Sh. Balbir Singh, Distt. SBS Nagar V. Sh. The Income-tax Officer, SBS Nagar

ITA 40/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8897 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SHARDA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund; Additional evidence; Assessment record; Onus to prove
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [ I.T.A NO.40(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SH. BALBIR SINGH S/O S. MOTA SINGH VPO: KATT, DISTT. SBS NAGAR PAN:DIVPS8633H VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAR, (SBS NAGAR). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. RAKESH JOSHI (A DV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. R.K. SHARDA (DR .) DATE OF HEARING: 23.12. 2015 DATE OF PRONO UNCEMENT: 22.01.2016 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), DATED 12.01.2012 FOR ASST. YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY ASSESSEE ARE REPR ODUCED BELOW. (I) THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL S) JAL, HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFORMING TH E ADDITIONS OF RS.17,17,080/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. (II) THAT THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ) [CIT(A)], JAL. FURTHER ALSO ERRED IN LAW & FACTS OF THE CASE IN MA KING THE DOUBLE ADDITIONS OF THE SAME AMOUNT ONCE IN THE BANK ACCOU NT AND AGAIN IN THE INVESTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. (III) THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) JAL. FURTHER ALSO M ISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN NOT PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT PROPER OPPORTU NITY TO LEAD PROPER EVIDENCE. ITA NO.40 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 2 (IV) THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN LA W AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE FOR CREDIT OF G OLD SALE VOUCHER FOR RS.8,18,776/-. (V) THAT THE LD CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER ALSO ERRED I N FACT & LAW IN DISAGREEING WITH THE CASE FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT. (VI) THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS ARBITR ARY AND CONTRARY TO LAW & FACTS OF THE CASE, HENCE DESERVES TO BE CA NCELLED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS AS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139, HOWEVER, IN VIE W OF NOTICE U/S 147, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN IN COME OF RS.90,000/- FROM OTHER SOURCES + AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3,25 ,000/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE INV. (WING) OF THE DEPARTMENT HAD HAD THE INFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE HA D ACQUIRED CERTAIN PROPERTIES AND THE EXPLANATION REGARDING SOURCE FRO M PURCHASE OF SUCH PROPERTIES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ADIT/DDIT(IN V.), WAS NOT SATISFACTORY AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW C AUSED FOR EXPLAINING THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT OF PROPERTIES TO THE TUNE OF RS.30.57 LACS. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FOLLOWING REPLY. REGARDING THE EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.30.57,000/-. REGRETFULLY IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD N OT MADE INVESTMENT OF THE SAID AMOUNT DURING THE PERIOD UNDER ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LAND MEASURING 4 KANAL 8 MARLAS [ FOR RS. 4,67,500/- PLUS COST RS.23,375/-] AND LAND MEASURING 4 KNALS 8 MARLAS 7 SARSAI [ FOR RS.4,73,000/- PLUS COST RS.23,650/-] VIDE TWO PURCH ASE DEEDS 29.08.2005[COPIES OF BOTH THE PURCHASE DEEDS ARE AL READY ON RECORD]. REGARDING THE OTHER PURCHASE OF LAND SITUATED IN T HE AREA OF VILLAGE BEHARAM, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID LAND WAS PURCHASED BY ITA NO.40 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 3 THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 2007-08 AND NOT DURING THE PERIOD UNDER ASSESSMENT. A COPY OF THE SAME IS ATTACHED HEREWITH AND THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS ALSO PRODUCED HEREWITH FOR YOUR INSPECT ION. COPY OF FARD JAMABANDHI AS WELL AS COPY OF FARED HAQUIAT ARE ALS O ATTACHED HEREWITH IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THE TILL DATE THE ASSESSEE I S OWNER OF 6 KANAL 10 MARLAS 07 SARSAI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE RE PLY AND HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.25,12,475/- BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 2.2 ABOVE REPLIED AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY ASSES SEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HAVE BEEN EXAMINED. ASSESSEE PLE ADED THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06, HE HAD MADE TOTA L INVESTMENT OF RS.9,87,525/- FOR PURCHASE OF LAND VIDE TWO PURCHAS E DEEDS DATED 29.08.2005, BUT AS PER LETTER NO. ADIT(INV.)/JAL/20 11-12/1967 DATED 07.12.2011 OF ADIT(INV.), JALANDHAR (COPIES O F 4 PURCHASE DEEDS ARE PLACED ON RECORD), ASSESSEE MADE TOTAL IN VESTMENT OF RS.33,74,250/- DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. P ERUSAL OF COPIES OF REGISTRATION DEEDS, AS SUPPLIED BY THE ADIT(INV. ), JALANDHAR, REVEALS THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN THE PU RCHASE OF LAND VIDE 4 PURCHASE DEEDS DETAILED BELOW. NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1. PURCHASE DEED DATED 04.01.2006 FOR LAND MEASURING 6 KANALS 10 MARLAS 7 SARSAI AT VILLAGE BEHRAM 112,46,250/- + STAMP CHARGES OF RS.68,800/- 2. PURCHASE DEED DATED 29.08.2005 FOR LAND MEASURING 4 KANALS AT VILLAGE BEHRAM 4,67,500/- + STAMP CHARGES OF RS.23,375/- 3 PURCHASE DEED DATED 10.01.2006 FOR LAND MEASURING 10 KANALS 6 MARLAS AT VILLAGTE BEHRAM 12,87,500/- + STAMP CHARGES OF RS.64,400/- 4 PURCHASE DEED DATED 29.08.2005 FOR LAND MEASURING 4 KANALS 8 MARLAS 7 SARSAI AT VILLAGE BEHRAM 4,73,000/- + STAMP CHARGES OF RS.23,650/- TOTAL INVESTMENT 35,54,475/- 2.3. ASSESSEE STATED IN HIS REPLY DATED 15.12.2011 , THAT INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF ABOVE LAND WAS MADE OUT OF RS.9,92,000/ - WITHDRAWN FROM THE NAWANSHAHR CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., B.O. BEHRA M ON DIFFERENT DATES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND RS.2,60,000/- FROM THE ITA NO.40 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 4 NAWANSHAHR CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., B.O. BANGA WIT HDRAWN ON 12.06.2006. PERUSAL OF BANK STATEMENT OF A/C NO.273 9 AND 2925 HELD WITH THE NAWANSHAHR CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., B.O. BEHRAM AND B.O. BANGA RESPECTIVELY SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE WITHDRAWN AM OUNTS OF RS. 1,00,000/-, RS.L,50,000/- AND RS.2,60,000/- ON 06.0 9.2005, 25.01.2006 AND 12.06.2006 RESPECTIVELY, TOTALING TO RS.5,10,00 0/-, WHEREAS PURCHASE DEEDS WERE REGISTERED ON 29.08.2005, 04.01.2006 AND 10.01.2006. HENCE, THERE IS NO RELEVANCY OF DATES OF REGISTRATI ON DEEDS WITH DATES OF WITHDRAWALS FROM BANKS. THEREFORE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,42,000/- [RS.9,92,000+RS.2,60,000 - 5,10,000] IS TREATED AS INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF SAID LAND OUT OF WITHDRAWALS FROM BANKS . 2.4. ASSESSEE CLAIMED IN HIS ABOVE REPLY THAT HE S OLD GOLD FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,18,776/- ON 12.08.2005 TO M/S JEWELLER BHAL LA SONS, SUBASH NAGAR, BALMIKI CHOWK, PHAGWARA AND INVESTED THIS AM OUNT FOR PURCHASE OF SAID LAND. ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF RECEIPT IN THIS REGARD.OPY OF ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 WAS REQUISIT IONED U/S 133(6) FROM M/S JEWELLER BHALLA SONS, PHAGWARA. LETTER RECEIVE D BACK WITH THE REMARKS LEFT WITHOUT ADDRESS, RETURNED TO SENDER. INSPECTOR OF THIS OFFICE WAS ALSO DEPUTED TO VERIFY THE RECEIPT FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. INSPECTOR REPORTED THAT AT PRESENT THERE IS NO_SHOP_IN THE NA ME & STYLE OF M/S JEWELLERS BHALLA SONS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, RECE IPT PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UNVERIFIED AND CREDIT OF RS. 8,18,776/- CANNOT BE GIVEN AS ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE HIS CLAIM . 2.5. PERUSAL OF RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY ASSES SEE ON 17.10.2011 SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME OF RS.90,00 0/- PLUS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3,25,000/-. OUT OF THIS INCOME, ASSESS EE MAY HAVE UTILIZED CERTAIN AMOUNT TO MEET OUT HIS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES PRESUMED TO BE RS.L,15,000/-. BALANCE AMOU NT REMAINS WITH THE ASSESSEE IS RS.3,00,000/- (325000+90000-115000). CR EDIT OF RS.3,00,000/- IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTUR AL LAND DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. 2.6.. ACCORDINGLY, AN AMOUNT OF RS.25,12,475/- (35,54,475-7,42,000 - 3,00,000) IS TREATED AS INVESTMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE E FOR PURCHASE OF ABOVE AGRICULTURAL LAND DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2 005-06, OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME AND SAME IS ADDED BAC K TO INCOME OF ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE L EARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER RECORDING DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND AFTER OBTAINING REMAND REPORT FROM ASSESSING OFFICER, IN VIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY ASSESSEE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT ITA NO.40 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 5 FILED BY ASSESSEE RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.17, 17,080/- BY HOLDING AS UNDER. 5.9 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORTS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO VARIOUS WRITTEN SUBMISSION S AND PETITION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 FILED BY THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF T HE APPELLANT SUBMITTED FROM TIME TO TIME AS WELL AS COUNTER COMM ENTS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO REMAND REPORTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED U PON BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECO RD. 5.10 ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REMAND REPORTS, VARIOUS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, COUNTER COMMENTS, JUDI CIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT AND OT HER MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT H AS TAKEN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT STANDS TO JUSTIFY THE SOURCE OF INVESTMEN T AT DIFFERENT STAGES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ST AND OF THE APPELLANT WAS THAT THE PART OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND WAS MADE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN DEPO SITED INTO VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS AND PART OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF GOLD . WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN VARI OUS BANK ACCOUNTS, HE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS IN BANK FROM THE SOUR CES OF HIS WIFE AS WELL AS WITH THE HELP OF FRIENDLY LOAN WHICH WAS NEVER DISC LOSED EARLIER. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE APPELLANT H AS ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF TWO RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,51,00 0/- REPRESENTING SALE PROCEEDS OF THREE CATTLE TO EXPLAIN PART OF THE INV ESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND WHICH HE HAS NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO TAKEN THE STAND THAT AN INVESTMENT OF RS.21,06,500/- (RS.8,19,000/- + RS. 12,87,500/-) HAS BEEN MADE DURING THE F.Y. 2007-08 AND NO ADDITI ON CAN BE MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE APPELLANT HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT ALL T HE PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF LAND HAVE BEEN MADE ON OR BEFORE 12.06 .2006. IN MY OPINION, THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN DIFFERENT STANDS A T DIFFERENT STAGES WHICH SUIT HIS CAUSE. 5.11. IN THESE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND CONTRADICTORY STANDS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT, THE SO URCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND UNDER CONSIDERATIO N NEEDS THOROUGH INVESTIGATION. AS THE APPELLANT IS EXPLAINING THE S OURCE OF INVESTMENT WITH THE HELP OF CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE BANK ACC OUNTS, THE SOURCES OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANKS ALSO NEEDS THOROUGH INVESTIGA TION AS HUGE CASH DEPOSITS HAVE ALSO BEEN NOTICED DURING THE PERIOD U NDER CONSIDERATION INTO THESE BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN INVESTIGATE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO.40 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 6 5.12. AS STATED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED COPY OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 16.12.2005 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN SHRI TALWINDER SINGH (SELLER) AND SHRI BALBIR SINGH (PURCHASER) IN RESPECT OF LAN D MEASURING 16 KANAL 16 MARLA 7 SARSAI AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE SALE DEEDS IN RESPECT OF WHICH HAVE BEEN GOT EXECUTED BY THE APPELLANT ON 19 .07.2007. THE COPIES OF THE SALE DEEDS IN RESPECT OF THIS LAND HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED. THE SALE DEEDS ARE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND ARE NO T BEING CONSIDERED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. DOCUMENTS INDICATING CATTLE S ALE ARE ALSO ANAL EVIDENCE WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED AT ASSESSMENT STAGE. SIMILARLY RECEIPT INDICATING SALE OF GOLD IS NOT ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE AS IT IS ALSO PART OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. 5.13. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBJEC TED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF AGREEMENT TO SELL BUT IN MY OPINION IT SHOULD BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS IN THIS AGREEMENT VARIOUS CRUCIAL DATES HAVE BEEN MENTIONED ON WHICH THE APPE LLANT HAS MADE CASH PAYMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND FROM TALWINDER SINGH. FOR EXAMPLE, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PAID RS.10,00,000/- IN CASH TO THE SELLER AS BI ANA (SECURITY ON 16.12.2005 AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT. APART FROM THE OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS, IT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED IN THIS AGREEMENT THAT THE SELLER OF THE LAND HAS TAKEN ALL THE SALE PROCE EDS FROM THE APPELLANT ON OR BEFORE 12.06.2006. ON THIS DATE I.E. ON 12.06.20 06, THE SELLER HAS ALSO RECEIVED RS.25,000/- IN RESPECT OF SALE OF TUBE WEL L IN ADDITION TO REMAINING FULL AND FINAL PAYMENT. IN MY OPINION, TH IS DOCUMENT EVEN FALSIFIES THE STAND OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PAYME NTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND MEASURING 16 KANAL 16 MARLA 7 SARSAI HAVE BEEN MADE DURING F.Y. 2007-08 WHEN THE SALE DEEDS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND MENTIONED THEREIN WERE GOT EXECUTED. AS THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 1 6.12.2005 INDICATES THE CRUCIAL DATES OF CASH PAYMENTS, IT WILL ALSO HE LP IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT. MOREOVER, IN MY OPIN ION, THE APPELLANT IS NOT CONVERSANT WITH INCOME TAX MATTERS AND MAY NOT BE A WARE THAT THIS WAS TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SIMILA RLY, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT MAY HAVE SOLD CATTLES DURING THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE AND FORGOTTEN TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER. IN THESE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AS THE EVIDENCES ARE VERY CRUCIAL IN DISPO SING OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT ARE, THEREFORE, ADMITTED AND WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR THE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL. 5.14. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS CHANGE D STAND AT EVERY STAGE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PU RCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LANDS UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS A SKED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS AS HE I S TAKING BENEFIT OF THE WITHDRAWALS, HE CAME WITH A NEW PLEA THAT PART OF T HE DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE SOURCES OF HIS WIFE AND PART OF THE DEPOSITS/PAYMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN MADE OUT OF FRIENDLY LOAN OF RS.3,50 ,000/-. HE HAS ALSO SHOWN CASH IN HAND AT RS.2,50,000/- AS ON 01.04.200 5 TO EXPLAIN THE ITA NO.40 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 7 DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AND TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND. NOT ONLY THIS, HE HAS ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT SALE PROCEEDS OF CATTLES AND FODDER TO EXPLAIN THE BANK DEPOSITS AND SOURCES OF INVESTMENT IN LAND. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTICED THAT A LTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE AGRICULTURE INCOME TO EX PLAIN DEPOSITS IN BANK AND SOURCES OF INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND B UT HE HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE AGRICULTURE EXPENSES AND HOUSE HOL D EXPENSES INTO ACCOUNT. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS HAS BEEN DO NE JUST TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND. 5.15 IN MY OPINION, IT WILL BE FARE AND REASCNABLE IF THE APPELLANTS PLEA REGARDING CASH IN HAND AS ON 01.04.2005 BE ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN RS.1,00,000/- ON 21.03. 2005 FROM BANK A/C NO. 10350382814 WITH SBI AND HE MAY HAVE ANOTHER RS . 1,50,000/- AS CASH IN HAND AS HE USED TO MAKE WITHDRAWALS OF SUBS TANTIAL AMOUNTS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS FROM TIME TO TIME. AS THE WH OLE BENEFIT OF CASH IN HAND AS ON 01.04.2005 IS BEING ALLOWED, IT WILL ALS O INCLUDE THE CASH IN HAND IF ANY WITH THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT. THE PLE A OF THE APPELLANT THAT PART OF THE DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCCOUNT HAVE BEEN MAD E BY HIS WIFE IS, THEREFORE, OUT-RIGHTLY REJECTED AS THIS IS CLEARLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF DEPOSIT. MOREOVER, THIS PLEA HAS ONL Y BEEN TAKEN WHILE PREPARING CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND IS CLEARLY AN AFT ERTHOUGHT AS IT HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR EARLIER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE THEORY OF FRIENDLY LOAN IS ALSO OU T-RIGHTLY REJECTED AS THIS PLEA AGAIN HAS BEEN TAKEN AT THE TIME OF PREPARING CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. MOREOVER, NO DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN RESPECT OF FRIENDLY LOAN OF RS.3,5 0,000/- EITHER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SURPRISINGLY, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. SO, THEORY OF F RIENDLY LOAN OF RS.3,50,000/- IS OUT-RIGHTLY REJECTED. HOWEVER, THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING SALE OF FODDER AND CATTLE IS BEING ACCEPT ED. 5.16. THE GENUINENESS OF SALE OF GOLD COULD NOT BE PROVED BY THE APPELLANT AS HE COULD NOT ADDUCE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE REGARDING THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE SALE BILL EXCEP T PRODUCING THE COPY OF SALE BILL. ONUS CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DISCHAR GED JUST BY PRODUCING COPY OF SALE BILL. GENUINENESS OF THE GOLD SALE BIL L IS ALSO IN DOUBT AS NO VAT NO. OR SALE TAX NO. IS MENTIONED ON THE BILL. T HE ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE ABOUT THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE J EWELLER ALSO COULD NOT LEAD ANY RESULT. IN MY OPINION, ONUS HEAVILY LIES O N THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SALE BILL MOST PARTICULARLY WHEN THE SALE PROCEEDS ARE STATED TO BE RECEIVED IN CASH. IN MY OPINION, T HE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SALE BILL. MOREOVER, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF ACQUISITION OF GOLD BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THESE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE BENEFIT TO THE EXTENT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF GOLD CANNOT BE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.40 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 8 5.17. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE STATED FACTS, THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS ARE WORKED OUT IN THE SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS. THE TOTAL INVESTMENT STATED TO BE MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND IS AS U NDER:- A. COST OF AGRICULTURE LAND MEASURING 4 K 8 M RS.4,67 ,500/- PURCHASED ON 29.08.2005 STAMP PAPERS CHARGES RS.23,375/- OTHER CHARGES RS.4,675/- TOTAL RS.4,95,550/- B. COST OF AGRICULTURE LAND MEASURING 4 K 8 M 7 S RS.4,73,000/- PURCHASED ON 29.08.2005 STAMP PAPERS CHARGES RS.23,650/- OTHER CHARGES RS.4,730/- TOTAL RS.5,01,380/- C. COST OF AGRICULTURE LAND MEASURING 6 K 10 M 7 S RS.8,19,000/- PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF WHICH WAS MADE TILL 12.06.2005 (ALTHOUGH REGISTERED ON 19.10. 07) STAMP PAPERS CHARGES RS.49,150/- TOTAL RS.8,68,150/- D. COST OF AGRICULTURE LAND MEASURING 10 IC 6 M RS .12,87,500/- PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF WHICH WAS MADE TILL 12.06.2005 (ALTHOUGH REGISTERED ON 19.10. 07) STAMP PAPERS CHARGES RS.13,51,900/- TOTAL E EXTRA PAYMENT FOR TUBE WELL MADE ON 12.06.2006 RS .25,000/- GRAND TOTAL A+B+C+D+E RS. 32,41,980/- 5. 18 IN MY OPINION NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER N OR THE APPELLANT COULD WORK OUT THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE AGRICULTURE LAND WHICH HAS BEEN STA TED TO BE PURCHASED BY FOUR SALE DEEDS OUT OF WHICH TWO WERE ADMITTEDLY GO T EXECUTED IN THE F.Y. 2005-06 AND THE OTHER TWO IN F.Y. 2007-08. IT HAS B EEN NOTICED RATHER ADMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND AS MENTIONED ABOVE ALONG WITH PAYMENT OF RS.2 5,000/- FOR TUBE WELL AND COST OF STAMP PAPERS HAS BEEN MADE DURING F.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 (UP TO 12.06.2006) WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE NOTIN G ON AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT AS ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN BENEFIT OF RS.7,42,000/- ONLY OUT OF BANK WITHDRAWA LS AND RS.3,00,000/- OUT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME BUT HE FAILED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAME BANKS AS BENEFIT OF WITHDRAWAL S CAN ONLY BE GIVEN IF DEPOSITS ARE FROM EXPLAINED SOURCES. IN MY OPINION, THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED AS THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ENQUIRED ABOUT THE SOURCES OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE ITA NO.40 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 9 DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY IN THIS REGARD. 5.19 TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN VARI OUS BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE AND ALSO S OURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND, THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT CASH FLOW CHART SHOWING EACH DEPOSIT AND WIT HDRAWAL. THE APPELLANT HAS PREPARED AND DULY SUBMITTED THE CASH FLOW CHART. HOWEVER, THE CASH FLOW CHART HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE CORREC T AS THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FRIENDLY LOAN OF RS.3,50,00 0/- IN RESPECT WHICH NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED. MOREOVER, FRIENDLY LOAN HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE FIRST TIME WHILE PREPARING THE CASH FLOW CHART AND NOWHERE IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN ANY PLEA THAT HE HAS ALSO RAISED CERTAIN FRIENDLY LOAN. SOME DEPOSITS HA VE ALSO BEEN EXPLAINED FROM THE SOURCES OF THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT WHICH PLEA HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED, CHART PREPARED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT CO RRECT AND HENCE REJECTED. 5. 20 KEEPING IN VIEW THE DISCUSSION MADE IN THE PR ECEDING PARAGRAPHS, THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRIC ULTURE LAND DURING THE F.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 OUT OF TOTAL INVESTMENT OF R S.32,41,980/- AND UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS MAINT AINED BY THE APPELLANT IS WORKED OUT WITH THE HELP OF CASH FLOW CHART PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS AND DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD AS UNDER:- CASH FLOW CHART DATE PARTICULARS DEPOSIT/ EXPENDITUR E (IN RS.) WITHDRAWAL /INCOME (IN RS.) BALANCE ] (IN RS.) REMARK 01.04.2005 CASH IN HAND - - 2,50,000 08.04.2005 BANK A/C NO.6434 - 50,000 3.00,000 30.04.2005 AGRICULTURE INCOME - 1,62,500 4,62,500 50% OF DECLARED NET 01.05.2005 PURCHASE OF CATTLE 60,000 - 4,02,500 05.05.2005 BANK A/C NO.2925 80,000 - 3,22,500 12.05.2005 -DO- - 10,000 3,32,500 18,06.2005 -DO- - 2,00,000 5,32,000 18.06.2005 ADVANCE PAYMENT FOR LALAND LAND PURCHASE 2,00,000 - 3,32,500 20.06.2005 SALE OF CATTLE - 80,000 4,12,500 25.06.2005 BANK A/C - 50,000 4,62,500 06.07.2005 ADVANCE PAYMENT FOR LAND PURCHASE 1,00,000 - 3,62,500 06.07.2005 BANK A/C NO.6434 - 1,00,000 4,62,500 11.07.2005 BANK A/C NO.2925 1,90,000 - 2,72,500 08.08.2005 BANK A/C NO.6434 1,00,000 - 1,72,500 08.08.2005 BANK A/C NO.2925 1,50,000 - 22,500 09.08.2005 TO 29.08.05 - - - 22,500 NO DEPOSIT OR WITHDRAWAL 29.08.05 BALANCE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND ON 29.08.05 6,96,680 [9,96,680 (-) 3,00,000 ] (-) 6,74,180 PAYMENT FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES 30.08.2005 BANK A/C NO.2925 - 2,20,000 2,20,000 ITA NO.40 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 10 06.09.2005 -DO- - 1,00,000 3,20,000 13.09.2005 -DO- 1,50,000 - 1,70,000 29.09.2005 -DO- - 20,000 1,90,000 26.10.2005 -DO- - 1,00,000 2,90,000 27.10.2005 -DO- 90,000 - 2,00,000 27.10.2005 AGRI CULTURAL INCOME - 1,62,500 3,62,500 50% OF INCOME 28.10.2005 BANK A/C NO.2925 75,000 - 2,87,500 10.11.2005 BANK A/C NO.2925 59,900 - 2,27,600 17.11.200. 5 BANK A/C NO.2925 - 1,00,000 3,27,600 15.12.2005 BANK A/C NO.2925 - 2,22,000 5,49,600 16.12,2005 BANK A/C NO.2925 1,00,000 - 4,49,600 | 16.10.2005 ADVANCE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND 10,00,000 (-) 5,50,400 AMOUNT PAID FROM UNEXPLAINE 20.12.2005 CATTLE SALE PROCEEDS 1,03,000 1,03,000 30.12.2005 -DO- - 48,000 1,51,000 03.01.2006 BANK A/C NO.2925 90,000 - 61,000 03.01.2006 BANK A/C NO.2739 93,500 - (-) 32,500 DEPOSIT 04.01J200 6 PURCHASE OF STAMP PAPERS 49,150 - (-)49,150 -DO- 10.01.2006 -DO- 64,400 - (-)64,400 -DO- 12.01.2006 BANK A/C NO.6434 - 1,40,000 1,40,000 12.012006 ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND 1,40,000 - 0 13.012006 BANK A/C NO.2925 2,50,000 - (-) 2,50,000 DEPOSIT FROM 13.01.2006 FODDER SALE - 20,000 20,000 14.01.2006 BANK A/C NO.2925 - 50,000 20,000 25.01.2006 -DO- - 1,50,000 2,20,000 25.01.2006 ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND 1,50,000 - 70,000 08.02.2006 BANK A/C NO.2925 25,000 - 45,000 14.02.2006 -DO- - 1,00,000 1,45,000 14.02.2006 ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND 1,00,000 - 45,000 22.02.2006 BANK A/C NO.2739 90,000 - (-) 45,000 DEPOSIT FROM 02.03.2006 BANK A/C NO.2925 - 35,000 35,000 18.03.2006 BANK A/C NO.2925 2,00,000 - (-) 1,65,000 DEPOSIT FROM 24.03.2006 BANK A/C NO.6434 - 10,000 10,000 F.Y.2006-07 01.04.2006 CASH IN HAND - - 10,000 04.04.2006 BANK A/C NO.2925 - 50,000 60,000 15.04.2006 AGRICULTURE INCOME - 1,62,500 2,22,500 50% OF ESTIMATED NET 15.04.2006 BANK A/C NO.2925 - 1,00,000 3,22,500 15.04.2006 ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND 1,00,000 - 2,22,500 30.04.2006 BANK A/C NO.2739 80,000 - 1,42,500 12.06.2006 BANK A/C NO.2739 - 2,60,000 4,02,500 ITA NO.40 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 11 12.06.2006 BALANCE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND INCLUDING COST OF TUBE WELL 7,55,050 [22,45,05 0 (-) 10,00,000 (-)3,52,550 PAYMENT MADE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES 5.21 IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MAD E PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND IN TWO YEARS AS PER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY TH E APPELLANT AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRIC ULTURE LAND INCLUDING ADVANCE PAYMENT AS STATED BY THE APPELLANT AND UNEX PLAINED DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT DURING F.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 WILL THU S BE AS UNDER:- F.Y. 2005-06 UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS RS. (32,500/- + 2,50,000/- + 45,000/- + 1,65,000/-) . = RS.4,92,500/- UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT RS. (6,74,180/- + 5,50,400/- +49,150/- + 64,400 ) = RS. 12,24,580/- THUS TOTAL UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE (UNDI SCLOSED INVESTMENT AND UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK) DURING T HE F.Y. 2005-06 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2006-07 IS WORKED OUT AT RS. 17,17 ,080/-. F.Y.2006-07 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT RS.3,52,550/- THE TOTAL UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE (UNDIS CLOSED INVESTMENT) DURING THE %.Y. 2006-07 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2007-08 IS WORKED OUT AT RS.3,52,550/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY TAKE NECES SARY ACTION IN THIS YEAR IF HE DEEMS FIT. 5.22. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 17,17,080/- WHIC H REPRESENTS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS. 12,24,580/- IN THE PU RCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND AND UNDISCLOSED CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.4,92,500/- IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 17,17,080/- IS, THEREFORE, CONFIR MED. THE APPELLANT WILL THUS GET RELIEF OF RS.7,95,395/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDIT ION OF RS.25,12,475/-. WHILE RECORDED HIS FINDINGS THE LEARNED CIT(A) THOU GH ALLOWED PARTIAL RELIEF TO ASSESSEE BUT HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION IN ASST. YEAR 2006-07ALSO. ITA NO.40 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 12 6. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MADE DOUBLE ADDITIONS OF THE SAME AMOUNT ONCE AS DE POSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT AND AGAIN AS INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAN D OUT OF SAME BANK ACCOUNT AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVIT ED TO THE CONCLUDING PART OF FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN NOT ACCEPTING THE GOLD SALE VOUCHER FOR RS.8,18,776/-WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD TO RAI SE THE FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HIS PART OF ONUS BY FILING A DULY STAMPE D AND NUMBERED VOUCHERS FOR SALE OF GOLD AND LEARNED CIT(A) HAD RE JECTED THE SAME DOUBTING THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH VOUCHER. THE LEAR NED AR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER SECTION 32(2) OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE AC T 1872, THE SAID GOLD VOUCHER WHICH WAS DULY SIGNED BY BOTH THE SELLER AS WELL AS PURCHASER AND THEREFORE, THE VOUCHER WAS EXECUTED BY JEWELER IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THEREFORE WAS AN ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AS A GENUINE DOCUMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMENT OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT LETTER SENT TO THE JEWELER WHICH RETURNED BAC K WITH REMARKS OF POSTAL AUTHORITY THAT LEFT WITHOUT ADDRESS , ALSO PROVES THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID JEWELER WAS THERE DURING THA T PERIOD. HE SUBMITTED THAT AFTER A GAPE OF SIX YEARS THE SAID J EWELER MIGHT GOT SHIFTED TO OTHER PLACE. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO ENQUIRY BY THE DEPARTMENT ITA NO.40 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 13 WAS MADE REGARDING THE PERIOD IN EACH THE GOLD WAS SOLD AND EVEN THE ENQUIRY REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF JEWELER WAS ALSO PR IOR TO THE PERIOD UNDER ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE, SUCH ENQUIRIES WERE NOT RELEVANT. INVITING OUT ATTENTION TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UDHAVDAS KEWALRAM VS. CIT 140 ITR 392 140 ITR 392. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THIS CASE HAS HELD THAT SALE VOUCHER OF GOLD ORNAMENTS IS COGENT EVIDE NCE. 6. FURTHER ARGUING GROUND NO.3 THE LEARNED AR SUBMI TTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD DISPROVED THE CASH FLOW STATEMEN T FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF BANK DEPOSIT AND SINCE THE ISSUE REGARDING SOURCE OF DEPOSITS WERE RAISED FOR THE FI RST TIME IN APPEAL BY LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED WITH AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO LEAD EVIDENCE WITH RE GARD TO THE SAID DEPOSITS. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED B Y LEARNED CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING HIM OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN V IEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED. 6. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW AND INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE DETAILED FIN DINGS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). ITA NO.40 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 14 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN THIS CASE HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.25,12,475/- WHICH THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED TO RS.17,17,080/-. THE BREAKUP OF THE AD DITIONS CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IS RS.4,92,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOS ITS IN BANK AND RS.12,24,580 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT I N PROPERTIES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE EXAMINING THE ISSUE OF INVESTM ENT IN PROPERTY ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN DEPOSITS IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS NOT EXAMINED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE, HE SUO MOTU EXAMINED THE SAME AND MADE ADDITION THEREOF BESIDES CONFIRMI NG PART ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. THE GRIEVANCE O F THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF BAN K DEPOSITS ONLY AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLO SED DEPOSITS AS WELL AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AMOUNTED TO DOUBLE ADDITI ON WHICH WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THE OTHER GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING THE REJECTION OF THE VOUCHER FOR SALE OF GOLD WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE USED FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. WE FURTHER FIND THAT ON FURTHER ENQUIRY MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE IT SYSTE M HAD REVEALED THAT SH. ASHOK BHALLA, S/O SH. RAM LUBHAYA WAS HOLDING P AN-ABLPB1386Q IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND HIS OFFICE ADDRESS W AS JEWELERS BHALLA SONS, HOUSE NO. 622, PHAZE-I, MOHALI. IT WAS FURTHE R OBSERVED FROM ENQUIRY FROM ITO, WARD NO.5(4), CHANDIGARDH THAT TH E INCOME FOR ASST. YEAR 2005-06 WAS FILED BY ASHOK BHALLA AT RS.91,470 AND NO RETURN FOR ITA NO.40 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 15 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 AND ONWARDS WAS AVAILABLE ON SYS TEM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REJECTED THE PURCHASE BILL OF JEWELER, BHALLA SONS, PHAGWARA ON THE BASIS OF THAT NO VAT/SALES TAX NO. WAS NOT P RINTED ON THE BILL AND FURTHER HE HELD THAT M/S JEWELER BHOLA SONS HAD FUR NISHED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASST.YEAR 2005-06 ONLY. FROM THE ARGUMEN TS OF LEARNED AR, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES FURT HER VERIFICATIONS REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF BILL PRODUCED BY ASSES SEE FOR SALE OF GOLD AND FURTHER IT IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER ANY DOUBLE ADDITIONS HAS BEEN MADE BY LEARNED CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOS ITS IN BANK AND INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND. AS IN OUR OPINION T HE ADDITION CAN BE MADE ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF ONE REASON THAT IF THE ADDI TIONS ARE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED DEPOSITS THEN AGAIN IF ASSES SEE HAD UTILIZED THESE UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS FOR PURCHASE OF LAND THEN AGAI N THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE REMIT BACK THE CAS E TO THE OFFICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THESE FACTS. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE WILL BE PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JANUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DATED: 22.01.2016. /PK/ PS. ITA NO.40 (ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 16 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.