Late Premandanda Panda, Berhampur V. ITO, Ward-1, Berhampur

ITA 428/CTK/2000

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8276 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P R MOHANTY
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Additional evidence
• Section: 142(1); 250; 143(2); 13

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM . / ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 1992 - 1993 TO 1995 - 1996 ) PREMANANDA PANDA(DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR, SMT. BIRAJINI PANDA, HILLPATNA, BERHAMPUR VS. ITO, WARD - 1, BERHAMPUR ./ PANNO. : A IXPP 7164 R ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.R.MOHANTY , A DVOCATE /REVENUE BY : SHRI SUBHENDU DUTTA , DR / DATE OF HEARING : 04 / 12 /20 19 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 / 01 /20 20 / O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) - I, BHUBANESWAR, ALL DATED 28.09.2000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1992 - 1993 TO 1995 - 1996. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FOR A.Y.1992 - 1993 READ AS UNDER : - 1 . FOR THAT, THE ORDER OF THE FORUM BELOW IS A RBITRARY, ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED AND ERRONEOUS AND HAS BEEN PASSED ON IMPROPER APPLICATION OF MIND, BEING DEVOID OF MERIT AS SUCH DESERVES TO BE QUASHED IN LIMINE. 2. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 39,600/ - ADDED TOWARDS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY DESERVE S TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AS THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME BELONGS TO PREMANANDA PANDA(HUF), SMT BIRAJINI PANDA, MANORA NJAN PANDA, CHITTARANJAN PANDA & ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 2 BRAJARANJAN PANDA, ALL ARE INDEPENDENT ASSESSES ON THEIR OWN ACCORD HAVING OWN SOURCE OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ETC., ACQUIRED IN THE YEAR 1986 AND WHEN THE INCOME FROM THE SAME PROPERTY IS OFFERED TO TAX BY ALL OF THEM SINCE THEN TILL TODAY DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ADDITION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. 3. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,88,990/ - ADDED TOWARDS INTEREST INC OME DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AS THE INTEREST INCOME BELONGS TO PREMANANDA PANDA(HUF), SMT BIRAJINI PANDA, M ANORANJAN PANDA, CHITTARANJAN PANDA & BRAJARANJAN PANDA, ALL ARE INDEPENDENT ASSESSES ON THEIR OWN ACCORD HAVING OWN SOURCE OF INCOME AND WHEN THE INCOME FROM THE INTEREST INCOME IS OFFERED TO TAX BY ALL OF THEM SINCE THEN TILL TODAY DULY ACCEPTED BY THE D EPARTMENT AND ADDITION OF THE INTEREST INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. 4. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,21,870/ - ADDED TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD AND SILVER DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT THE FORUM BELOW ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN IGNORING AND REJECTING THE EXPLANATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE IN REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GOLD AND SILVER ORNAMENTS/ ARTICLES NOT EVEN ALLOWING THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT PERMITTED BY CBDT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 WHICH IS HIGHLY, UNJUSTIFIED, UNCALLED FOR AND BAD IN LAW IGNORING HIGH STATUS OF THE FAMILY AND HAVING MORE CUSTOMARY PRACTICES. 5. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,84,550/ - ADDED TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PRO PERTY DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AS THE HOUSE PROPERTY BELONGS TO SMT BIRAJINI PANDA WHO HAPPENS BE AN INDEPE NDENT ASSESSEE ON HER OWN ACCORD HAVING OWN SOURCE OF INCOME AND WHEN THE INCOME FROM THE SAID HOUSE PROPERTY IS OFFERED TO TAX BY HER SINCE 1991 TILL 2000 DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ADDITION OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS HIGHLY, UNJUSTIFIED, UNCALLED FOR AND BAD IN LAW. 6. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,30,000/ - ADDED TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF CAR DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONL Y IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AS THE VERY PURCHASE OF CAR WAS QUESTIONED BY THE DEPARTMENT VIDE LETTER NO - 2836 DATED 11/X/91 DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 85,000/ - , RS. 79,383/ - & RS. 1,10,473/ - ADDED TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT/ DEPOSIT/ CASH BALANCE ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 3 RESPECTIVELY AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,74,856/ - DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS IS HIGHLY, UNJUSTIFIED, UNCALLED FOR AND BAD IN LAW. 8. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,51,237/ - , RS. 6,65,800/ - , RS. 2,38,000/ - & RS. 2,74,520/ - ADDED TOWARDS U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS/DEPOSIT/CLOSING CASH BALANCE RESPECTIVELY AMOUNTING TO RS. 21,29,557/ - DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS IS HIGHLY, UNJUSTIFIED, UNCALLED FOR AND BAD IN LAW AS THE DEPOSITS BELONGS TO PREMANANDA PANDA(HUF), SMT BIRAJINI PANDA, MANORANJAN PANDA & BRAJARANJAN PANDA, ALL ARE INDEPENDENT ASSESSES ON THEIR OWN ACCORD HAVING OWN SOURCE OF INCOME AND WHE N THE INCOME FROM THE DEPOSITS IS OFFERED TO TAX BY ALL OF THEM SINCE THEN TILL TODAY DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 9. FOR THAT, NON ACCEPTANCE OF THE SO CALLED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE CIT(A) THAT GOES TO THE ROOTS OF THE MATTER FILED BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) EVEN AFTER SENDING THE SAME FOR REMAND REPORT IS OUT AND OUT ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED & UNSUSTAINABLE BEING DEVOID OF MERIT DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED AND CONSIDERED IN VIEW OF NATURAL JUSTICE & FAIR PLAY. 10. FOR THAT, THE APPELLANT C RAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER/AMEND FURTHER GROUNDS, IF ANY, AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.1993 - 1994 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. FOR THAT, THE ORDER OF THE FORUM BELOW IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED AND ERRONEOUS A ND HAS BEEN PASSED ON IMPROPER APPLICATION OF MIND, BEING DEVOID OF MERIT AS SUCH DESERVES TO BE QUASHED IN LIMINE. 2. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,400/ - ADDED TOWARDS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AS THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME BELONGS TO PREMANANDA PANDA(HUF), SMT BIRAJINI PANDA, MANORANJAN PANDA, CHITTARANJAN PANDA & BRAJARANJAN PANDA, ALL ARE INDEPENDENT ASSESSES ON THEIR OWN ACCORD HAVING OWN SOURCE OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ETC., ACQUIRED IN THE YEAR 1986 AND WHEN THE INCOME FROM THE SAME PROPERTY IS OFFERED TO TAX BY ALL OF THEM SINCE THEN TILL TODAY DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ADDITION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 4 3. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,86,982/ - ADDED TOWARDS INTEREST INCOME DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND T HAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AS THE INTEREST INCOME BELONGS TO PREMANANDA PANDA(HUF), PREMANANDA PANDA, SMT BIRAJINI PANDA, MANORANJAN PANDA, CHITTAR ANJAN PANDA & BRAJARANJAN PANDA, ALL ARE INDEPENDENT ASSESSES ON THEIR OWN ACCORD HAVING OWN SOURCE OF INCOME AND WHEN THE INCOME FROM THE INTEREST INCOME IS OFFERED TO TAX BY ALL OF THEM SINCE THEN TILL TODAY DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ADDITION O F THE INTEREST INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. 4. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,26,007/ - , RS. 2,90,814/ - , RS. 7,95,915/ - , RS. 1,47,640/ - RS. 3,47,882 & RS. 3,18,783/ - ADDED TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS/DEPOSIT/CLOSING CASH BALANCE RESPECTIVELY AMOUNTING TO RS. 20,27,041/ - DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTOR Y PROVISIONS IS HIGHLY, UNJUSTIFIED, UNCALLED FOR AND BAD IN LAW AS THE DEPOSITS BELONGS TO PREMANANDA PANDA, PREMANANDA PANDA(HUF), SMT BIRAJINI PANDA, MANORANJAN PANDA, CHITTARANJAN PANDA & BRAJARANJAN PANDA, ALL ARE INDEPENDENT ASSESSES ON THEIR OWN ACC ORD HAVING OWN SOURCE OF INCOME AND WHEN THE INCOME FROM THE DEPOSITS IS OFFERED TO TAX BY ALL OF THEM SINCE THEN TILL TODAY DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 5. FOR THAT, NON ACCEPTANCE OF THE SO CALLED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE CIT(A) THAT GOES TO THE ROOTS OF THE MATTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) EVEN AFTER SENDING THE SAME FOR REMAND REPORT IS OUT AND OUT ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED & UNSUSTAINABLE BEING DEVOID OF MERIT DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED AND CONSIDERED IN VIEW OF NATURAL JUSTICE & FAI R PLAY. 6. FOR THAT, THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER/AMEND FURTHER GROUNDS, IF ANY, AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 4. THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.1994 - 1995 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. FOR THAT, THE ORDER OF THE FORUM BELOW IS ARBI TRARY, ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED AND ERRONEOUS AND HAS BEEN PASSED ON IMPROPER APPLICATION OF MIND, BEING DEVOID OF MERIT AS SUCH DESERVES TO BE QUASHED IN LIMINE. 2. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 45,600/ - ADDED TOWARDS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY DESERV ES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AS THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME BELONGS TO PREMANANDA PANDA(HUF), ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 5 SMT BIRAJINI PANDA, MANOR ANJAN PANDA, CHITTARANJAN PANDA & BRAJARANJAN PANDA, ALL ARE INDEPENDENT ASSESSES ON THEIR OWN ACCORD HAVING OWN SOURCE OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ETC., ACQUIRED IN THE YEAR 1986 AND WHEN THE INCOME FROM THE SAME PROPERTY IS OFFERED TO TAX BY ALL OF THE M SINCE THEN TILL TODAY DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ADDITION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. 3. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,20,466/ - ADDED TOWARDS INTEREST INCOME DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AS THE INTEREST INCOME BELONGS TO PREMANANDA PANDA(HUF), PREMANANDA PANDA, SMT BIRAJINI PANDA, MANORANJAN PANDA, CHITTARANJAN PANDA & BRAJARANJAN PANDA, ALL ARE INDEPENDENT ASSESSES ON THEIR OWN ACCORD HAVING OWN SOURCE OF INCOME AND WHEN THE INCOME FROM THE INTEREST INCOME IS OFFERED TO TAX BY ALL OF THEM SINCE THEN TILL TODAY DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ADDITION OF THE INTEREST INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. 4. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,16,108/ - , RS. 2,29,901/ - , RS. 28,360/ - , RS. 2,53,138/ - & RS. 1,82,561/ - ADDED TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS/DEPOSIT/CLOSING CASH BALANCE RESPECTIVELY AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,40,064/ - DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS IS HIGHLY, UNJUSTIFIED, UNCALLED FOR AND BAD IN LAW AS THE DEPOSITS BELONGS TO PREMANANDA PANDA, PREMANANDA PANDA(HUF), SMT BIRAJINI PANDA, MANORANJAN PANDA, CHITTARANJAN PANDA & BRAJARANJAN PANDA, ALL ARE INDEP ENDENT ASSESSES ON THEIR OWN ACCORD HAVING OWN SOURCE OF INCOME AND WHEN THE INCOME FROM THE DEPOSITS IS OFFERED TO TAX BY ALL OF THEM SINCE THEN TILL TODAY DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 5. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 94,529/ - , ADDED TOWARDS U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS IS HIGHLY, UNJUSTIFIED, UNCALLED FOR AND BAD IN LAW. 6. FOR THAT, NON ACCEPTANCE OF THE SO CALLED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE CIT(A) THAT GOES TO THE ROOTS OF THE MATTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) EVEN AFTER SENDING THE SAME FOR REMAND REPORT IS OUT AND OUT ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED & UNSUSTAINABLE B EING DEVOID OF MERIT DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED AND CONSIDERED IN VIEW OF NATURAL JUSTICE & FAIR PLAY. 7. FOR THAT, THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER/AMEND FURTHER GROUNDS, IF ANY, AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 6 5. THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.1995 - 1 996 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. FOR THAT, THE ORDER OF THE FORUM BELOW IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED AND ERRONEOUS AND HAS BEEN PASSED ON IMPROPER APPLICATION OF MIND, BEING DEVOID OF MERIT AS SUCH DESERVES TO BE QUASHED IN LIMINE. 2. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 57,600/ - ADDED TOWARDS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISI ONS AS THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME BELONGS TO PREMANANDA PANDA(HUF), SMT BIRAJINI PANDA, MANORANJAN PANDA, CHITTARANJAN PANDA & BRAJARANJAN PANDA, ALL ARE INDEPENDENT ASSESSES ON THEIR OWN ACCORD HAVING OWN SOURCE OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ETC., ACQUIRED IN THE YEAR 1986 AND WHEN THE INCOME FROM THE SAME PROPERTY IS OFFERED TO TAX BY ALL OF THEM SINCE THEN TILL TODAY DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ADDITION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. 3. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS.3,61,004/ - ADDED TOWARDS INTEREST INCOME DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STAT UTORY PROVISIONS AS THE INTEREST INCOME BELONGS TO PREMANANDA PANDA(HUF), SMT BIRAJINI PANDA, MANORANJAN PANDA, CHITTARANJAN PANDA & BRAJARANJAN PANDA, ALL ARE INDEPENDENT ASSESSES ON THEIR OWN ACCORD HAVING OWN SOURCE OF INCOME AND WHEN THE INCOME FROM TH E INTEREST INCOME IS OFFERED TO TAX BY ALL OF THEM SINCE THEN TILL TODAY DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ADDITION OF THE INTEREST INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. 4. FOR THAT, TH E ADDITION OF RS.15,422/ - , & RS.93,000/ - ADDED TOWARDS UNLAWFUL INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PRO VISIONS IS HIGHLY, UNJUSTIFIED, UNCALLED FOR AND BAD IN LAW. 5. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS.15,46,466/ - , ADDED TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS/DEPOSIT/CLOSING CASH BALANCE DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FA CTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS IS HIGHLY, UNJUSTIFIED, UNCALLED FOR AND BAD IN LAW AS THE DEPOSITS BELONGS TO PREMANANDA PANDA(HUF), SMT BIRAJINI PANDA, MANORANJAN PANDA & BRAJARANJAN PANDA, A LL ARE INDEPENDENT ASSESSES ON THEIR OWN ACCORD HAVING OWN SOURCE OF INCOME AND WHEN THE INCOME FROM ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 7 THE DEPOSITS IS OFFERED TO TAX BY ALL OF THEM SINCE THEN TILL TODAY DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 6. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,43,000/ - AD DED TOWARDS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT, NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BUT ALSO, UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS IS HIGHLY, UNJUSTIFIED, UNCALLED FOR AND BAD IN LAW. 7. FOR THAT, NON ACCEPTANCE OF THE SO CALLED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE CIT(A) THAT GOES TO THE ROOTS OF THE MATTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) EVEN AFTER SENDING THE SAME FOR REMAND REPORT IS OUT AND OUT ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED & UNSUSTAINABLE BEING DEVOID OF MERIT DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED AND CONSIDERED IN VIEW OF NATURAL JUSTICE & FAIR PLAY. 8. FOR THAT, THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER/AMEND FURTHER GROUNDS, IF ANY, AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 6. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WE OBSERVE THAT THERE ARE SOME COMMON GROUNDS IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, WE ARE DECIDING FIRST TO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.426/CTK/2000 FOR THE A.Y.1992 - 1993 AND DECISION OF THE SAME WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE OTHER APPEALS ALSO. 7. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994 - 1995, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE HUGE INVESTMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S.147 OF THE ACT AND NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED . T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY HIM MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 OF THE ACT. LATER ON OTHER S TATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS RETIRED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE. THE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE STATE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 8 MADE HUGE INVESTMENT ON ACQUISITION OF DIFFERENT ASSETS AND DEPOSITS DURING T HE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, FOR EXAMINATION OF SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT AND CALLED FOR THE EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENTS. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y.1994 - 1995 , A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS ALSO NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE HUGE INVESTMENT IN HIS OWN NAME, WIFE AND CHILDREN. THEREFORE, THE AO NEEDED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENTS. FURTHER THE AO BEFORE PROCEEDING TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FAMILY TREE OF THE ASSESSEE AND INCORPORATED THE SAME IN PAGE 2, PARA 4.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER : - SRI PREMANANDA PANDA SMT. BIRAJINI PANDA(WIFE) MANORANJAN (SON) CHITTARANJAN (SON) BRAJARANJAN (SON) MADHUSMITA (24) (23) (20) (18) THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED INCOME TAX RETURN IN THE NAME OF HUF, WIFE AND SONS BEFORE THE ITO, SRIKAKULAM (A.P.) IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 1997 SHOWING VARIOUS SOURCE OF INCOM E AND TRYING TO EXPLAIN AWAY DIFFERENT INVESTMENTS. HOWEVER, SUCH RETURNS WERE FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME MUCH AFTER THE SEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE STATE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT AND THE INVESTMENTS WERE UNEARTHED IN HIS CASE. THEREFORE, HE OBSERVED THAT SUCH RETUR N WAS FILED AFTERTHOUGHT WHICH WAS ALSO NOT FOUND TO BE SUPPORTED BY NECESSARY EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 9 THE AO DID NOT TAKE ANY COGNIZANCE TO THOSE RETURNS AND THE DETAILS FURNISHED THEREIN AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AFTER MAKING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS : - I) I NCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY : A) PREMANANDA PANDA, HUF - RS. 3,600/ - B) SMT. BIRAJINI PANDA - RS.12,000/ - C) MONARANJAN PANDA - RS. 7,200/ - D) CHITTARANJAN PANDA - RS. 9,600/ - E) BRAJARANJAN PANDA - RS. 7,200/ - RS. 39,600/ - II) INTEREST INCOME : A) PREMANANDA PANDA, HUF - RS. 65 , 753 / - B) SMT. BIRAJINI PANDA - RS. 67 , 924 / - C) MONARANJAN PANDA - RS. 16 , 000 / - D) CHITTARANJAN PANDA - RS. 16 , 4 00/ - E) BRAJARANJAN PANDA - RS. 22 , 913 / - I II) INVESTMENT IN GOLD AND SILVER: - A) GOLD - RS. 2, 17 , 350 / - B) SILVER - RS. 1,04,520 / - I V ) INVESTMENT IN HOUSE CONSTRUCTION : RS.4,84,500/ - V ) PURCHASE OF CAR : RS.4,04,856/ - VI ) UNEXPLAINED BANK AND OTHER DEPOSITS : RS.21,29,557/ - 8. FEELING AGGRIEVED FROM THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED B EFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) DISM ISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. FEELING FURTHER AGGRIEVED FROM THE CIT(A) S ORDER, TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 10. GROUND NO.1 & 10 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 11 . WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.2, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT IN GOL D AND SILVER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT JU ST AND PROPER. IN THIS REGA RD, LD. AR ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 10 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF DECLARED IN HIS WEALTH TAX RETURN THAT HE WAS HAVING POSSESSION OF 590 GMS OF GOLD AT THE RELEVANT TIME AND THE S AME HAS BEEN INCORPORATED BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PARA 5.3 PAGE 3. LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAMILY CONSISTS OF HIS WIFE, THREE SONS AND ONE DAUGHTER AND AS PER THE CBDT I NSTRUCTION NO.1916, DATED 11.05.1994 , GOLD JEWEL LERY AND ORNAMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GMS. P ER MARRIED LADY , 250 GMS PER UNMARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS PER MALE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY IS ALLOWABLE. SIMILARLY, THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 220 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWING THE STATEMENT OF MOVABLE PROPERTY WHEREIN AT SL.NO.3 IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN STATEMENT OF MOVABLE P ROPERTY AS ON 15.01.1965 THAT HE WAS HAVING 100 K GS. S ILVER . THEREFORE, DAY BY DAY, ON REGULAR USE OF THE SILVER , IT HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 13 KG. DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DECLARED IN HIS WEALTH TAX RETURN . I T WAS ALSO CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2014 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.479 OF 2013 HAS DROPPED THE CONFISCATION PROCEEDING INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, LD AR SUBMITTED THAT TH E ADDITION MADE ON THE ABOVE ACCOUNT MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 12 . ON THE OTHER HAND, L D. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES . ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 11 13 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 220, FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN STATEMENT OF MOVABLE PROPERTY AS ON 15.01.1965 IN FORM NO.87 THAT HE WAS HAVING GOLD OF 75 TOLAS AND SILVER OF 100 KGS. A ND DAY BY DAY ON REGULAR USE OF THEM, THE SAME HAV E BEEN REDUCED TO 590 GMS. OF GOLD AND 13 KGS. OF SILVER AS IS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE AO AND THE SAME HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN WEALTH TAX RETURN AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE . B E THAT AS IT MAY, AS PER THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1916, DATED 11.05.1994 , GOLD JEWEL LERY AND ORNAMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GMS. PER MARRIED LADY , 250 GMS PER UNMARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS PER MALE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY IS ALLOWABLE. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DISPUTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF 590 GMS. GOLD AND ACCORDINGLY THE VALUE OF THE SAME AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AFT ER ALLOWING 15% LESS TOWARDS ALLOY CONTENTS . IN OUR OPINION, THOUGH THE CBDT INSTRUCTION WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE SAID INSTRUCTION THAT THE SAME WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY OR PROSPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, THE WHEN THE AO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT WAS VERY MUCH AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AS THE AO HAS PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 31.12.1998 AND THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.1916 IS ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 12 DATED 11.05.1 994 . IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.479 OF 2013 VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2014 HAS DIRECTED TO DROP THE PROCEEDING INITIATED VIDE ORDER DATED 21.09.2013, PASSED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, SPECIAL COURT, BHUBANESWAR IN CONFIS CATION CASE NO.4/2009 . FURTHER THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS ACQUITTED OF THE OFFENCE THEN THE CONFISCATED PROPERTY IS TO BE RETURNED TO HIM. SO THE NATURAL COROLLARY TO THIS PROVISION IS THAT IF THERE IS NO POSSIBIL ITY OF RECORDING ANY CONVICTION AS IN THE CAS E OF DEATH OF THE PERSO N AFFECTED A ND ABATEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL AGAI NST HIM, A CONFISCATION CANNOT BE MADE AS THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF THE PERSON AFFECTED BEING CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER THE P.C.ACT. LD. AR BEFORE US RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUSHILA DEVI VS. CIT, (2016) 144 DTR 29 (DELHI), WHEREIN IN PARA 9 THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER : - 9. THE RESPONDENTS' RATIONALE OR JUSTIFICATION IS ENTIRELY INSUBSTANTIAL. THE PETITIONER SAYS THAT SHE WAS MARRIED IN MID 1960S AND HER DAUGHTERS WERE BORN IN 1967 - SHE WAS 70 WHEN THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE STARTED. THE RESPONDENTS DO NOT DENY THIS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FURTHER EXPLA NATION THAT THE JEWELLERY BELONGED TO HER AND REPRESENTED ACCUMULATION OF GIFTS RECEIVED FROM FAMILY MEMBERS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, AND ALSO ACQUIRED DURING THE SUBSISTENCE OF HER MARRIAGE IS REASONABLE AND LOGICAL. THE NATURE OF OWNERSHIP OF A WOMAN'S STR IDHAN IS EXPLAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS DECISION PRATIBHA RANI V. SURAJ KUMAR [1985] 2 SCC 70 IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: 'A HINDU MARRIED WOMAN IS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF HER STREEDHAN PROPERTY AND CAN DEAL WITH IT IN ANY MANNER SHE LIKES AND, EVEN IF IT IS PLACED IN THE CUSTODY OF HER HUSBAND OR HER IN - LAWS THEY WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE TRUSTEES AND BOUND TO RETURN THE SAME IF A ND WHEN DEMANDED BY HER'. ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 13 IN ASHOK CHADDHA V. ITO [2012] 20 TAXMANN.COM 387 (DELHI) A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID SUB MISSIONS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITION MADE IS TOTALLY ARBITRARY AND IS NOT FOUNDED ON ANY COGENT BASIS OR EVIDENCE. WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MARRIED FOR MORE THAN 25 - 30 YEARS. THE JEWELLERY IN QUESTION IS NOT VERY SUBSTANTIAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE IS CORRECT IN HER SUBMISSION THAT IT IS A NORMAL CUSTOM FOR WOMAN TO RECEIVE JEWELLERY IN THE FORM OF 'STREE DHAN' OR ON OTHER OCCASIONS SUCH AS BIRTH OF A CHILD ETC. COLLECTING JEWELLERY OF 906.900 GRAMS BY A WOM AN IN A MARRIED LIFE OF 25 - 30 YEARS IS NOT ABNORMAL. FURTHERMORE, THERE WAS NO VALID AND/OR PROPER YARDSTICK ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT ONLY 400 GRAMS AS 'REASONABLE ALLOWANCE' AND TREAT THE OTHER AS 'UNEXPLAINED'. MATTER WOULD HAVE BEEN DIF FERENT IF THE QUANTUM AND VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND WAS SUBSTANTIAL. 4. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE TOTALLY PERVERSE AND FAR FROM THE REALITIES OF LIFE. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE WE ANSWER THE QUESTIO N IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE THEREBY DELETING THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS. 3,87,364/ - .' 14. FURTHER THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK CHADDHA VS. ITO , (2011) 202 TAXMAN 395, WHEREIN THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER : - 3 . LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAI D SUBMISSIONS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITION MADE IS TOTALLY ARBITRARY AND IS NOT FOUNDED ON ANY COGENT BASIS OR EVIDENCE. WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MARRIED FOR MORE THAN 25 - 30 YEARS. THE JEWELLERY IN QUESTION IS NOT VERY SUBSTANTIAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE IS CORRECT IN HER SUBMISSION THAT IT IS A NORMAL CUSTOM FOR WOMAN TO RECEIVE JEWELLERY IN THE FORM OF 'STREE DHAN' OR ON OTHER OCCASIONS SUCH AS BIRTH OF A CHILD ETC. COLLECTING JEWELLERY OF 906.900 GRAMS BY A WOMAN IN A MARRIED LIFE OF 25 - 30 YEARS IS NOT ABNORMAL. FURTHERMORE, THERE WAS NO VALID AND/OR PROPER YARDSTICK ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT ONLY 400 GRAMS AS 'REASONABLE ALLOWANCE' AND TREAT THE OTHER AS 'UNEXPLAINED'. MATTER WOULD HAVE BEE N DIFFERENT IF THE QUANTUM AND VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND WAS SUBSTANTIAL . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CASES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 14 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF POSSESSION OF GOLD OF 590 GMS. WORTH OF RS.2,17,350/ - IS NOT SUST AINABLE. 15 . FURTHER, WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF POSSESSION OF SILVER OF 13 KGS. WORTH OF RS.3,21,870/ - , WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 220 AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HA VING 100 KGS. OF SILVER SINCE THE YEAR 1965. THEREFORE, IT CAN SAFELY BE PRESUMED THAT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE 13 KGS. SILVER WHICH HE HAS ALREADY SHOWN IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN . B EFORE US, LD. DR DID NOT BRING ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE ABOVE FACTS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN GOLD AND SILVER TOTALING TO RS.3,21 ,870/ - . GROUND NO.4 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 16 . WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.6 , LD. AR AT THE OUTSET, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO.1 TO 7 AND SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A VEHICLE I.E. PREMIER PADMINI BEARING REGISTRATION NO.PR - 07/116 ON 01.11.1990 AND ALSO EXPLAINED THAT FOR PURCHASE OF THE SAID VEHICLE THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM HIS OFFICE , A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.C. DIVISION NO.IV HAS BEEN FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 5 . I T WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE REMAINING AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID FROM THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSURE OF TERM DEPOSITS AND SAVINGS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 15 17 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 18 . AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT SANCTIONED OF RS.42,000/ - FROM HIS OFFICE AS LOAN FOR PURCHASE OF CAR, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 5 AND REMAINING AMOUNT HAS BEEN COLLEC TED FROM THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF TERM DEPOSITS AND SAVINGS BANK, A CERTIFICATE IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE 6. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFIC IENT BANK BALANCE TO MEET OUT FOR PURCHAS E OF CAR, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK, WE ARE SATISFIED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCUMULATED MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF CAR FROM HIS OFFICE AS LOAN AND FROM THE BANK AFTER CLOSING THE TERM DE POSITS AND SAVINGS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF CAR AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. GROUND NO. 6 IS ALLOWED. 19 . WITH REGARD TO GROUNDS NO S . 2,3,5,7,8 & 9, LD. AR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING HAS FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF ITAT RULES, FOR ACCEPTANCE & ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FOR JUST AND PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER , WHEREIN THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME ARE AS UNDER : - ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 16 1. THAT ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE LD. A.O. IS BASED UPON THE RETURNS FILED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE LATE PREMANANDA PANDA I.E., SMT BIRA JINI PANDA(WIFE), MANORANJAN PANDA(SON), CHITARANJAN PANDA(SON) & BRAJARANJAN PANDA AS WELL AS RETURN FILED FOR THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S JAGMOHAN INDUSTRIES TOWARDS TON THE GROUND THAT ALL THE RETURNS WERE FILED AFTER THE VIGILANCE RAID CONDUCTED IN THE OF FICE & RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE ON DATED 22 ND APRIL, 1995 ON THE GROUND THAT, THE ASSESSEE FILED INCOME TAX RETURNS IN THE NAME OF HIS HUF, WIFE AND SONS BEFORE THE ITO, SRIKAKULAM(A.P.) IN THE MONTH OF MARCH,97 SHOWING VARIOUS SOURCES OF INCOME TRYING TO EXPLAIN AWAY DIFFERENT INVESTMENTS. HOWEVER, SUCH RETURNS WERE FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME, MUCH AFTER THE SEARCH BY THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT WAS CONDUCTED AND THE INVESTMENTS WERE UNEARTHED IN HIS CASE. THUS, THE FILING OF SUCH RETURNS I S HELD TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT, NOT SUPPORTED BY NECESSARY EVIDENCES AND HENCE NO COGNIGENCE CAN BE GIVEN TO THOSE RETURNS AND THE DETAILS FURNISHED THEREIN' . 2. THAT IT IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENTS ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD AO FOR THE A/Y - 1992 - 93,93 - 94,94 - 95 & 1995 - 96 AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) WERE ISSUED AND EXPLANATION & CLARIFICATION W ERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN TURN NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AO EVIDENTLY WITH A PRECONCEIVED NOTION THAT, ALL THE RETURNS OF WIFE & SONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS AN ATTEMPT IN THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN VARIOUS INCOME, INVESTMENT & DEPOSITS EXIS TING IN THEIR NAME IS ACTUALLY UNEXPLAINED, UNACCOUNTED & UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE & NO FURTHER NOTICES WERE ISSUED OR EXPLANATION WERE ASKED - FOR FORBIDDING THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY HIS RETURN WITHOUT AFFORDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE PARTICULARLY WHEN FOR THE A/Y - 1992 - 93,93 - 94 & 95 - 96 ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAD BEEN PASSED U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE IT., ACT, 1961. 3. THAT AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE APPELLAN T BEING AWARE OF THE OBSERVATIONS & APPREHENSIONS OF THE LD. AO AND FINDING THAT, ADDITIONS ARE BASED UPON PRESUMPTION, ASSUMPTION & SURMISES SUBMITTED FURTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO JUSTIFY HIS RETURNS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT( A) IN THE BODY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED FOR THE A/Y - 1992 - 93 AT PAGE 12 - 13 ALONG WITH EXPLANATIONS IN SHAPE OF W.S. AND THE SAME WAS FORWARDED TO THE LD. AO FOR RE - EXAMINATION SEEKING A REMAND REPORT BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE EVIDENCES THUS FILED WERE REFU SED TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THEY CONSTITUTE TO BE FRESH EVIDENCE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDING. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY THE LD. AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING TO SUBMIT FURTHER CLARIFI CATION & DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN ABSENCE OF NOTICE SEEKING FURTHER CLARIFICATION & AGAIN BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE FRESH OR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES EVEN AFTER SEEKING REMAND REPORT ON THE SAME WHEN HE IS EMPOWERED UNDER SECTION 250(4) OR 46A(4) NOT KEEPING IN MIND THE FACT ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 17 THAT, 'PROCEDURES AND TECHNICALITIES ARE THE HANDMADE OF JUSTICE NOT THE MISTRESS OF JUSTICE', 'WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICALITIES ARE PITCHED AGAINST EACH OTHER SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS TO BEEN GIVEN PREFERENCE ' & FINALLY - JUDICIARY IS NOT RESPECTED FOR LEGALISING INJUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS BUT FOR BEING CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUSTICE ......[ COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & ORS (SC) 167 ITR 471]. 5. THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE NARRATED FA CTS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE HON'BLE ITAT BEING THE LAST FACT FINDING AUTHORITY IS HEREUNDER PRAYED & REQUESTED TO KINDLY ACCEPT THE FRESH OR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND ADJUDICATE THE APPEALS ON MERIT AS THE FACTUAL MATRIX DESERVES TO BE EVALUATED & ANALY SED TO ARRIVE AT JUST & PROPER JUSTICE TO THE APPELLANT AND PREVENT ANY MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AS ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA POSTULATES THAT NO TAX SHALL BE LEVIED UPON THE CITIZENS EXCEPT BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE LAW, AND FURTHER BE PLEASED T O PASS ANY SUCH ORDER/DIRECTION/RULE AS WOULD BE FIT AND PROPER IN THE EYE OF LAW. AND FOR THIS ACT OF YOUR KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY. IN ADDITION TO THIS, LD. AR ALSO SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, HOWEVER, THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THEY CONSTITUTE TO BE FRESH EVIDENCE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDING. T HEREFORE, LD. AR REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AS AGITATED IN THE ABOVE GROUNDS MAY KINDLY BE ACCEPTED AND THE ASSESSEE MAY KINDLY BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM BY SUBMITTING THE DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE . 20 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE BE RESTORED TO ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 18 THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 21 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE ENTIR E MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON RECORD , WE FIND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO TAKE ON RECORD , TO WHICH THE LD . DR DID NOT OBJECT THE SAME, THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TAKEN ON RECORD. HOWEVER, WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES, FOR JUST AND PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER, WE REMIT THE ABOVE IS SUES TO THE FILE OF AO AND DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE US. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CON SIDER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER VERIFICATION OF THOSE DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER PROVIDING RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE A SSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DI RECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE AO FOR EAR LY DISPOSAL OF THE CASE. T HUS, THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN NO S . 2,3,5,7,8 & 9 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. T HUS, ITA NO.426/ CTK/2000 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 22 . SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE SIMILAR, THEREFORE, RELYING ON THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY US IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.1992 - 1993 IN ITA NO.426/CTK/2000, WE DI RECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ITA NO S . 426 TO 429 /CTK/20 00 19 ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN GOLD AND SILVER AND PURCHASE OF CAR IN THE OTHER APPEALS I.E. ITA NOS.4 27 TO 429/CTK/2000 . HOWEVER, OTHER ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR PROPER ADJUDICA TION AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, OUR OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.1992 - 1993 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE OTHER APPEALS I.E. ITA NOS.4 27 TO 429/CTK/2000 ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, I TA NOS.427 TO 429/CTK/2000 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 23 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 / 01 /20 20 . SD/ - ( C.M.GARG ) SD/ - (L.P.SAHU) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 22 / 01 /20 20 PRAKASH KUMAR MISHRA, SR.P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) ITAT CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - PREMANANDA PANDA(DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR, SMT. BIRAJINI PANDA, HILLPATNA, BERHAMPUR 2. / THE RESPONDENT - ITO, WARD - 1, BERHAMPUR 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//