSES. ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 7,26,000/ - OF THE SAID TRANSACTION BEING UNACCOUNTED, DESERVES TO BE FURTHER ADDED TO THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME AND THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2006 - 07 REQUIRES TO BE ENHANCED BY THIS AMOUNT. THE SAME MAY KI NDLY BE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF SMT. PREM LATA JANGID IN THE RELEVANT A.Y. 2006 - 07. A.Y. 2006 - 07 : SHRI PUNARAM JAN G ID: AS PER THE DETAILS/ INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS. 1,04,823/ - WAS MADE DU RING THE YEAR ON 08/02/2006 (A.Y. 2006 - 07) BUT THE SAID INCOME RS. 1,04,283/ - WAS NOT SHOWN BY SH. PUNA RAM JANGID IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07. THUS, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.L,,04,823/ - WAS NOT OFFERED AS INCOME FOR TAXATION AND HENCE REQU IRES TO BE FURTHER ADDED/ENHANCED AS INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES IN THE CASE OF SHRI PUNA RAM JANGID FOR THE A. Y. 2006 - 07. 12 A.Y. 2009 - 10: SMT. PREM LATA JAN G ID : AS PER THE DETAILS OF PLOTS SOLD TO COLLABORATOR AS NORMAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION RECEIVED F ROM M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. (FORMERLY ANSAL TOWNSHIP & LAND DEVELOPMENT LTD, UNIT/PLOT NO. 80020 (AREA 289 SQ. MTRS.) ALLOTTED ON 06/03/2005, WAS TRANSFERRED BY SMT. PREMLATA JANGID TO SMT. USHA DEVI ON 18/04/2008, FOR RS. 6,08,333/ - . TH E APPELLANT SMT. PREMLATA JANGID HAS NOT SHOWN ANY PROFIT FROM SUCH TRANSFER/SALE OF PLOT IN A.Y. 2009 - 10. HENCE THIS TRANSACTION REQUIRES TO BE CONSIDERED IN AY 2009 - 10 AND THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SMT. PREMLATA JANGID REQUIRES TO BE ENHANCED BY THIS AMOUNT TREATING THE SAME AS HER INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED/ UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. A.Y. 2010 - 11 SHRI PUNARAM JAN G ID: AS PER THE DETAILS RECEIVED FROM M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AS PER THIS INFORMATION/DETAILS, SHRI PUNARAM JANGID WAS ALLOTTE D PLOT NO. Q0069, AT SUSHANT LOK JODHP U R (AREA 433.21 SQ. MTRS.) ON 03/09/2007 FOR SALE PRICE OF RS. 18,13,417/ - OUT OF WHICH PAYMENT OF RS. 9,13,000/ - WAS RECEIVED TILL 27/09/2010. HOWEVER, SH. PUNA RAM JANGID HAD SHOWN TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 6,18,886/ - AS PER RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11. THUS, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT OFRS.2,94,114/ - (RS. 9,13,000 - 6,18,886) REQUIRES TO BE FURTHER ADDED/ENHANCED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11 IN THE CASE OF SHRI PUNA RAM JANGID. IT IS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT DOES HAVE SOME BASIS/MERIT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS 13 REFLECTED ABOVE AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE CONSIDERED ON MERIT WHEREVER THE INCOMES ARE OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SOME OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF LAND/ PROPERTIES WERE NOT DISCLOSED AS PER THE ASSESSEES ORIGINAL RETURNS OF INCOME AND HENCE ARE STILL FOUND TO BE UNACCOUNTED AS SUCH THE REMAININ G SALE PROCE EDS OF RS. L,49,730/ - FOR THE A.Y. 2005 - 06. F URTHER REQUIRES TO BE ADDED AS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS AND THE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE UPHELD TO THAT EXTENT. THE SAME DESERVES TO BE CON FIRMED AS SUCH AFTER CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS AND EVIDENCES SUBMITTED DU RIN G THE REMAND PROCEEDIN G S. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE MAY KINDLY BE DECIDED AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE ABOVE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS ON MERITS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE APPELLANTS GROUND AND HENCE THE HON BLE ITAT MAY KINDLY BE REQUESTED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. WE MAY OBSERVE THAT THE ABOVE TABLE WILL BE CONSIDERED AND USED FOR THE SAME GROUND RAISED IN OTHER APPEALS AS SUBMISSIONS BY LD. CIT(DR) AND WOULD NOT BE REPEATED . 2.8 AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL STANDS, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT ALONG WITH ORIGINAL ROI FILED FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 (COPY ENCLOSED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 114). THE ASSESSEE 14 H A S SHOWN BROKERAGE INCOME OF RS. 5,60,0 00/ - AFTE R REDUCING RELATED EXPENSES AND HAS SHOWN NET INCOME OF RS. 4,10,270/ - . THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT HE HAS NOT SHOWN I NCOME (REPORT) OF RS. 5,60,000/ . THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS UNCALLED FOR AND WE ORDER ITS DELETION, AND W E ALLOW G ROUND NO. (2) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. 2.9 GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING ALLOWING TELE SCOPING REMAINS OF ACADEMIC S INCE, WE HAVE DELETED ALL THE ADDITION S. 2.10. GROUND NO 4 IS REGARDING I NTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT WHICH HAVE TO BE CHARGED AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF ACT. 2.1 1 IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 3. ITA NOS. 237/JODH/2014 BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NO. 361/JODH/2014 BY THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) DATED 28.03.2014 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2006 - 07. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL : - 1(A) THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.1, 72 , 343 / - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOW HOUSE EXPENSES. THE 15 ADDITION SO MADE IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS AND OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A. (B) THE ADDITION MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS IS BAD IN LAW PARTICULARLY WHEN NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND TO ESTIMATE THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT HIGHER AMOUNT. THE LD. AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD ALSO ERR ED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. 2. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1,39,706/ - ON ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED AGRICULTURE INCOME SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPELLANT CLAIM THAT THE ADDITION WAS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153A. 3(A). THE ID. A.O HAS ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,04,823 / - BEING EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT. (B) THE ID. A.O WHILE DEALING WITH THE INCOME SHOWN FROM DEALING WITH ANSALS AND WRONGLY SUSTAINED OTHER ADDITION WHICH WAS NOT ARISING FROM THE ADDITION UNDER CHALLENGE. (C) THE ENHANCEMENT MADE BY MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS 4. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,79,206/ - FOR ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN BALANCE SHEET AS SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO REVISED RETURN AND ORIGINAL RETURN. THE ADDITION SO MADE IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. THE 16 ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME SO MADE IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. 5. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 ,00,000/ - U/S 68 IN RELATION TO UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN FROM SNEHLATA MEHTA. THE ADDITION SO SUSTAINED IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. 6. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1, 3 9 , 565 / - U/S 40A(3) IN RELATION TO PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE APPELLANT. 7. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING TELESCOPING EFFECT OF INCOME ALREADY SURRENDERED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE VARIOUS YEARS AND HAS ALSO FURTHER ERRED IN NOT GRANTING TELESCOPING EFFECT OF THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED. 6. THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234B AND 234C IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. 7. THE APPELLANT PRAY FOR SUITABLE COSTS. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, AND MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE ITS HEARING BEFORE YOUR HONOUR. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR HAS ERRED IN LA W AND ON FACTS IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 IGNORING THE 17 FACT THAT REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH QUE RY LETTERS, SUBSEQUENT NOTICES ISSUED DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS OR EVIDENCES; 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE U NEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 SHOWN IN THE NAME OF SHRI R.C. MEHTA AT RS. 10,00,000/ - AND IN THE NAME OF SMT. SNEHLATA MEHTA AT RS. 3 LAKHS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE CASH CREDITORS HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS/CAPACITY T O LOAN AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION DESPITE GRANTING OF REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS AT RS. 1,72,343/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 3 LAKHS WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR MATERIAL. 3.1 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY TREATED THROU GH THE ENTIRE RECORD INCLUDING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS / PAPER BOOK OF THE PARTIES. 18 3.2 THE FIRST GROUND NO. (1) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 1,72,343/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE CONCURRED T HAT THE FACTS EXCEPT FOR FINANCES LEADING TO IMPUGNED ADDITION ARE SAME AS THEY ARE IN A.Y. 2005 - 06. THEREFORE, WITH SIMILAR REASONING AS WE HAVE GIVEN IN A.Y. 2005 - 06 ON SIMILAR GROUND, WE DELETE THIS ADDITION AND ALLOW GROUND NO. (1) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL . 3.3 THE FACTS APROPOS GROUND NO. (2) RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 1,39,706/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE FACTS, THE REASONS FOR ADDITION ARE SIMILAR TO THE GROUND RAISED IN SMT. PREM L ATAS CASE IN ITA NOS. 242/JU/2014 TO 245/JU/2014 AND 358/JU/2014 TO 360/JU/2014 ORDER DATED 26.09.2014 . THEREFORE, WITH SIMILAR REASONING WE ORDER THE DELETION OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE DETAILS OF LAND H E LD BY THE ASSESSEE AND FAMILY IS ENCLOSED AT PB PG 153. THEY OWN AND POSSESS 280 BIGHAS OF AGRICULTU RAL LAND. THEREFORE, AGRICULTURAL INCOME CANNOT BE TAKEN AS NIL. SOME DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH ALSO INDICATE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW GROUND NO. (2) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,39,706/ - . 19 3.4 GROUND NO. (3) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO ADDITION OF RS. 1,04,823/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND TO ANSALS. THIS GROUND IS SIMILAR TO IDENTICAL GROUND RAISED IN A.Y. 2005 - 06, WHICH WE HAVE DEALT WITH IN DETAIL, A S ABOVE. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS. 41,31,820/ - ON THE GROUND THAT INCOME RECEIVED FROM ANSALS HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN. TO EXPLAIN THE R.R.S VERSION, EXTRACTED, ABOVE IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED THIS AMOUNT IN THE BROKERAGE INCOME. THE BROKE RAGE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 328 WHICH SHOWS THAT ON 14.02.2006 BROKERAGE INCOME OF RS. 98,492/ - SERVICE TAX OF RS. 10,790/ - AND NET AMOUNT OF RS. 88,152/ - . THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS. 1,04,823/ - SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED FOR THE SAME REASONS A S WE HAVE DONE IN A.Y. 2005 - 06 AND ALLOW GROUND NO. (3) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. 3.5 GROUND NO. (4) RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 6,79,206/ - SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) AS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS. 6,13,056/ - MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFEREN CE NOTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS GROUND ARE THAT ON PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE ORIGINAL RETURN U/S 139(1) AND FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED / RECEIVED US/ 153A OF THE ACT, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 6,13,056/ - . THE ASSESSEE DID SUPPLY REASONS FOR THIS ANOMALY DESPITE 20 BEING ASKED, THEREFORE, THE A.O. HAS ADDED RS. 6,13,056/ - TO INCOME AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THIS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THIS DIFFERENCE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BY GIVING THE FOLL OWING REASONS : - 9.4 THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FIGURES OF TOTAL OF BALANCE SHEET IS ON ACCOUNT OF FOLLOWING REASONS: - (I) CURRENT LIABILITY OF RS. 1,68,671 IN THE NAME OF M/S MAHALAXMI DEVELOPERS HAS BEEN SHOWN SEPARATELY IN THE B ALANCE SHEET FILED NOW AND WAS REDUCED FROM THE FIGURE OF LOANS AND ADVANCES IN THE EARLIER BALANCE SHEET. (II) OLD INVESTMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AT KHASRA NO. 47 AT BASNI BHAGELA OF RS. 43,000 HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE REVISED BALANCE SHEET F ILED NOW. (III) SIMILARLY, AN OLD INVESTMENT IN PLOT NO. 8 AT KUDI BHAGTASNI OF RS. 3,41,500 HAS NOW BEEN DECLARED IN THE REVISED BALANCE SHEET. (IV) THERE WAS ONE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILL. - CHAYAN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH HAS ALSO B EEN CONSIDERED AND SHOWN IN THE REVISED BALANCE SHEET. AS A RESULT OF THE INVESTMENT OF THE ABOVE ASSETS BEING SHOWN IN THE REVISED BALANCE SHEET FILED U/S 153 A OF THE IT ACT, THE FIGURE OF CASH IN HAND AND LOANS AND ADVANCES HAS 21 BEEN REDUCED BY THE CORR ESPONDING AMOUNT ON THE ASSET SIDE. ON THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED A R.R. FROM THE A.O. WHO HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: - 9.3. A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FROM THE AO, HE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT : (I). ON VERIFICATION IT IS SEEN THAT THE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) FOR THE A.Y. 2006 - 07 WAS ALSO SEIZED AS PER ANNEXURE AS - 3 PAGE 17 - 21 DURING THE SEARCH AT THE ASSESSEES RESIDENCE. A COPY OF THE REVISED BALANCE SHEET HAS BEEN F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A. PHOTOCOPIES OF BOTH THE SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR HONOURS READY REFERENCE. ON COMPARISON OF BOTH THE SAID BALANCE SHEETS IT IS SEEN THAT THE FOLLOWING INVESTMENTS ARE NO T APPEARING IN THE ORIGINAL BALANCE SHEET: - DESCRIPTION ORIGINAL REVISED DIFFERENCE AGRICULTURAL LAND AT CHHAYAN NIL 373375 373375 AGRI PLOT NO. 8 KH. NO. 47 BASNI NIL 43000 43000 22 BAGHELA PLOT NO 8 KUDI BHAGTASANI NIL 341500 341500 AIR CONDITIONER N IL 53000 53000 THE SAME DESERVES TO BE CONFIRMED AS SUCH EVEN AFTER CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS AND EVIDENCES SUBMITTED DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE MAY KINDLY BE DECIDED AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND SUBMISSION ON MERIT S. THE ASSESSEE GAVE HIS COUNTER COMMENTS AS UNDER: - THE LEARNED AO HAD ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.6,13,056/ - BY SIMPLY OBSERVING THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN BALANCE SHEET TOTAL AS SUBMITTED WITH THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND AS SUBMITTED WITH REVISED RET URN PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S 153A. THE LEARNED AO HAS ALLEGED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCES SUCH AS COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FACTS REGARDING SOURCES OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES OR OPENING A ND CLOSING BALANCE OF CAPITAL A/C RELATING TO A.Y. 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06. IT IS SUBMITTED FOR YOUR KIND CONSIDERATION THAT THE WHOLE SET OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE A.Y.2006 - 07 WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED AO VIDE LETTER DATED 25TH NOVE MBER, 2011 AND THE COPY OF LETTER IS PRESENT AT PAGE NO.46 TO 86 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE OBJECTION OF THE LEARNED AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 23 IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT IF THE COMPARISON OF TWO BALANCE SHEET IS BEING MADE IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THERE IS ONE ITEM OF CURRENT LIABILITY IN THE NAME OF M/S MAHALAXMI DEVELOPER AMOUNTING TO RS.1,68,671/ - WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE LIABILITY SIDE WHILE IN THE ORIGINAL BALANCE SHEET THIS AMOUNT WAS REDUCED FROM O THER ITEMS OF LOANS AND ADVANCES OF RS. 15,00,000/ - AFTER REDUCING THE ABOVE AMOUNT THE SAME WAS SHOWN AT RS. 13,32,150/ - . IN THE REVISED BALANCE SHEET YOUR HONOUR WILL FIND THE AMOUNT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES AT RS. 15,00,000/ - . THIS HAS RESULTED INTO INCREA SE IN THE VALUE OF BALANCE SHEET BY THE SAID AMOUNT. THERE WERE OLD INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURE LAND AT KHASRA NO.47 AT BASNI BAGELA AT RS.43,000/ - WHICH WAS AN OLD INVESTMENT AND TO CORRECTLY REPRESENT THE BALANCE SHEET THE OPENING VALUE OF SUCH ASSETS WAS TAKEN INTO THE ACCOUNTS. SIMILARLY THERE WAS A PLOT NO.8 AT KUDI BHAGTASNI AT RS.3,41,500/ - WHICH IS AGAIN ON OLD INVESTMENT AND OPENING VALUE OF SUCH ASSET HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO THE ACCOUNT TO CORRECTLY REPRESENT THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT. THERE WAS ONE PURCH ASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND AT VILLAGE CHAYAN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASH BALANCE WAS REDUCED. IT IS SUBMITTED FOR YOUR KIND CONSIDERATION THAT THE APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO FILES THE RETURN U /S 153A AND TO GIVE THE EFFECT IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN AND BALANCE SHEET ON ACCOUNT OF THE DOCUMENTS AND SEIZED PAPERS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONG 24 WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) AND AS PER THE RETURN FILED U/S 153A IS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF GIVING THE EFFECT OF DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ABOVE REFERRED INVESTMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE BALANCE SH EET ARE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS ONLY, AND NONE OF THESE INVESTMENTS ARE MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALL ARE OLD INVESTMENTS ONLY. TO CORRECTLY AND TRULY REFLECT THE POSITION OF BALANCE SHEET, THESE HAD BEEN DULY INCORPORATED IN THE AC COUNTS. 3.6 BEFORE US EARLIER ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN REITERATED. WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE A.O. IN THE R.R. HAS PROPOSED ADDITION OF RS. 10,63,056/ - WHICH INCLUDES ASSETS AS WELL AS THE INCREASE IN THE LIABILITIES. THIS IS NOT A CORRECT PROPOSITION OF THE A.O. BOTH THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND PARTICULARLY LIABILITY CANNOT BE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET ENCLOSED WITH ROI FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A, WHICH GIVES A DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT THAN IT WAS DISCLOSED I N THE BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL ROI. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SUM OF RS. 1,68,671/ - REPRESENTED CREDIT BALANCE OF MAHALAXMI DEVELOPERS. IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN IT WAS A NET OF CURRENT ASSETS. THE TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS WERE WORTH RS. 15,00,000/ - AND AFTER REDUCING RS. 1,68,671/ - NET COMES TO RS. 13,32,150/ - . WE HAVE SEEN THE RECORDS. WE HAVE FOUND THAT IN THE REVISED BALANCE SHEET THE SUM OF RS. 13,32,150/ - HAS BEEN SHOWN IN 25 THE LIABILITIES SIDE AND CURRENT ASSETS ARE SHOWN AT RS. 15,00,000/ - . THUS, THE DIFFERENCE COMES TO RS. 1,68,671/ - . WE HAVE SEEN PAGE 147 OF PAPER BOOK. THIS DIFFERENCE IS DUE TO PRESENTATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET. FURTHER THE SUM OF RS. 43,000/ - SHOWN AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AT K.N. 47 BASNI BAGELA WHICH WAS PURCH ASED ON 08.02.1996. THIS WAS NOT IN FACT, INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL BALANCE SHEET. AS PER LD. A.R. THIS WAS A INADVERTENT MISTAKE. ACCORDING TO HIM RELATABLE TO TH ESE ASSETS THERE IS NO UNDISCLOSED INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FURTHER, ASSET WORTH RS. 3,41,500/ - FOR PLOT NO. 8, KUDI B H AGTASNI, IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED ON 15.09.2004, AND IT WAS ALSO SIMILARLY INCLUDED IN THE REVISED ROI. IN FACT THIS ASSET ALSO DOES NOT REPRESENT INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR. AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 127, A FUN D FLOW STATEMENT IS ENCLOSED. FROM THIS FUND FLOW STATEMENT THIS INVESTMENT IS FOUND VERIFIABLE. FURTHER, A SUM OF RS. 3,73,375/ - REPRESENTED AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE CHAYAN. AFTER SEEING PAGE 62 OF THE PAP E R BOOK WHICH IS A COPY OF CASH BOOK, COMPLETE D WITH THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT THIS AMOUNT IS ALSO FOUND VERIFIABLE. FURTHER, THE AIR CONDITIONER WAS PURCHASED ON 29.01.2006 AND AHS BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR AND IS ALSO VERIFIABLE FORM THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT (PAPER BOOK PAGE 67). ON THE FUND FLOW STATEME NT THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE ANY COMMENT IN HIS R.R., THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AS CORR E CT STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE 26 HAS REDUCED THE CORRESPONDING CASH BALANCE IN THE REVISED BALANCE SHEET. THUS, IN OUR OPINION ALL THE ITEMS IN QUESTION GET ONLY RECONCILE D. THESE DONT REPRESENT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ORDER TO DELETE THIS ENTIRE ADDITION. WE ALLOW GROUND NO. (4) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. 3.7 THE FACTS APROPOS GROUND NO. (5) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL AND GROUND NO. (2) OF REVENUES (COMMON GROUNDS) ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR , FOLLOWING NEW CASH CREDITORS WERE NOTICED : - (I) JAGDISH JANGID OF RS. 2,00,000/ - (II) R.C. MEHTA OF RS. 10,00,000/ - (III) SNEHLATA MEHTA OF RS. 3,00,000/ - TOTALING TO 15 LAKHS AS PER THE A.O. DURING ASSESSME NT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE IDENTITIES AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE CASH CREDITOR AND SO ALSO THE GENUINITY OF THESE TRANSACTIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. HAS ADDED TOTAL RS. 1 5 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITORS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED RS. 13 LAKHS BY ACCEPT ING TWO CASH CREDITORS AS EXPLAINED AND HAS SUSTAINED RS. 2 LAKHS FINDING ONE CASH CREDITOR AS NOT EXPLAINED. NOW BOTH THE PARTIES ARE AGGRIEVED. 27 3.8 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE ENTIRE RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE QUERY LETTER DATED 23.12.2011 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25.12.2011 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH EVIDENCE BY 28.12.2011. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 2 9.12.2011. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SENT THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE TO A.O. WHO AFTER VERIFICATION H A S FURNISHED HIS REMAND REPORT. WE HAVE SEEN THE ENTIRE PROOF IN RELATION TO ALL THE THRE E CASH CREDITORS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION NOT ON L Y THE CASH CREDITORS SHRI R.C. MEHTA AND SMT. SNEHLATA MEHTA BUT ALSO SHRI JAGDISH JANGID STAND S EXPLAINED ON RECORD. THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED CLEARLY ESTABLISH THEIR IDENTITY, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENUINITY OF TRANSACTION. NO MATERIAL WAS GATHERED DURING SEARCH OR POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THESE CASH CREDITORS WHO HAD BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT. IN OUR OPINION THE ASSESSEE H A S DISCHARGED HIS ONUS BY PRODUCING ENOUGH PR OOF OF EVIDENCE. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS FILED IN PROOF OF EACH CASH CREDITOR SPEAK FOR ITSELF : - IN THE CASE OF LOAN FROM SHRI R.C. MEHTA FOR RS. 10 LAKH, EVIDENCE FILED AS UNDER : - 28 IN THE CASE OF LOAN FROM SMT. SNEHLATA MEHTA THE EVIDENCE FILED AS UNDER : - CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT STATEMENT P.B. 222. COPY OF BANK STATEMENT P.B.225 COPY OF I.T. RETURN FOR A.Y.2006 - 07 P.B.227 COPY OF DRIVING LICENSE P.B.228 COPY OF PAN CARD P.B.229 RELIANCE ON JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI STEEL INDIA V. ACIT REPORTED IN (2013) 259 CTR (RAJ) 281 DEFINING SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A TO BE CONFINED ONLY TO MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH. NOTHING FOUND TO SUGGEST CREDIT WAS NOT GENUINE. RELY ON OTHER DECISIONS AT P.B. 18 - 23. IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAGDISH JANGID, THE EVIDENCE FILED ARE AS UNDER : - CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT STATEMENT P.B. 164 COPY OF I.T.RETURN FOR A.Y.2006 - 07 P.B. 230 - 232 COPY OF DRIVING LICENSE P.B.235 CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT STATEMENT P.B. 165. BANK STATEMENT IN RELATION TO REPAYMENT OF L OAN. P.B.166 - 167. COPY OF I.T.RETURN OF R.C.MEHTA FOR A.Y.2006 - 07 P.B.236. COPY OF AADHAR CARD P.B.237 COPY OF PAN CARD P.B.238 29 RELY ON OTHER DECISIONS AT P.B. 18 - 23. MOREOVER, WHEN NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH THE J UDGE MENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI STEEL INDIA VS. ACIT REPORTED IN (2013) 259 CTR (RAJ.) 281 HELPS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS JUDGEMENT WHICH DEFINES THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153A TO BE CONFI N ED ONLY TO THE MA TERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH. ACCORDINGLY, WE ORDER TO DELETE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 15 LAKHS INCLUDING SUSTAINED ADDITION OF RS. 2 LAKHS. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW GROUND NO. (5) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL BUT DISMISS GROUND NO. (5) OF REVENUES APPEAL. 3.9 GROUND NO . (6) RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 1,39,565/ - U/S 40A(3) IN RELATION TO PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THIS PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR THE PURCH A SE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN AS FIXED ASSETS AND INVESTMENT IN THE BALANCE SHEET (PAPER BOOK PAGE 147 ). THIS IS NOT CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE. THIS GROUND IS SIMILAR TO THE GROUND RAISED IN SMT PREM L ATA JANGID S CASE IN ITA NOS. 242/JU/2014 TO RELIANCE ON JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI STEEL INDIA V. ACIT REPORTED IN (2013) 259 CTR (RAJ) 281 DEFINING SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A TO BE CONFINED ONLY TO MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH. NOTHING FOUND TO SUGGEST CREDIT WAS NOT GENUINE. 30 245/JU/2014 AND 358/JU/2014 TO 360/JU/2014 ORDER DATED 26.09.2014 . THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES IN THIS REGARD A RE SIMILAR TO THAT CASE. WE HAVE HELD THERE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE AND THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THIS BENCHS DECISION IN THE CASE OF SMT. JIYA DEVI SHARMA IN ITA NO. 211 AND 212/JODH/2013 ORDER DATED 20.09.2013 (PARA 5.3 OF THE ORDER). IN THE SIMILAR MANNER, WE ALLOW GROUND NO. (6) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL AND ORDER THE DELETION OF IMPUGNED ADDITION. 3.10 GROUND NO. 7, 8, 9 AND 10 OF THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED, AS WE HA VE DECIDE D IN EARLIER APPEALS. 3.11 IN REVENUES APPEAL GROUND NO. (1) IS RAISED AGAINST ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. SIMILAR GROUND HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY US IN PREM L ATAS CASE AS WELL OTHER CASES OF THIS GROUP. THEREFORE, WITH SIMILAR REASONING, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. (1) OF RE VENUES APPEAL AND HOLD THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN LEGALLY ADMITTED BY LD. CIT(A). 3.12 GROUND NO. (3) OF REVENUES APPEAL STAND ALREADY DECIDED ALONG WITH GROUND NO. (1) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. W E HAVE DELETED ENTIRE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LO W HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. (3) OF REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 31 3.13 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE CORRESPONDING CROSS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4 ITA NO. 238 AND 362/JODH/2014 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), DATED 28.03.2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUND S IN HIS APPEAL : - 1. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1, 77 ,7 25 / - ON ALLEGE D UNEXPLAINED AGRICULTURE INCOME SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPELLANT CLAIM THAT THE ADDITION WAS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153A. 2(A) THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 11,08,150/ - ON AC COUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT AS NOT FAILING WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS. (B) THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME WHILE THE SAME WAS ALWAYS SHOWING AS INVESTMENT AND WAS LONG TERM C APITAL GAIN ARISING TO THE APPELLANT. 32 (C) THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ENHANCING THE GAIN FROM SUCH SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO RS. 11,08,150/ - AS AGAINST COMPUTED AT RS. 10,73,046/ - BY THE A.O. THE ENHANCEMENT IN INCOME MADE IS ALSO BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS . (D) THE SALE OF ADMITTEDLY AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED OUTSIDE THE SPECIFIED LIMITS IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF TAX. 3. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,50,000 FOR ALLEGED CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION TO M/S PANCHMUKHI VISHWAKARMA AND RS. 13 LAKHS AS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION TO M/S M AHALAXMI DEVELOPERS . THE ADDITION OF RS. 26,50,000/ - SO SUSTAINED IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. 4. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 7 , 00 , 000 / - FOR ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED ADVANCE REC EIVED TOWARDS SALE OF PROPERTY. THE ADDITION SO SUSTAINED IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. THE ADVANCE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE TRANSACTION AND WAS NOT A LOAN OR DEPOSIT. 5 . THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING TELESCOPING EFFECT OF INCOME ALREADY SURR ENDERED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE VARIOUS YEARS AND HAS ALSO FURTHER ERRED IN NOT GRANTING TELESCOPING EFFECT OF THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED. 6. THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234B AND 234C IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. 33 7. THE APPELLANT PRAY FOR SUITABLE C OSTS. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, AND MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE ITS HEARING BEFORE YOUR HONOUR. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 IGNORING THE FACT THAT REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH QUE RY LETTERS, SUB SEQUENT NOTICES ISSUED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS OR EVIDENCES; 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO RESTRICT THE ADDITI ON TO RS. 26,50,000/ - AS AGAINST THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 41,60,000/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION MADE AS PARTNER IN TWO FIRMS NAMELY M/S PANCHMUKHI VISHWAKARMA AND M/S MAHALAXMI DEVELOPERS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FA ILED TO PROVE AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCES OF THE SAID CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION DESPITE BEING GRANTED OF REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 34 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISS IONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBTAINING FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE CASE. 4.1 GROUND NO. (1) IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 1,77,725/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE A.O. H A S DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN PAGES 3 AND 4 AND PARA 8, WHEREAS THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT PAGE 8 AND PARA 6.12. THE FACTS, THE EVIDENCE, THE REASONS FOR ADDITION AND SUSTENANCE THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES ARE SIMILAR TO THE IDENTICAL ISSUE RAISED IN OTHER YEARS. THEREFORE, WITH SIMILAR REASONING WE ALLOW GROUND NO. (1) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. 4.2 GROUND NO. (2) REGARDING PROFIT ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT RS. 10,73,046/ - WHICH HAS BEEN ENHANCE BY LD. CIT(A) TO RS. 11,08,150/ - ARE SAME AND SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OBTAINING IN A.Y. 200 5 - 0 6 , WHICH WE HAVE DECIDED AFTE R DISCUSSING THE ISSUE AT LENGTH. THEREFORE, WITH SIMILAR REASONING, WE ORDER TO DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION AND ALLOW GROUND NO. (2) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. 4.3 GROUND NO. (3) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL AND GROUND NO. (2) OF DEPARTMENTS APPEAL ARE IN RELATION T O ADDITION OF CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION IN THE FIRM M/S. MAHALAXMI DEVELOPERS OF RS. 13 LAKHS, AND IN THE FIRM M/S. PANCHMUKHI VISHWAKARMA OF RS. 13,50,000/ - . THE TOTAL ADDITION IN 35 THIS ACCOUNT WAS MADE OF RS. 41,60,000/ - , OUT OF WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWE D RELIEF OF RS. 15,10,000/ - AND AGAINST THIS RELIEF THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL VIDE GROUND NO. (2). 4.4 AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBM I SS I ONS, WE HAVE FOUND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAI S ED IN THE CASE OF SMT. PREM LATA JANGID WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED IN IT A NOS. 242/JU/2014 TO 245/JU/2014 AND 358/JU/2014 TO 360/JU/2014 ORDER DATED 26.09.2014 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6.1 GROUND NO. (4) IS REGARDING CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION OF RS. 7,80,000/ - TO BE FIRM M/S. MAHALAXMI DEVELOPERS. AS PER THE A.O. THE SOURCE OF THIS CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIRM IS NOT EXPLAINED. BUT AS PER THE ASSESSEE ITS SOURCE IS FROM OUT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED TOWARDS THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. A SUM OF RS. 2.5 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ONE OF THIS ADVANCE ON 17.04.2007. IN OUR OPINION THE AD VANCE RECEIPT STAND EXPLAINED AND THE FIRM HAS ACCEPTED CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION BY HER. THEREFORE, THIS ADDITION IS UNCALLED FOR AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4.5 THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN FOLLOWING PROOF OF THE ENTIRE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION MADE IN THE TWO FIRM S . THE SUMMARY OF PROOF IS AS UNDER: - 36 C. ACCOUNT CONFIRMATION WITH FIRM M/S MAHALAXMI DEVELOPERS AT P.B. 187 D. COPY OF CASH BOOK AND BANK BOOK OF ASSESSEE WAS SUBMITTED TO JUSTIFY THE CONTRIBUTION MADE TO THE FIRM. P.B. 188 - 190. A. E. RS. 5,30,000/ - ON 15.4.06 WAS GIVEN BY CHEQUE FROM BANK ACCOUNT AND IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE BANK STATEMENT. P.B. 157. THE DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT PRIOR TO ISSUE OF THIS CHEQUE IS ALSO VERIFIABLE FROM THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE AT P.B. 188 . THE SAME IS ALSO VERIFIABLE FR OM THE STATEMENT OF THE FIRM AT P.B. 191. THE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR DEPOSIT IN BANK WERE RECEIVED AS ADVANCE TOWARDS SALE FROM DINESH KUMAR SONI. VERIFIABLE FROM P.B. 193 AND P.B. 205. F. RS. 4,00,000/ - : THE PERUSAL OF CASH BOOK P.B. 188 WOULD INDICATE T HAT RS.4,00,000/ - WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE FIRM OUT OF CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE ON THIS DATE FOR RS. 9,18,539/ - . THIS WAS OUT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM DINESH KUMAR SONI ON 10.04.2006 ALSO EVIDENT FROM SEIZED DOCUMENT P.B., 193 AND 205. G. RS. 7,00,000/ - : AT CASH BOOK P.B. 189 INDICATES THAT RS. 7,00,000/ - WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE FIRM OUT OF THE CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE. THIS WAS OUT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED TOWARDS SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND FROM MOHAN LAL SEN. ADVANCE RECD. T OWARDS SALE OF PROPERTY VERIFIABLE FROM STATEMENT AT P.B. 194. 37 H. RS. 2,00,000/ - : FURTHER RS. 2,00,000/ - WAS GIVEN TO THE FIRM ON 22.02.2007 OUT OF THE CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE AT RS. 21,94,047 ON 1.2.07 (P.B. 63) WITH THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND AT VILLAGE DANGIAW AS. I. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, THE ENTIRE ADDITION DESERVED TO BE DELETED AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING ONLY PART RELIEF. M/S PANCHMUKHI VISHWAKARMA : J. ACCOUNT CONFIRMATION OF M/S PANCHMUKHI VISHWAKARMA P.B.184 K. RS. 2,30,000/ - : GIVEN ON 1.4.2006, AND VERIFIABLE FROM P.B. 185. CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE ON THAT DAY AT RS. 3,81,539/ - WHICH IS OPENING CASH BALANCE AS ON 1.4.2006 L. RS. 4,00,000/ - : THIS IS TRANSFER JOURNAL ENTRY FORM M/S MAHALAXMI DEVELOPERS ON 1.5.2006. VERIFIABL E FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE SAID FIRM AT P.B. 187. M. RS. 2,50,000/ - : RS. 2,50,000/ - WAS ADVANCE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM JAGDISH AND WAS DEPOSITED IN HDFC BANK OF THE FIRM DIRECTLY. THE SAME IS VERIFIABLE FROM ACCOUNT COPY AT P.B. 74. N. RS. 15,00,0 00/ - : ON 27.1.2007 WAS RECEIVED FROM MOTI RAM KULARIYA BY CHEQUE AGAINST ADVANCE ALREADY GIVEN BY THE 38 ASSESSEE. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO THE FIRM DIRECTLY AND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM. KINDLY SEE P.B. 85. O. RS. 3,50,000/ - : THE AP PELLANT HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.3,50,000/ - FOR PURCHASE OF NON - JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM AND THE PAYMENT WAS MADE FROM THE CASH BALANCE 4.6 WE HAVE TREADED THROUGH THE RELEVANT PAGES TOWARD WHIC H OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED BY LD. A.R. AND LD. D.R. THE CONTENTION S O F BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE ESSENCE OF ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES IS SIMILAR TO THA T WAS IN THE CASE OF SMT. PREM L ATA JANGID IN SMT. PREM LATAS CASE, WIFE OF SHRI P UNA RAM JANGID DECIDED BY US VIDE ORDER DATED 26.09.2008 . THEREFORE, WITH THE SAME AND SIMILAR REASONING, WE HOLD THAT THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THESE FIRM STAND CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. THEREFORE, WE ORDER DELETION OF ENTIRE ADDITI ON AND ALLOW GROUND NO. 3 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL BUT DISMISS GROUND NO. (2) OF REVENUES APPEAL. AVAILABLE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND AT VILLAGE DANGIAWAS. P.B. 186. P. IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IN RELATION TO CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION MADE TO THE FIRM M/S PANCHMUKHI VISHWAKARMA, THE ENTIRE ADDITION DESERVED TO BE DELETED AS AGAINST PART RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 39 5. THE FACTS APROPOS GROUND NO. (4) RELATING TO ALLEGED ADVANCE OF RS. 17 LAKHS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTY ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ADVANCE RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF PROPERTIES AT RS. 23,00,000/ - . THE DETAILS OF THE SAME ARE AS UNDER : - A. ADVANCE AGAINST AGREEMENT TO SALE RECEIVED REFUNDED S. NO, DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE DESCRIPT ION AMOUNT REMARKS 1 05/04/2006 FROM TAPSI LAL V ISHNOI (CASH) 300000 20/01/2007 TAPSI LAL VISHNOI (CASH) 300000 2 01/05/2006 SH. MOHANLAL SEN (CASH) 700000 - NO DETAILS OF PROPERTY SUBMIT T E D . 3 19/06/2006 NO MENTION (CASH) 200000 30/10/2006 NO MENTION (CASH) 200000 B. ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF PROP ERTY AT BHAKRASANI 15/01/2007 SMT. MAINA DEVI (CASH) 1000000 NO DETAILS OF PROPERTY SUBMITTED. C. ADVANCE FROM SH. DINESH SUTHAR AGAINST SALE OF PROPERTY 10/04/2006 (CASH) SH. DINESH SUTHAR NAGORI GATE PROPERTY 500000 CONFIRMED AS PER SALE DE ED PAGE - : D. CHEQUE ISSUED BUT NOT CLEARED NO DETAILS SUBMITTED NO LEDGER A/C 100000 NO DETAILS SUBMITTED AS PER THE ASSESSEE ADVANCE RECEIPT WAS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE FINAL SALE THEREOF AND IN CASE TRANSACTION DID NOT MATERIALIZE THE ADVANCE RECEIPT WAS REQUIRED TO BE R EFUNDED. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO 40 THE ASSESSEE HIS ADVANCE RECEIPT CANNOT BE TERMED AS ASSESSEES INCOME. BUT THE A.O. HAS WEIGHED THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE PREDOMINATELY IN THE LIGHT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSES SEE WHERE THERE IS LIKELIHOOD OF GENERATION OF BLACK MONEY AND WHICH COULD BE EXPLAINED LIKE THAT. ACCORDINGLY, HE HAS ADDED THE ENT I RE ADVANCE RECEIPT OF RS. 23,00,000/ - . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 17 LA KHS AND H A S DELETED RS. 6 LAKH S. 5.1 BEFORE US EARLIER ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN REITERATED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ADVANCE RECEIPT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 FILED U/S 139 PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH. COPY OF THE ROI IS ENCLOSED AT PAP ER BOOK PAGES 206 TO 210. THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING SEARCH, COPY ENCLOSED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 205, CLEARLY REVEALS THE NAME, THE AMOUNT AND THE DATE(S) OF ADVANCES(S) RECEIVED. AS PER THIS DOCUMENT ADVANCE OF RS. 10 LAKHS WAS ADJUSTED APART SALE O F AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT BHAKARSANI ON 15.06.2011. THIS ADVANCE WAS RECEIVED FROM SMT. MAINA DEVI COPY ENCLOSED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 225. ADVANCE OF RS. 7 LAKHS WAS SQUARED UP ON 18.11.20 10 AGAINST SALE OF PLOT NO. Q - 65, AT ANSAL SUSHANT LOK, CO P Y ENC LOSED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 226. FROM THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT IT IS FOUND THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR THE SALE WAS DULY MADE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO REASON 41 WHY THIS ADDITION SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. THEREFORE, WE ORDER DEL ETION OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 17 LAKHS AND ALLOW GROUND NO. (4) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. 5.2 GROUND NO. 5, 6, 7, AND 8 ARE DISPOSED OF I N THE SAME MANNER AS WE HAVE DONE IN EARLIER YEARS. 5.3 GROUND NO. (1) OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REGARDING ADMISSI ON OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. SIMILAR GROUND, WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED IN ALL THE APPEALS OF THIS GROUP. SO, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. (1) OF REVENUES APPEAL WITH SAME REASONS. 5.4 GROUND NO. (2) OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALREADY DECIDED ALONG WITH GROUND NO. (3 ) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 5.5 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. ITA NO. 239 AND 363/JODH/2014 (A.Y. 2008 - 09) THESE CROSS - APPEALS FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 28.03.2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL : - 42 1(A) THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 3 , 80 , 313 / - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CONSTRUCTION/ RENOVATION IN HOUSE PROPERTY . THE ADDITION SO MADE IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS . (B) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING D ED UCTION ON ACCOUNT OF LOCAL PWD SCHEDULE AND FOR SELF SUPERVISION. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE A.O IN MAKING REFERENCE TO THE VO AND RELYING ON THE VALUATION REPORT WHICH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 2 (A) . THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S 54F AMOUNTING TO RS. 23,80,125/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AGAINST OTHER LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARIS ING THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. (B) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THE SAID CLAIM WAS ORIGINALLY CLAIMED AND ALLOWED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND REJECTING SUCH CLAIM WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL BASIS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LD. CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT NO ORIGINAL RETURN WAS BEING FILED BY THE APPELLANT. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT SALE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS BEING A CAPITAL ASSET AND C ANNOT BE TAKEN AS STOCK IN TRADE. 3. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING TELESCOPING EFFECT OF INCOME ALREADY SURRENDERED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE VARIOUS 43 YEARS AND HAS ALSO FURTHER ERRED IN NOT GRANTING TELESCOPING EFFECT OF THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED. 4. THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234B AND 234C IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING TO DELETE THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 1,00,71,000 MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE AND PROFIT EARNED IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE, BEING THE PARTNER AND MAIN PERSON OF THE GROUP HAD FAILED TO OFFER THE PROFIT IN RESPECT OF LAND CLAIMED AS SALE TRANSACTI ON BETWEEN M/S PANCHMUKHI VISHWAKARMA AND SHRI DINESH KUMAR DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE HAD ADMITTED EARNING OF PROFIT ON THE SAID SALE TRANSACTION DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 7 ON 15.12.2009 ; 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,47,500 MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE DANGIAWAS AT KHASRA NO. 291,291/1 AND 292 PURCHA SED IN THE NAME OF SHRI HARCHAND RAM PUNARAM JANGID (HUF) IGNORING THE FACT THAT HUF WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE AND HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT A.Y. 2008 - 09 . 44 6.1 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE RECO RD. 6.2 GROUND NO. (1) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 3,80,313/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RENOVATION OF HOUSE PROPERTY. THE A.O. REFERRED THE MATTER RELATING TO RENOVATION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE DONE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR, TO V.O., W HO HAS ESTIMATED IT AT RS. 31,56,320/ - AND THE A.O. HAS MADE THIS ADDITION. IN APPEAL THE ASSESSEE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING DELETED A SUM OF RS. 27,76,007/ - WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALREADY IN A.Y. 2008 - 09. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED AN AD DITION OF RS. 3,80,313/ - . THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. IS THAT IF THE LOCAL PWD RATES ARE ADOPTED FOR VALUATION AND DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF SELF SUPERVISION IS ALLOWED THERE WOULD REMAIN NO ADDITION IN THIS ACCOUNT. IN THIS CONNECTION LD. A.R. HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON DECISIONS MENTIONED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 13 TO1 5. 6.3 PER CONTRA THE LD. CIT(DR) HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES BY THE A.O. TO EXPLAIN THIS EXPENDITURE BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO AVAIL. HE HAS JUSTIFIED THE SUS TAINED ADDITION. 45 6.4 AFTER COGITATING RIVAL STANDS, WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE V.O. ADOPTS CPWD RATES FOR VALUATION PURPOSES. WHEREAS, THE LAW ON THE ISSUE IS SETTLED THAT ONLY LOCAL PWD RATES SHALL BE APPLIED FOR ARRIVING AT CORRECT VALUATION. FOR THIS PURP OSE 20% MAKE DOWN FROM THE ESTIMATED VALUE BY DVO IS HELD TO GIVE THE VALUE AS PER LOCAL PWD RATES. REGARDING SELF SUPERVISION ALSO LAW IS TITLE THAT 10% TO 15% SHOULD BE ALLOWED. WE ARE AWARE OF THIS LEGAL POSITION. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW BOTH THESE LEGAL BE NEFITS. AFTER REDUCING 20% OF THE VALUATION AND FURTHER REDUCTION @ 15% ON ACCOUNT OF SELF SUPERVISION, NO ADDITION SHALL SURVIVE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ORDER DELETION OF SUSTAINED ADDITION OF RS. 3,80,313/ - DONE IN THIS YEAR AND ALLOW GROUND NO. (1) OF ASSESSEE S APPEAL. 6.5 GROUND NO. ( 2) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REGARDING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F AMOUNTING TO RS. 23,80,125/ - . THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD ONE PIECES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE BHAK RA SANI FOR A CONSIDER ATION OF RS. 30 LAKHS AND HAS CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) OF RS. 24,60,000/ - AND HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION US/ 54F IN RELATION TO INVESTMENT MADE IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE TOTAL INVEST MENT WAS OF RS. 27,76,007/ - .THE CONSTRUCTION MADE IS VERIFIED BY THE A.O. THE REASONS FOR DENIAL OF THIS 46 CLAIM BY BOTH AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE THAT NO SUCH DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE U/S 54F. 6.6 AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE HOUSE ITSELF HAD BEEN PURCHASED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E., ONE Y EAR PRIOR TO THE SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET ON WHICH CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN COMPUTED. THE HOUSE WAS PURCHASED ON 21.06.2006 (PAPER BOOK PAGE 120) AND SALE OF ASSET WAS MADE ON 22.05.2007. THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN DENIED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THIS CLAIM IS A S PER THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. TO THAT EXTENT THIS CLAIM IS ALLOWED. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE INVESTMENT IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE QUA THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET, IF ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54F ARE SATISFIED. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6.7 GROUND NO. 3, 4, 5 AND 6 ARE DISPOSED OF IN THE SAME WAY AS WE HAVE DONE IN OTHER APPEAL. 6.8 GROUND NO. (1) OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REGARDING DELETION OF AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,7 1,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES BY M/S. PANCHMUKHI 47 VISHWAKARMA. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI DIN E SH KUMAR BUTHRA WAS RECORDED DURING SEARCH U/S 132(4) AND HE STATED THAT THE PURCHASE WAS DONE BY THE FIRM. T HE AGREEMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH WHICH DEPICTED THE AGREEMENT AS BETWEEN THE FIRM AND MR. DIN E SH KU M A R BUTHRA. THE COPIES OF SALE DEED WERE PRODUCED. AFTER CONSIDERING THEM THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION FROM THE HANDS OF THIS ASSESSEE. N OW, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED. 6.9 BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE REITERATED THEIR EARLIER ARGUMENTS. WE HAVE FOUND THAT COPIES OF REGISTERED SALE DEEDS EXECUTED ON 10.04.2008 FOR RS. 25,00,000/ - AND DATED 11.09.2008 FOR THE SAME AMOUNT, SHOW THAT THE PURCHASE WAS MADE BY THE FIRM AND NOT BY THIS ASSESSEE. COPY OF FIXED ASSET ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM IN RELATION TO INVESTMENT IN THIS PLOT IS ENCLOSED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 181. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE FIRM MADE FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 SIMILAR ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED DELETION IS IN ORDER. WE CONFIRM THE FINDING GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) AND REPRODUCE PARA NO S 6.12 TO 6.14 AT PAGE S 8 & 9 OF CIT(A)S ORDER. 6.12. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE, REMAND REPORT AND FIND THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SAL E DATED 18 - 01 - 2008 FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAS BEEN 48 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN M/S PANCHMUKHI VISHWAKARMA REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND SH. DINESH KUMAR BUTRA. THIS RELATES TO PLOT NO. 2, POLO, JODHPUR AND THE FIGURE OF CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN T HE SAID AGREEMENT HAS BEEN BLACKENED. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED COPIES OF SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE FIRM ON 10 - 04 - 2008 (FOR RS. 25 LACS) AND ON 11 - 09 - 2008 (FOR RS. 25 LACS AS AGAINST THE DLC RATES OF RS. 28,54,500). 6.13. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SALE TRAN SACTION OF PROPERTY HAS BEEN MADE BY THE FIRM M/S PANCHMUKHI VISHWAKARMA AND THUS THE UNEXPLAINED T MADE AND INCOME EARNED THEREON, IF ANY, NEEDS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM ONLY. I AGREE WITH THE VIEWS OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAS /LOT BEEN ABLE TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE VARIANCE BETWEEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION ADMITTED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE IT ACT AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION DECLARED IN THE SALE DEED. BUT, AS THE INVESTMENT I N THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY HAS BEEN MADE BY THE FIRM AND SALE DEED HAS ALSO BEEN EXECUTED BY THE FIRM AND THEREFORE, THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME EARNED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTY WILL ALSO HAVE TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM ONLY. FURTHER, I FIND THAT THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE FIRM IN F.Y. 2008 - 09 AND THUS, THE UNEXPLAINED SALE PROCEEDS / PROFIT EARNED ON 49 SALE, IF AT AL L, CAN BE TAXED ONLY IN A.Y. 2009 - 10. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE PROFIT EARNED ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE FIRM IN ITS ITR FILED AFTER THE SEARCH. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION WHICH HAS BEEN RECE IVED OUT OF THE BOOKS, IF ANY, NEEDS TO BE MADE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM AND CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS. 6.14. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ACTION OF THE A.O AS PROPOSED IN THE R E MAND REPORT THAT AN A DDITION OF RS. 50,71,000/ - [AFTER GIVING CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNT DECLARED IN THE SALE DEED] MAY BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY, I DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,71,000 MADE BY THE A.O ON THIS ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ABOVE FINDING AND DISMISS GROUND NO. (1) OF REVENUES APPEAL. 6.10 GROUND NO. 2 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 44,47,500/ - . THE A.O. HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE AT PAGE 4 PARA 10. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED IT AT PAGES 25 2 6 , IN PARAS 9.5 TO 9.8. 50 6.11 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS. 44,45,500/ - IN RELATION TO PURCHASE OF LAND AT VILLAGE D ANGIAWAS BY SHRI HARCHAND RAM PUNA RAM HUF . THIS ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF HUF AND IN THE CASE OF H UF THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN DULY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF HUF IS ENCLOSED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 212 215. THE ACCOUNT COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IN RELATION TO THIS PURCHASE BY HUF IS ENCLOSED AT PAPER B OOK PAGE 212 TO 215. THE ACCOUNT COPY OF SALE DEED AND A COPY OF REGISTERED DEED IN RELATION TO PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE HUF (PAPER BOOK PAGE 216, 217 TO 225). IN THE BACKGROUND OF THESE FACTS, WE CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED DELETION AND DISMISS GROUND NO. (2) O F REVENUES APPEAL. 6.12 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. ITA NO. 240/JODH/2014 A.Y. 2009 - 10. THIS IS THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10, FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) DATED 28.03.2014. FOR THIS YEAR, THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT IN APPEAL. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: - 51 1(A) THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 1 , 12 , 860 / - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CONSTRUCTION/ RENOVATION IN H OUSE PROPERTY. THE ADDITION SO MADE IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS . (B) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING D EDU CTION ON ACCOUNT OF LOCAL PWD SCHEDULE AND FOR SELF SUPERVISION. (C) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE A.O IN MAKING REFERENCE TO THE VO AND RELYING ON THE VALUATION REPORT WHICH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 2. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,00,000 FOR ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION TO M/S MAHALAXMI DEVELOPERS . THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 0 , 0 0,00 0/ - SO SUSTAINED IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. 3 . THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 23,00 , 000 / - FOR ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED ADVANCE RECEIVED TOWARDS SALE OF PROPERTY. THE ADDITION SO SUSTAINED IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. THE ADV ANCE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE TRANSACTION AND WAS NOT A LOAN OR DEPOSIT. 4 (A). THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 4,14,600/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT AS NOT FAL LING WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF CAPI TAL ASSETS. 52 (B) THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME WHILE THE SAME WAS ALWAYS SHOWING AS INVESTMENT AND WAS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING TO THE APPELLANT. (C) THE SALE OF ADMITTEDLY AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED OUTSIDE THE SP ECIFIED LIMITS IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF TAX. 5. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING TELESCOPING EFFECT OF INCOME ALREADY SURRENDERED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE VARIOUS YEARS AND HAS ALSO FURTHER ERRED IN NOT GRANTING TELESCOPING EFFECT OF THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED. 6. THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234B AND 234C IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. 7. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR SUITABLE COST. 7.1 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE RECORD. 7.2 GROUND NO. (1) IS REGARDING RENOVAT ION OF HOUSE PROPERTY. THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE GROUND TAKEN IN A.Y. 2008 - 09. WITH SIMILAR REASONING WE ALLOW THIS GROUND AND ORDER DELETION OF RS. 1,12,860/ - ADDED IN ASSESSEES HANDS. 53 7.3 GROUND NO. (2) IS REGARDING CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIRM M/S. MAHALAXMI DEVELOPERS. WE ORDER DELETION OF THIS ADDITIO N ON THE FOLLOWING FACT FINDING: - ACCOUNT CONFIRMATION WITH FIRM M/S MAHALAXMI DEVELOPERS AT P.B. 166. COPY OF CASH BOOK AND BANK BOOK AND BANK STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS SUBMITTED TO JUSTIFY TH E CONTRIBUTION MADE TO THE FIRM. P.B. 167 - 170. THE PERUSAL OF BANK BOOK P.B. 169 WOULD INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS.8,00,000/ - VIDE CHEQUE NO.103540 ON 12.11.2008 AND RS.15,00,000/ - VIDE CHEQUE NO.103539 ON 14.11.2008 ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE FOR SALE OF LAND AT DANGIAWAS AND THE SAME AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE FIRM. REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED, AND NO SPECIFIC DISCREPANCY HAD BEEN OBSERVED IN SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. REGULAR ASSESSEE, AND COMPLETE ACCOUNTS PRODUCED. ALL ENT RIES ARE FULLY VERIFIABLE. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS THEREFORE NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE AND THE ENTIRE ADDITION DESERVED TO BE DELETED AS AGAINST TELESCOPING EFFECT GRANTED AGAINST OTHER ADDITION SUSTAINED BY HIM. 54 ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN SUSTAINING THIS ADDITION. 7.4 THE GROUND NO. (3) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS U RGENT ADVANCE RECORD TOWARDS SALE OF PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ADVANCE OF RS. 8,00,000/ - VIDE CHEQUE ON 12.11.2008 AND RS. 15 LAKHS VIDE ON 14.11.2008 AG AINST SALE OF LAND AT DANGIAWAS. THE ASSESSEE MADE A SURRENDER OF RS. 60,00,000/ - DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR (PAPER BOOK PAGE 146). IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION , TELESCOPY IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HO NBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS TY A RAMAL BALCHAND REPORTED IN 165 ITR 453 (RAJ.) 7.5 GROUND NO. (4) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REGARDING ADDITION OF PROFIT ARISING ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF RS. 4,14,600/ - BEING LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAIN. IN FACT, THE SALE OF THIS LAND WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO CAPITAL GAINS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : - THE APPELLANT SOLD AGRICULTURE LAND AT VILLAGE BHAKRASNI K.NO.25/1. ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE SAID SALE SUBMITTED AT P.B.171. COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED P.B.172 - 176. 55 THE SAID LAND IS ADMITTEDLY SITUATED OUTSIDE THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS AT VILLAGE BHAKRASNI. THE LD. AO AND CIT(A) ON THE WRONG PRESUMPTION THAT THE APPELLANT IS ALSO CARRYING ON REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES THEREFORE SUCH SALE WOULD BE R EGARDED AS BUSINESS INCOME, AND THEREFORE DENIED EXEMPTION TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAD NEVER TREATED THIS AS A STOCK IN TRADE, AND WAS ALWAYS SHOWN AS FIXED ASSET IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURE LAND. CERTIFICATE FROM PATWARI OF VILLAGE BHAKRASNI THAT THE LAND SITUATED AT K.NO.25/1 IS AGRICULTURE LAND AND THE AGRICULTURE LAND COMES UNDER THE GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE SANGARIA P.B. 184 AND THUS THE SAME DOES NOT FALL IN THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON FO LLOWING DECISIONS AT P.B. 198 - 207. THE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE THIRD MEMBER DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF SUPRIYA KANWAR IN ITA NO. 362/JU/2010 ORDER DATED 13 TH MAY, 2014. (2014) 149 ITD 1 (TM) 7.6 GROUND NO. 5, 6, 7 AND 8 ARE DECIDED IN THE SAME MANNER AS WE HAVE DONE IN THE EARLIER YEAR. 56 7.7 ACCORDINGLY THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. ITA NO. 241 AND 364/JODH/2014 (A.Y. 2010 - 11) THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 28.03.2014, FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL : - 1. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE ADDITION SO SUSTAINED IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. 2 A. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.30,74,700/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CONSTRUCTION/ RENOVATION IN FARM HOUSE AT VILLAGE DANGIAWAS. THE ADDITION SO SUSTAINED IS BA D IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. B. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF LOCAL PWD SCHEDULE AND FOR SELF SUPERVISION. C. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF ID. AO IN MAKING REFERENCE TO VO AND RELYING ON THE VALU ATION REPORT WHICH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 57 3A. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,00,000/ - FOR ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 68. THE ADDITION SO SUSTAINED IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. B. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION IN RELATION TO THE CREDITS WHICH WAS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL. THE ADDITION IS THEREFORE BAD IN LAW. C. THE CREDIT IN QUESTION WAS FULLY EXPLAINED, AND NO ADDITION WAS WARRANTED U/S 68, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE OTHER CREDIT IN THE SAME ACCO UNT HAD BEEN DULY ACCEPTED. 4. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING TELESCOPING EFFECT OF INCOME ALREADY SURRENDERED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE VARIOUS YEARS AND HAS ALSO FURTHER ERRED IN NOT GRANTING TELESCOPING EFFECT OF THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED. 5. TH E INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234B AND 234C IS BAD IN LAW NAD BAD ON FACTS. 6. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR SUITABLE COSTS. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR HAS ERR ED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 IGNORING THE 58 FACT THAT REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH QUE RY LETTERS, SUBSEQUENT NOTICES ISSUED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS OR EVIDENCES; 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE A.O TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF U NEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 SHOWN IN THE NAME OF SHRI ANIL CHANDEL AT RS. 10,00,000/ - AND RESTRICTING ADDITION TO RS. 9 LAKHS OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 13 LAKHS IN THE NAME OF M/S CHANDRA AGRO PVT. LTD IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE CASH CREDITORS HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS/CAPACITY TO LOAN AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION DESPITE GRANTING OF REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 8945/ - MADE BY HIM ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD JEWELERY FOUND DURING SEARCH. 8.1 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE RECORD. 59 8.2 GROUND NO. (1) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE A.O. AT PAGES 2 AND 3, I N PARA 7 OF HIS ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE VIDE PARA 5.13 AT PAGE 7 OF HIS ORDER. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS GROUND ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE CASH OF RS. 3,43,330/ - WAS FOUND. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) THAT THIS CASH REPRESENTED HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND, THEREFORE, HE OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE RETRA C TED THIS STATEMENT AND STATED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ENTIRE CASH STAND EXPLAINED. BUT THE A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED AS HE WANTED TO KNOW THE SOURCE OF ACCUMULATION OF THIS CASH IN HIS BOOKS. THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLETED THE BOOKS AND PRODUCED THE SAME BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED DURING SEARCH THAT PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT MAINTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. HAS ADDED THIS CASH OF RS. 3 LAKHS TREATING IT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE YEAR. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME WITH THE SIMILAR REASON. 60 8.3 BEFORE US SIMILAR ARGUMENTS WERE REITERATED. WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE CASH BALANCE WAS AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THIS IS A VERIFIABLE FACT (PAPER BOOK PAGE 62 - 67). THE A.O. HAS EXAMINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE BOOKS COMPLETED AFTER THE SEARCH AND ARE NOT FOUND TO BE INCORRECT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT . NO SPECIFIC DEFECT OR DISCREPANCY HAS BEEN, ADMITTEDLY, POINTED OUT IN THEM. ONLY BECAUSE ADMISSION WAS MADE AND IT WAS NOT PROPERLY RETRACTED CANNOT CO M E IN THE WAY OF EXPLANATION OF THE INCOME FOUND DURING SEARCH. A ASSESSEE IS PERMITTED TO DISPROVE ANY ADMISSION MADE EVEN U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT WITH THE HELP OF EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH LD. CIT(DR) WHEN HE RELIES ON VARIOUS DECISI ONS WHICH ARE IN RESPECT OF RETRACTION OF AD MISSION. BUT HERE THE ASSESSEE H A S DISPROVED THE ADMISSION. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW GROUND NO. (1) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL AND ORDER DELETION OF RS. 3 LAKHS FROM ASSESSEES HANDS. 8.4 GROUND NO. (2) OF ASSESSEES APPE AL IS IN RELATION TO ADDITION OF RS. 30,74,700/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CONSTRUCTION / RENOVATION IN THE FARM HOUSE. THE FACT S APROPOS THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE THIS ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF DVOS REPORT WHO HAS ESTIMATED VALUE OF CONS TRUCTION AT RS. 60,74,700/ - . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS 61 CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 30,74,000/ - . IN FACT, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE FARM HOUSE, SOME LOOSE PAP E RS / DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED VIDE ANNEXURE A, EXHIBIT - 1, EXHIBIT - 7, DIARY ETC., WHICH ARE IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES DONE AT THE FARM HOUSE. THIS ASSESSEE HAS MADE A VOLUNTARY SURRENDER OF RS. 30 LAKHS AS HIS UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RENOVATION AND CONSTRUCTION IN THE FARM HOUSE SITUATED IN DANGIAWAS. THIS SURRENDE R WAS MADE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT ON 15/12/2009 AND 16/12/2009, IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 27 AND 33. THE A.O. HAS ADDED RS. 30,74,700/ - U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION. 8.5 AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUB MISSIONS IT IS FOUND THAT THE ESTIMATION DONE BY THE DVO HAS TO SUFFER 20% MARK DOWN TO CAME TO LOCAL PWD RATES, AS PER THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW AND ALSO 15% DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL SUPERVISION HAS TO BE ALLOW. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED VALUAT ION REPORT OBTAINED FROM AN CHARTERED ENGINEER (AUTHORIZED VALUER) WHO HAS ESTIMATED THE INVESTMENT AT RS. 30,36,000/ - . IN FACT FROM THE ACCOUNT COPY ENCLOSED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 74, INVESTMENT MADE IN THE FARM HOUSE IN DULY REFLECTED. A COPY OF THE VALUATI ON REPORT OBTAINED FROM THE REGISTERED VALUER IS ENCLOSED 62 AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 193 - 207. AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS THE COST INCURRED IN THE BOUNDARY WALL COMES TO RS. 2 LAKHS AND NOT RS. 6,01,166/ - ADOPTED BY DVO. THE VALUE OF TWO UNDERGROUND WATER TANKS CO MES TO RS. 2,94,264/ - WHICH WERE CONSTRUCTED AFTER NOVEMBER, 2009 . THE FEES OF ARCHITECT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AT RS. 1,76,933/ - WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED NO SUCH PAYMENT. THUS, THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL THESE FACTS AND FIGURES IS THAT THIS ENTIRE A DDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE, THEREFORE, ORDER DELETION OF THIS ADDITION AND ALLOW GROUND NO. (2) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. 8.6 THE FACTS OF GROUND NO. (3) ARE THAT THE A.O. MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED UNEXP LAINED DEPOSITS FROM ANIL CHANDEL OF RS. 10 LAKHS AND FROM SUSHIL MODI OF RS. 13,00,000/ - . DURING THE YEAR THERE WAS ANOTHER DEPOSIT FROM CHANDRA AGRO FARMS, AND THE LD. CIT(A) REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAID DEPOSIT. ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT T HE SUBJE CT MATTER OF THE APPEAL T HE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ACCOUNT CONFIRMATION WITH THE FIRM CHANDRA AGRA FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED . THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED CONFIRMATION, BANK STATEMENT, AND INCOME - TAX RETURN COPIES. AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED AS LOAN AND A CHEQUE OF RS. 4 LAKHS W A S ENTERED T WICE IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITO R. THE REVERSAL ENTRY 63 WAS PASSED ON 01.04.2010 TO RECTIFY THIS MISTAKE. THE ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX AND HE PRODUCED COMPLETE ACCOUNTS. ALL THE ENTRIES ARE FULLY VERIFIABLE. THE LOAN ACCOUNT IS SQUARED UP. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED CONFIRMATION, BANK STATEMENT AND INCOME - TAX RETURNS (SEE PAGE 25 OF CIT(A)S ORDER). ACCORDINGLY , THIS ADDITION IS UNCALLED FOR DESERVES TO BE DELETED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND ALLOW GROUND NO. (3) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. 8.7 GROUND NO. 4, 5, 6 AND 7 ARE DISPOSED OFF IN THE SIMILAR WAY AS WE HAVE DONE IN OTHER APPEALS. 8.8 IN REVENUES APPEAL GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED ON SAME REASONING AS WE HAVE DONE IN OTHER CASES OF THIS GROUP. 8.9 GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 19 LAKHS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THE SAME AS DISCUSSED WITH GROUND NO. (3) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. WE HAVE ALREADY FOUND THAT THE ENTIRE CASH CREDITORS STAND DULY EXPLAINED. THEREFORE, GROUND NO. (2) OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED ENTIRE CASH CREDITORS WITH THE HELP OF EVIDENCE. 64 8.10 THE LAST GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REGARDING DELETION OF AN A DDITION OF RS. 8,945/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDER A SUM OF RS. 15 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY WHICH WAS DULY INCLUDED IN HIS RETURN (PAPER BOOK PAGE 144). THE SMALL AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY GET S EXPLAINED FROM JEWELLERY OBTAINED ON SEVERAL FUNCTION S GIVEN THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO N O T SUSTAIN THIS ADDITION OF RS. 8,945/ - AND DELETE THE SAME. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER , 2014. SD/ - SD/ - (N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACC OUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : SEPTEMBER , 2014 VL/ - COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT BY ORDER 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, JODHPUR