DCIT, CC- 25, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI V. GINNI DEVI, NEW DELHI

ITA 4507/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8477 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: LD MS SUNITA SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund; Valuation report; Accommodation entries; Set aside
• Section: 69A; 139(1); 13; 132; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA NO.4507/DEL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI VS. SMT. GINNI DEVI, E-270, SHASTRI NAGAR, NEW DELHI PAN :ACCPD2043E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND ITA NO.4484/DEL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SMT. GINNI DEVI, E-270, SHASTRI NAGAR, NEW DELHI VS. DCIT, CENTRRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI PAN :ACCPD2043E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 28/04/2017 PASSED BY T HE LD. DEPARTMENT BY MS. SUNITA SINGH, CIT(DR) ASSESSEE BY SHRI HIREN MEHTA, CA DATE OF HEARING 06.01.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.01.2021 2 ITA NO. 4507/DEL./2017 & 4484/DEL./2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-29, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE APPEAL NO . 4507/DEL/2017 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FACTS IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.1,43,15,701/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICERON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FACTS IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.6,22,637/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION I NCOME. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FACTS IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.12,53,36,332/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 4. THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, A LTER OR FORGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G OF THE APPEAL. 2.1 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL NO. 4484/DEL/2017 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A)-29, NEW DELHI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PARTLY UPHOLDI NG THE ACTION OF THE AO BY SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.5,76,5 80/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY FOUND FROM THE PREMISES R-4 DURING SEARCH ACTION OUT OF TOTAL JEWE LLERY AGGREGATING RS.1,48,92,281/-. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, A MEND, MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF EARLIER. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASS ESSEE ON INDIVIDUAL FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION, I.E, AY 2014-15 , UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 3 ITA NO. 4507/DEL./2017 & 4484/DEL./2017 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) ON 31/01/2015, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 26,40,665/-. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SEARC H AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 15/10/2013. CONSEQUENTLY, THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND STATUTORY NOTICES UNDER THE ACT WERE ISSUED. INITIALLY, THE A SSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY THE NOTICES, HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY, FILED PA RT REPLIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY, COMPLETED ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT AS BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMEN T AND MADE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: 1. ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT FOR UNEXPLAIN ED JEWELRY OF 1,48,92,281/- FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH. 2. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF 12,53,36,332/- IN PURCHASE OF THE SHARES OF GROUP CONCERNS 3. UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRIES IN BANK STATEMENTS HELD AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND ADDITION OF RS.6,22,637/- MADE FOR COMMISSION FOR OBTAINING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AT THE RATE OF 0.5% OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES O F 12,45,427,419/- IN BANK ACCOUNTS. 4. ADDITION MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS FOR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF 7,96,234/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALE OF THE JEWELLERY OUTSIDE BOOKS OF GROUP CONCERN DECLARED B EFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. 3.1 AGGRIEVED WITH THE ADDITIONS MADE, THE ASSESSEE FI LED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THE LD . CIT(A) THAT 4 ITA NO. 4507/DEL./2017 & 4484/DEL./2017 HER APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISS ION FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2014-15 HAD BEEN REJECT ED. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE , ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTLY. AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE BEFORE THE IN COME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (IN SHORT THE TRIBUNAL) RAISIN G THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 4. THE PARTIES APPEARED BEFORE US THROUGH VIDEOCONFE RENCING FACILITY. 5. THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE INTERCONNEC TED. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E SMT. GINNI DEVI AND HER HUSBAND SH. JAI SINGH WERE RESIDING WI TH THEIR SON SH. PRAVEEN GUPTA AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW SMT. JYOTI GO YAL AT THEIR RESIDENTIAL PREMISES. DURING SEARCH ACTION, TOTAL J EWELLERY AMOUNTING TO 2,87,46,496/- WAS FOUND FROM ROOMS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, WHICH WAS VALUED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER AS UNDER: GINNI DEVI : 1,48,92,281/- JYOTI GOEL : 1,38,54,216/- 5.1 THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT JEWELRY AGGREGATING TO 1,68,93,253/- AND 1,29,13,500/- AND 87,352/- WAS ISSUED FOR APPROVAL IN THE NAME OF PRA VEEN GUPTA AND JYOTI GOEL FROM THE SHOWROOM OF SHREE RAJ MAHAL JEWELLERS LTD. I.E. A FAMILY CONCERN. THE ASSESSEE FILED COP Y OF APPROVAL NOTES ISSUED BY THE SAID CONCERN. THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT SOFT COPY OF THOSE APPROVALS NOTES WERE SEIZED DURI NG THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. FURTHER , THE 5 ITA NO. 4507/DEL./2017 & 4484/DEL./2017 ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT CERTAIN ITEMS OF THE JEWELL ERY WERE RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF THE MARRIAGE AND OTHER OCCA SIONS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTESTED THAT VALUATION OF THE JEWELLERY HAD BEEN MADE ON THE HIGHER SIDE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E THAT JEWELLERY FOUND FROM HER ROOM WAS ACQUIRED ON APPROVAL FROM T HE FAMILY CONCERN. FIRST GROUND OF THE REJECTION WAS THAT KEE PING JEWELLERY ON APPROVAL FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE MONTHS (MAY, 2013 TO OCTOBER, 2013), CANNOT BE HELD AS NORMAL. SECOND, GROUND OF REJECTION WAS THAT APPROVAL NOTES ARE IN THE NAME OF SH. PRAVEEN GUPTA AND HIS WIFE AND NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS J EWELLERY WAS FOUND IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED WEALTH TAX RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAILURE TO DO SO, HE HELD THE JEWELLERY FOUND FROM THE ROOM OF THE ASSESSEE A S UNEXPLAINED AND MADE ADDITION OF 1,48,92,281/-. 5.2 THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER VERIFYING THE VALUATION REPOR T ALONG WITH THE APPROVAL SLIPS HELD THAT THE JEWELLERY WORTH 5,76,580/-WAS NOT RECONCILED AND, THEREFORE, HE SUSTAINED THE ADD ITION OF 5,76,580/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) REJECTED THE ARGUME NTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED ON MARRIAGE AN D OTHER FUNCTIONS AND VALUATION WAS MADE ON THE HIGHER SIDE . THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS REPRODUCE D AS UNDER: 7.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE VALUATION REPORT, APP ROVAL SLIPS AND THE CHART PREPARED BY THE APPELLANT, WHICH IS ALSO ANNE XED AS A PART OF THIS ORDER. THE DESCRIPTION AS PER VALUATION REPORT FOR VARIOUS ITEMS OF JEWELLERY HAS BEEN TALLYING WITH THE APPROVAL CHALL ANS, ISSUED ON DIFFERENT DATES, WHICH IS TAKEN ON 30.05.2013, LOOK ING TO THE CHANGE IN SOFTWARE, AS EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. SINCE, THE PIECE OF JEWELLERY HAS BEEN DULY RECONCILED AND EVEN THE WEIGHT IN DIF FERENT ITEMS ARE NEAR TO THAT OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING SEARCH AS MENTION ED IN THE VALUATION REPORT, THEREFORE THERE IS NO REASON TO CONSIDER TH IS JEWELLARY AS A PART OF JEWELLERY RECEIVED ON APPROVAL FROM M/S SHRI RAJ MA HAL JEWELLERS P. 6 ITA NO. 4507/DEL./2017 & 4484/DEL./2017 LTD., THOUGH IN THE NAME OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF APPEL LANT I.E. SON AND DAUGHTER IN LAW. FURTHER, THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THIS JEWELLERY DOES NOT RELATES TO THE JEWELLERY SHOWROOM M/S SHRI RAJ MAHAL JEWELLERS LTD . AND HER OWN JEWELLERY, WHICH IS UNDISCLOSED. 7.3 HOWEVER, IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE CHART THAT VAR IOUS ITEMS FOUND DURING SEARCH, AS MENTIONED IN S.NOS. 1 4,20, AND 29, AMOUNTING TO RS.5,76,580/- COULD NOT BE RECONCILED BY THE APPELLANT, NOR SUBSTANTIATED THE SOURCE OF SUCH JEWELLERY ITEMS. T HEREFORE, THE SOURCE OF FUNDS OR INVESTMENT TOWARDS THOSE JEWELLERY REMA IN UNEXPLAINED AND ACCORDINGLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASONABLE EVIDEN CE, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,76,580/- IS SUSTAINED. IN FACT T HE DIFFERENCE IN GROSS WEIGHT AND NET WEIGHT BETWEEN VALUATION REPORT AND APPROVAL CHALLANS IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT APPELLANT COULD NOT SUBSTAN TIATE THE SOURCE OF ABOVE JEWELLERY. 7.4 THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE JEWELLERY R ECEIVED DURING MARRIAGE ETC. HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY PROVIDI NG ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY BANK STATEMENT OR ANY VALUATION REPORT OR WEALT H TAX RETURN BY APPELLANT IN PAST. THEREFORE, NO EVIDENCE IS BROUGH T ON RECORD BY APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD AND ACCORDINGLY NOT PALATA BLE. 7.5 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO ARGUED THAT VALUATION H AS BEEN DONE ON THE HIGHER SIDE BY AUTHORIZED VALUER DURING THE SEA RCH. HOWEVER, NO FURTHER DETAILS IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY APPELLANT TO SHOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN INFLATED VALUATION OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT DURING SEARCH OR P OST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS NO SUCH ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED OR SUBSTANTIATED TO S HOW THAT JEWELLERY HAS BEEN PRICED HIGHER BY THE APPROVED VALUER. SINC E THE JEWELLERY HAS BEEN FOUND, NOT DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT, THEREFORE VALUE HAS TO BE TAKEN AS PER THE EXISTING RATE, AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS PROVIDED CHART INDICATIN G THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY WHERE THE TOTAL VALUE OF JEWELLERY ON THE DATE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FOUND MORE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN VALUED BY THE AP PROVED VALUER. THEREFORE, THIS ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT DU LY SUBSTANTIATED AND ACTUALLY CONTRADICTED BY HER OWN SUBMISSION AND HEN CE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED. 7.6 THEREFORE, AS DISCUSSED IN THE FOREGOING PARAG RAPHS, THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.5,76,580/- IS SUSTAINED AND THE BAL ANCE IS ALLOWED AS RELIEF. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5.3 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REF ERRED TO RECONCILIATION CHART ANNEXED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDE R AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE SOURCE O F JEWELLERY FOUND FROM THE ROOM OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE APPROVAL NOTES 7 ITA NO. 4507/DEL./2017 & 4484/DEL./2017 ISSUED BY THE FAMILY CONCERN AFTER ITEM -WISE RECON CILIATION OF JEWELLERY FOUND IN SEARCH ALONG WITH THE JEWELRY IS SUED ON APPROVAL EXCEPT THE JEWELLERY OF 5,76,580/-, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, WAS RECEIVED A T THE TIME OF THE MARRIAGE AND OTHER FUNCTIONS. 5.4 THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT APPELLATE PROCEEDING IN THE CASE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF TH E GROUP ARE PENDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, ADJUDICAT ION ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, MAY BE DECIDED AFTER THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) IN THOSE CASES. ALTERNATIVELY, THE LEARNED DR ALSO SUB MITTED THAT IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE JEWELLERY STATED TO BE IS SUED ON APPROVAL NOTES, WAS PART OF THE STOCK OF THE JEWELL ERY OF THE SAID FAMILY CONCERN. SHE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS REQUIRED T O BE ENSURED THAT SAID JEWELLERY WAS NOT SHOWN AS SOLD IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S RAJ MAHAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. SHE A CCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE-IN-DISPUTE MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. 5.6 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON T HE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON REC ORD. THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE INVOLVED IS SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE JEWELRY OF 1,48,92,281/- FOUND FROM THE ROOM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT MAJOR PART OF THE JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED ON APPROVAL FROM HER FAMILY CONCERN, M/S RAJ MAHAL JEW ELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND REMAINING PART OF THE JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED BY HER ON HER MARRIAGE AND OTHER FUNCTIONS. BUT WE HAVE NOTICED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE AS SESSEE GROUP OPTED TO SETTLE ITS CASES BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COM MISSION, BUT THEIR APPLICATION WAS TWICE REJECTED. THE LD. CIT(A ) IN PARA 12 OF 8 ITA NO. 4507/DEL./2017 & 4484/DEL./2017 THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS REPRODUCED SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, WHERE IN THE GROUP CONCERNS HAVE ACCEPTED SALE OF J EWELLERY OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, IT NEEDS TO BE ASCERTA INED WHETHER THE JEWELLERY IN DISPUTE IS INCLUDED IN THE JEWELLE RY SOLD OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FROM THE FACTS RECORDED BY THE LO WER AUTHORITIES, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE JEWELLERY STATED TO BE ISSUED ON APPROVAL, WAS FORMING PART OF THE STOCK O F M/S RAJ MAHAL JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED AS ON THE DATE OF T HE SEARCH. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH A FINDING OF THE FACT, THE JEWELLER Y FOUND FROM ROOM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED MERELY BY PRESENTING APPROVAL NOTES. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, WE FEEL APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE JEWELLERY WITH FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS: 1. TO VERIFY WHETHER THE APPROVAL NOTES FORM PART OF T HE SEIZED RECORD. 2. TO VERIFY WHETHER THE CHALLANS OF JEWELLERY ISSUED AND PRESENTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO ALSO FORMS PART OF THE SEIZED RECORD. 3. IF THE APPROVAL NOTES AND CHALLANS FORM PART OF THE SEIZED RECORD, THEN TO VERIFY AND RECONCILE THE DETAILS OF THE JEWELLERY PROVIDED IN THE VALUATION REPORT WITH THE DETAILS PROVIDED IN APPROVAL NOTES LIKE NAME OF THE CUSTOME R, NAME OF THE ITEM OF THE JEWELRY, GROSS AND NET WEIG HT ETC. 4. IF THE JEWELRY MENTIONED IN THE VALUATION REPORT RE CONCILE WITH THE APPROVAL NOTES, THEN TO VERIFY WHETHER THE JEWELRY ITEMS FORM PART OF THE STOCK APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF 9 ITA NO. 4507/DEL./2017 & 4484/DEL./2017 ACCOUNTS OF M/S RAJ MAHAL JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION . 5.7 THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ALSO CARRY OUT ANY OTHER INQUIRIES OR VERIFICATION DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND ENSURE THAT RECONCILIATION IS DONE WITH GENUINE EVIDENCES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH ACTION. IT IS NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFORDED ADEQUAT E OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 5.8 IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF TH E REVENUE AND GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. THE GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE RELA TES TO THE ADDITION OF 6,22,637/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION INCOME FOR OBTAINING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. 6.1 THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED HUGE AMOUNT OF CREDITS I N TWO BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED WITH FEDERAL BANK LTD. AND K ARNATAKA BANK LTD. RESPECTIVELY. NO DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE DEBIT AND CREDIT ENTRIES OF THOSE BANK ACCOUNTS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE GROUP CONCE RNS HAVE ADMITTED IN STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE THE SET TLEMENT COMMISSION OF HAVING ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODA TION ENTRIES AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN U SED FOR ROUTING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF THE GROUP. ACCORDI NGLY, HE TREATED THE COMMISSION AT THE RATE OF 0.5% ON THE E NTIRE AMOUNT OF THE CREDIT OF 12,45,27,490/- IN THOSE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS, AND WORKED OUT THE COMMISSION INCOME OF 6,22,637/- WHICH, WAS 10 ITA NO. 4507/DEL./2017 & 4484/DEL./2017 HELD AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER: 11. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APP ELLANT, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NO SUCH DOCUMENT OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT APPELLANT HAS EARNED ANY COMMISSION ON ACCOMMO DATION ENTRY. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ONLY ON THE PRETEXT THAT THERE HAS BEEN SEVERAL TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APP ELLANT AND THE SAME IS FOR EARNING COMMISSION ON ACCOMMODATION ENT RY, WHICH IS TOTALLY ON CONJECTURE AND SURMISES AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 11.1 THEREFORE, LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO, NOR ANY ENQUIRIES MADE FROM THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE FUNDS H AVE BEEN GIVEN AND FROM WHERE IT IS RECEIVED, THE AO HAS NOT ESTABLISHED HIS CASE ON MERITS THAT IT IS A COMMISSION EARNED ON TH E ACCOMMODATION ENTRY BEYOND DOUBT AND THUS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ONLY ON CONJECTURE AND HENCE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. ACCORD INGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. APPELLANT GETS A RELIE F OF RS.6,22,637/- 6.2 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREAS LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE A SSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 6.3 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON T HE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, WE FIND THAT ADDITION HAS MADE ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, BUT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN PROVI DING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SUBJEC T TO SEARCH AND IF AT ALL THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING OUT BUSINES S OF PROVIDING THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, THEN SUCH EVIDENCE MUST HAVE BEEN FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. BUT AS PER RECORD NO SU CH EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FOUND EVEN AFTER CONDUCTING SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE MERELY ON THE 11 ITA NO. 4507/DEL./2017 & 4484/DEL./2017 PRESUMPTION THAT FAMILY CONCERNS HAVE ADMITTED PROV IDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THEIR STATEMENT OF FACTS B EFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE-IN-DI SPUTE AND ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GROUND NO. 2 O F THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE RELA TES TO ADDITION OF 12,53,36,332/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES. 7.1 THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED INVESTMEN T OF 3,00,00,000/- AND 9,53,36,332/-IN THE PURCHASE OF SHARES OF COMPANY M/S GINNI INDUSTRIES LTD. AND M/S. SHREE RA J MAHAL JEWELLERS PRIVATE LTD. RESPECTIVELY. IN VIEW OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE INVES TMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE INVESTMENT AS UNEXPLAINE D. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT INVESTMENT IN SHARES IN DISPUTE WAS MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND DULY R EFLECTED IN STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS. THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CI T(A) ON ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 9. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E APPELLANT AND HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE THRO UGH THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND PAYMENTS HAVE ALSO BEE N MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND DULY REFLECTED AS ASSETS/INVES TMENT. THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN SHARES OF M/S GINNI IND USTRIES LTD. FOR RS.3,00,00,000/- VIDE CHEQUE FROM KARNATAKA BANK LT D. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND THE SOURCE OF THIS FUND WA S TRANSFER FROM M/S RIDDHI SIDDHI GOLD TO THE APPELLANT'S SAID ACCOUNT IN KARNATAKA BANK LTD. ON 27.03.2014. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THIS INVESTMENT, DULY SUPPORTED THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES IN M/S GINNI INDUSTRIES LTD. FOR THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. 12 ITA NO. 4507/DEL./2017 & 4484/DEL./2017 9.1 SIMILARLY, FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE IN SHARES OF M/S SHRI RAJ MAHAL JEWELLERS LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.9,53,36,332/-, IT IS DONE THROUGH CHEQUE FROM BANK ACCOUNT OF APPELLANT, IN KARNATAKA BANK L TD. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND THE SOURCE OF THIS FUND WA S TRANSFER FROM M/S RIDDHI SIDDHI GOLD TO THE APPELLANT'S SAID ACCOUNT IN KARNATAKA BANK LTD. ON VARIOUS DATES. APART FROM TRANSACTIONS THRO UGH KARNATAKA BANK LTD., RS.3,00,00,000/- HAS BEEN INVESTED ON 28.03.2 014 BY APPELLANT THROUGH TRANSFER FROM HER ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN FED RAL BANK AND THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM M/S RIDDHI SIDDHI GOL D. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THIS INVESTMENT, DULY SUPPO RTED THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES IN M/S GINNI IND USTRIES LTD. AND SHRI RAJ MAHAL JEWELLERS LTD. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. 9.2 THE AO HAS MADE THIS ADDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERI NG THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THIS CASE AND IN LAW, THE SOURCE HAS BEEN TREATED TO BE DULY EXPL AINED AND THEREFORE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES DESERVES TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS G ROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7.2 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREAS THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF T HE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 7.3 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON T HE ISSUE DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL, INCLUDIN G THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HELD THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AS UNEXPLAINED MAINLY DUE TO R EASON THAT NO INFORMATION REGARDING SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WAS P ROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), T HE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH WHICH I NVESTMENT WAS MADE AND THE SOURCE OF MONEY. THE LEARNED DR HA S NOT DISPUTED THIS FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT IN VESTMENT HAD BEEN MADE THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT. IN OUR OPINION, FIN DING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE-IN-DISPUTE IS WELL REAS ONED AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT( A) AND 13 ITA NO. 4507/DEL./2017 & 4484/DEL./2017 ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. THE GROUNDS NO. 4 & 5 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, WHICH WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ADJ UDICATE UPON AND ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 9. THE GROUNDS NO. 1 & 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND ACCORDINGLY SAME ARE DISMISSE D AS INFRUCTUOUS. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED PARTLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH JANUARY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14 TH JANUARY, 2021. RK/- (D.T.D.S.) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI