Manoj Hiralal Malu, Pune V. DCIT Central Circle,1(2), Pune

ITA 48/PUN/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60008 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARESHWAR SHARMA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Loose papers; Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI I C SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 48/PN/2009 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07) SHRI MANOJ HIRALAL MALU, .. APPELLANT 60 NANA PETH, PUNE PAN AAWPM9092Q VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, .. RESPONDEN T CIR. 1(2), PUNE APPELLANT BY : SHRI KISHOR PHADKE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARESHWAR SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 17.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.02.2012 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, A.M : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, PUNE DATED 01.1 0.2008 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM ORDER DATED 28.12.2007 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS 1,02,060/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE T HAT A SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF A SSESSEE ON 20.7.2005. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A(A) OF THE A CT, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 6,58, 700/- WHICH WAS ACCOMPANIED BY COMPUTATION OF INCOME. DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH VARIOUS DETAILS OF HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE TOTAL EXPEND ITURE ON HOUSEHOLD AT RS 7,26,240/- IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS 1,02,060/- EACH IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE, HIS FATHER AND TWO BROTHERS. IN APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS 1,02,060/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE-HOLD WITHDRAWAL. AGAINST THIS DECISIO N, ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. BEFORE US, THE ONLY PLEA SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE IS THA T THIS ISSUE REGARDING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF HOUSE-HO LD EXPENSES WAS A SUBJECT-MATTER OF CONSIDERATION BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FAMILY MEMBERS, VIDE ITA NO 1593/PN/08,ETC. IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL H MALU & OTHERS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE ALSO DIRECTIONS MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE MANNER DECIDED BY TH E TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 31.10.2009 (SUPRA). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE, APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACTUA L MATRIX BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THIS REGARD, WE HAVE PERUSED THE PRECEDENT AND THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IS RELEVANT: 16. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE RIVAL POSITIONS, WE HAVE EXAMINED THE RECORDS AND NOTICED THAT ESSENTIALLY, THE AOS CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON THE ESTIMATIONS. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES FAMILY IS A JOI NT FAMILY CONSISTING OF 14 MEMBERS. AS PER THE TABLE IN PARA 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THERE ARE TWO SENIOR CITIZENS (67 & 70 YEARS), SIX TEENS (BETWEEN 6 TO 19 YEARS) AND THEY ARE IN THE RANGE OF 34 TO 45 YEARS) IN THE FAMILY. BROADLY, THE PROFILE OF THE M EMBERS AND THEREFORE THE EXPENDITURE INCLUDING ON ACCOUNT OF EDUCATION EXPENDITURE, APPE ARS TO BE CONSTANT OVER THE YEARS SINCE AY 2000-01 TO AY 2006-07 BUT FOR ANY CONTINGE NCIES SUCH AS MEDICAL, CONSTRUCTION, SPECIAL CEREMONIES ETC, IT IS NOT ANY BODIES CASE THERE WERE SOME ANY OF THAT KIND DURING THE PERIOD OR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. FURTHER, AT THIS POINT OF TIME THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE ACCRETION AT THE RATE OF 13% AS EVIDENT FROM THE CHART FILED BEFORE US. 17. THUS, THERE IS DISPUTE ON WHAT SHOULD BE THE BA SE FIGURE FOR COMPUTING THE ABOVE SETTLED ACCRETION RATE OF 13%. SO FAR AS THE AY 2006-07 IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEES ADMITTED AND RATIONALIZED FIGURES ARE RS 62/- AND RS 80/- AS AGAINST THE ASSESSED FIGURE OF RS 142/-. AO ARRIVED AT THE FIGU RE 142/- ADDING THE ANNUAL INFLATION AT THE RATE OF 13% AS DISCUSSED ABOVE ON THE BASE F IGURE OF 80/- FOR THE AY 2000-01. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NO BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT THE FI GURE OF THE SAID RS 80/- AND THEREFORE, IT IS AN ARBITRARY ONE ADOPTED BY THE AO AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE INFORMATION OF RS 35/-. CONSEQUENTLY, THE RS 142/- IS BASICALLY AND ESSENTIALLY AN ARBITRARY FIGURE ARRIVED AT BY THE AO ON AD HOC BAS IS. 18. NOW, WE SHALL PROCEED TO DISCUSS CONSEQUENTIAL ISSUE, IF THE AOS DECISION TO ADOPT THIS AD HOC BASIS IS JUSTIFIED. ADMITTEDLY, T HIS IS THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO DETAILS TO SUBMIT AS WANTED BY THE AO AND TH EREFORE, THE QUESTION OF FURNISHING OF THE SUPPORTING BILLS OR VOUCHERS NEVER AROSE. OT HERWISE, IT IS BORNE ON THE RECORDS THAT THE AO REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE DETA ILS OF SPECIFIC MANDATORY EXPENSES I.E ELECTRICITY, TAXES, PROVISIONS, MEDIC AL, EDUCATIONAL, RECREATIONAL/ENTERTAINMENT, PERSONAL TOURS AND TRAV ELS, CONVEYANCE, CEREMONIES ETC. THEREFORE, AOS DECISION TO RESORT TO THE ESTIMATIO NS CANNOT BE FOUND FAULTY AND HOWEVER THE OTHER RELEVANT ISSUE IS ON THE FAIRNESS OF THE ESTIMATION I.E. IF THE BASE FIGURE OF RS 80/- FOR AY 2000-01 IS FAIR OR OTHERWI SE AGAINST THE FURNISHED FIGURE OF RS 35/- OR THE RATIONALIZED BASE FIGURE OF RS 38/- FOR THE SAME AY. AS SEEN FROM RECORDS, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS FOR THE AO IN ADOPTING RS 80/- PER DAY PER MEMBER OF THE FAMILY. FURTHER, NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORDS BY T HE AO TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ADDITIONS MUST BE MORE THAN 100% OF THE DISCLOSED F IGURE OF RS 62/- FOR AY 2006-07 IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. CONSIDERING VARIOUS REASONS G IVEN BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER AS NARRATED ABOVE AND ALSO FOR THE REASON OF ASSESSEE S UNDISPUTED FAILURE TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE BASIC DETAILS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE BASE FIGURE SHOULD NOT EXCEED 100% OF THE DISCLOSED FIGURE OF R S 35/- FOR THE AY 2000-01 IN THE CASE OF MANISH H MALU, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT TH E SAME IS MADE WITHOUT ANY CALCULATIONS OR BASIS, IN OUR OPINION, IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS AN ISOLATED ADDITION AS NO UNIFORM ADDITION WERE MADE AMONG ALL THE FOUR EARNI NG MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY. 19. THEREFORE, RS 70/- SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS BASE FIGURE FOR THE AY 2000-01 FOR COMPUTING THE ANNUAL ACCRETION AT THE RATE OF 1 3% AS RATIONALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF FOR ARRIVING AT GROSS THE SUM FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES FOR THE AY 2006-07 PER MEMBER PER DAY OF THIS PARTICULAR FAMILY. THUS, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO UNDER TAKE NECESSARY WORKING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE SUM FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION AFTER GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. RELEVANT GROUNDS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT, WHICH HAS BEEN RENDE RED IN THE CASE OF FAMILY MEMBER OF THE ASSESSEE, ON AN IDENTICAL FOOTING, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE ADDITION, IF ANY, ON A CCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF SUCH EXPENSES IN THE MANNER DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 31.10.2009 (SUPRA). 6. THE SECOND GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS 9980/- IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF GOLD COINS BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CO URSE OF SEARCH, ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT STATED THAT THESE COINS WERE BROUGHT BY HIS WIFE KAVITA ON APPROVAL AND WERE RETURNED BACK TO THE JEWELER AS THE DESIRED ENGRAVING OF GODDESS LAXMI WAS NOT THERE ON THE COIN. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS STAYING IN A J OINT FAMILY AND IT WAS A COMMON PRACTICE THAT CONSENT AND APPROVAL WAS TAKEN OF FAMILY MEMBERS IN SUCH A CASE AND AS IT WAS NOT APPROVED, THE SAID COINS WERE RETURNED BACK. AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH CONFIRMATIO N FOR RETURN OF THE GOLD COINS FROM THE JEWELER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS 9,980/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF GOLD COIN. IN APPEAL, THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS 9,980/- MAD E AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. BEING NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS), ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. ON THIS ASPECT, THE PRIMARY ARGUMENT SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE THAT GOLD COIN S WERE AT ALL PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS NOT CAL LED FOR. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE CONTRARY, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. HAVING CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE SAME DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY PURCHASED THE GOLD COINS. IN ANY CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT AT ANY STAG E IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ANY GOLD COINS IN QUESTION WERE PHYSICALLY FOUND. M OREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT TO THE ANSWERS GIVEN IN THE COURSE OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT WHEREIN ALSO PU RCHASE OR ACQUISITION OF SUCH GOLD COINS WAS DENIED. THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SHO W THAT SUCH DENIAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WRONG OR CONTRARY TO THE FACTUAL POSI TION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ASPECT AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS 9888/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PUR CHASE OF GOLD COINS. 10. THE REMAINING GROUNDS, WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS, RELATE TO A SIMILAR WHICH PERTAINS TO VARIOUS LOOSE PAPERS FOUND ON THE BASIS OF WH ICH THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HELD TO HAVE ACQUIRED JEWELLERY WHOSE SOURCES HAVE R EMAINED UNEXPLAINED: 3. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION O F R 43,886/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOOSE PAPERS FOUND WITH THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS 25,000/- ON THE BASIS OF A LOSE PAPER FOUND WITH THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THAT IT WAS A DUMB PAPER AND HENCE, NO ADDITION WAS REQUIRED TO BE MAD E. 5. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS 3,66,400/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE LOOSE PAPERS INDICATING PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAID JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEH ALF F SHRI RAM MANOHAR LOHIA AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND THUS, THERE WAS NO REASON TO MAKE ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.1 THE LD CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT A. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED JEWELLERY ON BEHALF OF SHRI RAM MANOHAR LOHIA AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS OUT OF THE FUNDS GIVEN TO HER BY THEM AND THIS FACT WAS CONFIRMED BY OF ALL THEM AND THEREFORE, TH ERE WAS NO REASON TO MAKE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. B. THE LOOSE PAPERS ALSO INDICATED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD PURCHASED THE JEWELLERY ON BEHALF OF SHRI RAM MANOHAR LOHIA AND H IS FAMILY MEMBERS OUT OF THE FUNDS GIVEN BY THEM AND HENCE, THE ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 6. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS 20,600/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAME DID NOT CONSTITUTE INVES TMENT/INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS 4,46,112/- ON THE BASIS OF THE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND DURING SEARCH WITHOUT APPREC IATING THE CORRECT FACTS OF THE CASE. 8. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT A) QUITE OF FEW SAME NOTINGS WERE REPEATED ON THE V ARIOUS LOOSE PAPERS AND HENCE, IT AMOUNTED TO DOUBLE ADDITION. B) THE RECONCILIATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE EXP LAINING THE LOOSE PAPERS AND THUS, THERE WAS NO REASON TO MAKE ANY ADDITION. 11. IN SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS 43,886/- IS CONCERNE D, THE SAME IS COMPRISING OF TWO AMOUNTS OF RS 17,886/- AND RS 26,000/- BASED ON PAGE NOS. 27 AND PAGE 28 RESPECTIVELY OF BUNDLE NO. 2 OF TH E SEIZED PAPERS. ON BOTH THESE DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE RE WERE ENTRIES TO SHOW THAT CERTAIN JEWELLERY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SUCH ENTRIES WERE CIRCLED WHICH SHOWED TH AT THE SAME WAS RETURNED BACK TO THE JEWELLER AND THAT IN ANY CASE T HE DETAIL NOTED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL RELATED TO JEWELLERY PURCHASED ON BEHA LF OF HIS RELATIVE SHRI RAM MANOHAR LOHIA. FURTHER EVEN THE ADDITION OF RS 25,000/- WHICH IS BASED ON PAGE 32 OF BUNDLE NO. 2 OF THE SEIZED PAPERS WAS AL SO ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. ON THIS ASPECT ALS O, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID PURCHASE WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF HI S RELATIVE SHRI RAM MANOHAR LOHIA. SIMILARLY, THE NEXT GROUND RELA TING TO THE ADDITION OF RS 3,66,400/-, THE SAME WAS BASED ON PAGE NO 37 OF BUNDLE NO 2 OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL. IT CONTAINED DETAILS OF PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY AND THIS WAS ALSO EXPLAINED AS BEING MADE ON BEHALF OF SHRI RAM MANOHA R LOHIA AND IN FACT, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ENTRIES ON THE OP POSITE SIDE OF THIS PAGE SHOWED DETAILS OF AN AMOUNT OF RS 3,87,000/- RECEIVED F ROM SHRI RAM MANOHAR LOHIA IN THIS REGARD. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED SO EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS PERTAINED TO SHRI RAM MANOHAR LOHIA, A RELATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND HAS MADE THE RESPECTIVE ADDITIONS. THE ADDITION OF RS 4,46,112/ - WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF PAGES 24 TO 38 OF BUNDLE NO 2 OF THE PAPER SEIZED. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME RELATES TO THE JEWELLERY PURCH ASED ON BEHALF OF HIS RELATIVE SHRI RAM MANOHAR LOHIA AND THAT ONLY PAGE S 29 AND 35 PERTAINED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE INVESTMENT IN THESE PAGES WAS DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADDITIONAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS 1,50,200 /-. HOWEVER, AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SAID PAGES, NAMELY 24 TO 38 RE FLECTED TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS 10,31,598/- AND AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCT ION OF RS 1,50,200/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO REPRESENTING THE ADDIT IONS MADE EARLIER OF RS 17886/- + RS 26000/- + 25000/- + 3,66,400/- AND 20 ,600/- , THE BALANCE OF RS 4,46,000/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS 20,600/- THE SAME IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF PAGE 39 OF BUNDLE NO. 2 OF THE SEIZED MATRIAL. IN TERMS OF THE SAID PAGE, IT WAS CANVASSED THAT IT CONTA INED DETAILS OF PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY OF RS 3,66,000/- ON BEHALF OF S HRI RAM MANOHAR LOHIA AND A SUM OF RS 3,87,000/- WAS ALSO MENTIONED ON THE P AGE WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED FROM SHRI RAM MANOHAR LOHIA FOR SUCH PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS 20,600/- ALSO BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNTS SPENT ON THE JEWELLERY OF RS 3,66,400/- AND RS 3,87,000/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI RAM MANOHAR LOHIA. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALL THE ABOVE SHOWED ACQUISITION OF JEWELLERY BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALSO AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEH EMENTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN BASED ON A MISCONCEIV ED UNDERSTANDING THAT THE JEWELLERY WAS INDEED ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HIM SELF, WHEREAS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DETAILS OF JEWELLERY PERTAINED TO PURCH ASES MADE BY SHRI RAM MANOHAR LOHIA, A RELATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE MOREOVER, I T WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE PURCHASES WERE EF FECTED BY THE SAID RELATIVE ON THE OCCASION OF MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER AN D THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY FACILITATED SUCH PURCHASES. FURTHER, IT WAS POINTED O UT THAT THE DECLARATION OF SHRI RAM MANOHAR LOHIA TO THE EFFECT THAT THE P URCHASES OF RS 3,61,400/- WERE MET OUT OF RS 3,87,000/- SENT BY HIM IN CASH HAS B EEN DISREGARDED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN MERELY DISREGARDED WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASONS. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE, HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE BY POINTING OUT THAT THE PLEAS SET-UP BY THE ASSESSEE WE RE UNSUBSTANTIATED AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED. 14. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ON E OF THE STRIKING FEATURES OF THE DISCUSSION EMERGING FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS THAT THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REG ARD TO THE PURCHASE ON BEHALF OF HIS RELATIVE SHRI RAM MANOHAR LOHIA HAS BEE N REJECTED BY MERELY DISBELIEVING THE SAME. IN FACT, AS HAS BEEN ASSERTED, THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI RAM MANOHAR LOHIA ALSO IN THIS REGARD. THE SAID CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (APPEALS) MERELY BECAUSE THE SAID PERSON HAPPENED TO BE ASSESSEES R ELATIVE AND, THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), THE SAID CONFIRMATION COULD NOT BE TAKEN AT ITS FACE VALUE. IN O UR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AFORESAID APPROACH IS UNTENABLE. OSTENSIBLY, THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH ITEMS OF JEWELLERY NOTED IN THE LOOSE PA PERS PERTAINED TO PURCHASES OF SHRI RAM MANOHAR LOHIA WAS ALSO STATED AT T HE VERY FIRST INSTANCE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE STATEMENT RENDERED B Y HIM UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. CONSIDERING T HE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED SUCH EXPLANATION AT THE VERY FIRST INSTANCE AND THEREAFTER THE SAME WAS BACKED-UP BY THE CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI RAM MANOHAR LO HIA, THE SAME HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DISREGARDED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, E SPECIALLY WHEN THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN PUT TO ANY FORM OF VERIFICATION. IT IS QUITE EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EMERGING THAT NONE OF THE JEWELLE RY REFERRED TO IN THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE ASSESSEE AT T HE TIME OF SEARCH, AS WAS VEHEMENTLY CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. CONSI DERING THE ENTIRETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, WE, THEREFORE, DEEM IT FIT A ND PROPER TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL REVISIT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER AND THEREAFTER PASS AN ORDER AFRESH ON THESE ASP ECTS AS PER LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE A R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, IN THIS REG ARD. THEREFORE, ON THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (I C SUDHIR) (G.S . PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER PUNE, DATED: 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2012 B COPY TO:- 1) MANOJ H MALU, PUNE 2) DCIT CIR. 1(2), PUNE 3) THE CIT (A)-I, PUNE 4 THE CIT (CEN), PUNE 5) DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T.,PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER SR. PS, ITAT PUNE