SHRIMATI MEERA AGGARWAL, JALANDHAR V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JALANDHAR

ITA 511/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8264 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S K GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Gift; Business income; Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Valuation report; Set aside
• Section: 44AD; 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 69B; 143(2); 73; 13; 68; 6; 132; 144; 15

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2017-18) S MT. MEERA AGGARWAL, 99, CHOTI BARADARI, PART-I JALANDHAR. VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, JALANDHAR. PAN ADHPA7332D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI S.K.GUPTA (C.A.) RESPONDENT BY: SHRI M. P. SINGH (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 06.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.06.2020 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-5, LUDHIANA, DATED 14.05.2019, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153A/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT ACT), DATED 19.12.2018 FOR A.Y. 2017-18. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LA W AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MA DE BY LEARNED ACIT UNDER SECTION 153A/143(3) INSTEAD O F ONLY 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A(I)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN ONLY BE MADE FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR IS THE SEVENTH ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A CAN BE ISSUE D WHICH IS MANDATORY FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, DUE TO WHICH ASSESSMENT BECOMES VO ID. P A G E | 2 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT 2. THAT THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE PART BUSINESS INCOME FROM TUITION AND ART WORK FOR RS. 2,35,000/- OUT OF RS. 6,85,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME DEPOSITED IN THE BANK WITHOUT ANY BASE OR EVIDENCE ON RECORD. WHEREAS THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS HAD BEEN ACCEPTED IN EARLIER AS SESSMENT YEARS. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,61,200/- ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE TI ME OF SEARCH AS MADE BY THE LD ACIT, WITHOUT VERIFYING THE VERACITY OF THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY TH E FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE THAT JEWELLERY WEIGHING 11 00 GRAM WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN HER MARRIAGE. 5. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY MISQUOTED IN HIS ORDER SINCE THE AR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THAT THIS JEWELLERY WAS EVER DECLARED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPAR TMENT EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY HER FATHER, WHEREAS ON THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT OF LD. CIT(A) T HE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COPY OF WEALTH TAX RETURN OF MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWING THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY BEING ABOUT 1800 GRAM ALONG WITH COPIES OF SIX BILLS OF JEWELLERY SHOWING LABOU R CHARGES OF OLD JEWELLERY. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY FAILED TO CONSID ER THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY THE ASSESS EES FATHER. 7. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MISCONSTRUED THE PROVISI ON OF SECTION 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT UNDER WHICH ADDITION OF RS. 18,61,200/- HAS BEEN MADE BY LD. AC IT AND FAILED TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF THREE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR INVOKING SECT ION 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 8. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN S USTAINING THE VALUATION OF JEWELLERY UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE ACT AT MARKET PRICE RULING ON THE DATE OF SEARC H WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT THE COST PRICE OF THE JEWELLERY. 9. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY FAILED TO GI VE FAIR CONSIDERATION ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO VALUATION OF JEWELLERY UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. 10. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MISCONSTRUED THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 292C OF THE ACT UNDER WHICH PRESUMPTION IS RAISED WHICH IS REBUTTABLE AND THE A SSESSEE HAS DULY REBUTTED BY SUBMITTING AFFIDAVIT O F HER FATHER WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMEN T. 12. THAT THE ASSESSEE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND, ALTER OR RAISE AN ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFO RE THE DISPOSAL OF THIS APPEAL. 3. SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 132 OF TH E ACT WERE CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESS EE ON 08.09.2016. THE ASSESSEE E-FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2017-18 ON 26.07.2017, DEC LARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8,24,930/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, DATED 12.09.2018 WAS SERVED UPON HER. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT W AS OBSERVED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN HER SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 02560120015900 WITH KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK, JALANDHAR AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,85,000/ -. ON BEING QUERIED AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME P A G E | 3 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT WERE THE GROSS RECEIPTS GENERATED FROM PROVIDING TU ITIONS TO CHILDREN BETWEEN THE AGE GROUP OF 4 YEARS TO 10 YEARS AT HER RESIDENCE I.E. HOUSE NO. 99, CHHOTI BARADARI, PART 1, JALANDHAR. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REFLE CTED THE INCOME CORRESPONDING TO THE AFORESAID RECEIPTS FROM PROVIDING TUITIONS UNDER SE C. 44AD OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE A.O WAS NOT PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE AFORESAID CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE. OBSERVING, THAT ON A SPOT VERIFICATION BY THE INSPECTOR OF HIS OFFICE NO SIGN BOARD/HORDING REGARDING TUITION WORK WAS FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE A.O WAS NOT I NSPIRED BY THE AFORESAID UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE A. O HOLDING A CONVICTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVIDING ANY TUITIONS, REJECTED HER EXPLAN ATION AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O TREATED T HE AFORESAID CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 6,85,000/- AS THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS UNDER SEC. 68 OF TH E ACT AND SUBJECTED THE SAME TO TAX UNDER SEC. 115BBE OF THE ACT. 4.1. ALSO, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT GOLD JEW ELLERY WEIGHING 2272.30 GRAMS AND 10.16 CARAT OF DIAMOND VALUING RS. 70,71,627/- WAS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE/BANK LOCKERS IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED UNDER SE C. 132(1) OF THE ACT. ON BEING QUERIED AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE AFORESAID JEWELLERY, THE ASSESSEE OWNED 1100 GRAMS (APPROX.) OF GOLD JEWELLERY (INCLUDING DIAMOND). IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT 1100 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY (INCLUDING DIAMOND) WAS RECEIVED BY HER AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE FROM HER FATHER SH. SANDEEP MAINI. IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE HER AFORESAID CLAIM THE ASSESSEE FILED WITH THE A.O A DULY ATTESTED AFFIDAVIT OF HER FATHER V IZ. SH. SANDEEP MAINI. HOWEVER, THE A.O WAS NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAD EVER FILED HER WEALTH TAX RETURNS IN THE EARLIER YEARS NOR FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF ACQUISITION OF THE AFORESAID JEWELLERY. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE BACKDROP OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, THE A.O AFTER GIVING BENEFI T OF 500 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AS HAVING BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HER EXPLAINED SOURCES, THEREIN TREATED THE BALANCE 600 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AS UNEXPLAINED. OBSERVING, THAT THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY WEIGHING 600 GRAMS (24 CARAT) AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS RS. 3 ,102/- PER GRAM, THE A.O WORKED OUT THE VALUE OF 600 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AT RS. 18,61,2 00/-, WHICH WAS HELD BY HIM AS THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 6 9B OF THE ACT. ON THE BASIS OF HIS P A G E | 4 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE A.O MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 18,61,200/- UNDER SEC. 69B OF THE ACT AND BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX UNDER SEC. 115BBE OF TH E ACT. 4.2. AFTER INTER ALIA MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION S THE A.O ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 26,38,730/-, WHICH THEREAFTER WAS S UBJECTED TO TAX BY HIM UNDER SEC. 115BBE OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE AS SAILED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E . THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED UNDER SEC. 132(1) OF THE ACT COULD HAVE B EEN FRAMED ONLY UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 153A/143(3) WAS INVALID AND THEREIN LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN AS NON-EST IN THE EYES OF LAW. IN SUPPORT OF HER AFORESAID CONTENTION THE ASSESSEE HAD RELIED ON SEC. 153A(1), AND CLAIMED, THAT ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE THEREIN CONTEMPLATED WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR FRAMING OF AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 153A OF THE ACT. AS SUCH, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ISSUANCE OF THE REQUISITE NOTICE AN ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SEC. 15 3A WAS TO BE TREATED AS ILLEGAL AND VOID. ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THA T ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR OF SEARCH COULD ONLY BE FRAMED EITHER UNDER SEC. 143(3) OR SEC. 144 OF T HE ACT. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID CONTENTIONS, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ISSUANCE OF A VALID NOTICE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 153A/14 3(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 19.12.2018 WAS INVALID AND THEREIN LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN ON THE SAID COUNT ITSELF. ALSO, THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE TREATING OF HER TUITION INCOME OF RS. 6,85,000/ - AS AN UNEXPLAINED CREDIT UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE ACT, WHICH THEREAFTER HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO TAX BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 115BBE OF THE ACT. APART FROM THAT, THE ASSESSEE ALSO ASSAILED THE TRE ATING OF 600 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY (OUT OF 1100 GRAMS) OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SEC. 69B OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTE NTIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREIN FOR THE REASONS ELABORATED BY HIM IN HIS ORDER DECL INED TO ACCEPT THE SAME. OBSERVING, THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O WAS PURSUANT TO THE NO TICES ISSUED BY HIM U/S 143(2) AND SEC. 142(1) OF THE ACT, AND THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY PARTIC IPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS P A G E | 5 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT BEFORE THE A.O, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT PERSUADED TO SUB SCRIBE TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS THE A.O HAD MADE A MENTION OF SEC. 153A ALONG WITH SEC. 143(3), THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS LIABLE TO BE HELD AS INVALID AND VOID ABINITIO. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ISHA BEEVI VS. TRO (19 75) 101 ITR 449 (SC), HAD HELD THAT A MERE WRONG REFERENCE TO A SECTION UNDER WHICH AN OR DER IS MADE WOULD NOT VITIATE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BUT IN FACT THE VALIDITY OF THE S AME WAS TO BE DETERMINED BY SEEKING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE A.O HAD ANY POWER TO PASS SUCH A N ORDER. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE CIT(A), THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAD OBSERVED THAT IF THE POW ER WAS OTHERWISE AVAILABLE WITH THE A.O, THE FACT THAT THE SOURCE OF THE POWER HAD INCORRECT LY BEEN DESCRIBED BY HIM WOULD NOT VITIATE THE ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESA ID OBSERVATION, THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS THE A.O WAS DULY VESTED WITH THE POWER TO M AKE AN ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, M ERELY FOR THE REASON THAT THE SOURCE OF SUCH POWER HAD INCORRECTLY BEEN DESCRIBED BY HIM IN THE ORDER AS 153A/143(3) WOULD NOT VITIATE THE SAME. AS SUCH, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O WAS INVALID AND VOID AB INITIO IN THE EYES OF LAW. 5.1 AS REGARDS THE TREATING OF THE CASH DEPOSITS MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK, JALANDHAR OF RS. 6,85,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE ACT, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT AS THE SAME WERE OUT OF HER DULY DISCLOSED INCOME FROM TUITION AND ART WORK, THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE A.O COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED AND WAS LIA BLE TO BE VACATED. ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD ASSAILED THE INVOKING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 115 BBE WHICH AS PER HER COULD ONLY BE INVOKED AT THE TIME OF FRAMING OF AN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AN D NOT IN AN ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER 153A OF THE ACT. AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSISTENTLY BEEN FILING HER RETURNS F OR THE PRECEDING YEARS BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH, AND HAD IN HER RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE IM MEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2016-17 HAD DECLARED HER INCOME FROM TUITION AND ART CLASSE S AT RS. 3,95,000/-. OBSERVING, THAT EVEN IF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAD DEPOSITED HE R DULY DISCLOSED TUITION INCOME IN HER BANK ACCOUNT WAS TO BE ACCEPTED, THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE V IEW THAT AS PER THE PAST TRENDS ONLY AN INCOME OF RS. 4,50,000/- COULD REASONABLY BE HELD T O HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES. ACCORDINGLY, ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVAT IONS THE CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT CASH DEPOSITS P A G E | 6 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT O F RS. 4,50,000/- WERE TO BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN GENERATED FROM HER BUSINESS ACTIVITIES I. E. PROVIDING OF TUITIONS, WHILE FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,35,000/- WAS TO BE TREATED AS CASH DEPOSITS FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. AS SUCH, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION UNDER SEC. 68 TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,35,000/-, AND CONCURRED WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O THAT THE S AME WERE TO BE SUBJECTED TO THE SPECIAL RATES OF TAX CONTEMPLATED UNDER SEC. 115BBE OF THE ACT. 5.2 AS REGARDS THE TREATING OF THE VALUE OF THE GOL D JEWELLERY OF 600 GRAMS (OUT OF 1100 GRAMS) OF RS. 18,61,200/- AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 69B OF THE ACT BY THE A.O, THE ASSESSEE HAD ASSAILED THE ADDIT ION ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUCH ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN VALIDLY MADE UNDER THE AFORESAID ST ATUTORY PROVISION I.E. SEC. 69B OF THE ACT. ALTERNATIVELY, ON MERITS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE THAT AS 1100 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED BY HER AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE FROM HE R FATHER, WHEREIN THE LATTER HAD ADMITTED THE SAID FACT BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, NO PART OF THE AFORESAID JEWELLERY COULD HAVE BEEN HELD AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HER HANDS. AS REGARDS THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O, THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD NOT FILED ANY WEALTH TAX RETURNS, FAILING WHICH HER AFORESAID CLAIM THAT THE JEWELLER Y WAS GIFTED TO HER AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT AS HER NET WEALTH WAS BELOW THE EXEMPTION LIMIT OVER THE YEAR S UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957, THEREFORE, NO OBLIGATION WAS CAST UPON HER TO FILE HER WEALTH TAX RETURNS. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SAME. OBSERVING, THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FA ILED TO SHOW THAT THE SAID JEWELLERY WAS DECLARED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT EITHER BY HER OR BY HER FATHER, THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT NO INFIRMITY DID EMERGE FROM THE ORDER OF THE A.O, WHO AFTER ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF 500 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AS HAVING BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS GIFTS FROM HER RELATIVES OVER THE YEARS HAD RIGHTLY TREATED THE BALANCE GOLD JEWELLERY OF 600 GRAMS AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 69B OF THE AC T. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,61,200/- MADE BY THE A.O UNDER S EC. 69B OF THE ACT. 6. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED P A G E | 7 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD, AND ALSO THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THEM. WE SHALL FIRST ADVERT TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICH HAD BEEN ASSAILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, THE ASSESEE HAD ASSAILED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A .O FOR TWO FOLD REASONS VIZ. (I) THAT, AS THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR OF SEARCH COULD ONLY BE FRAMED UNDER SEC. 143(3) OR SEC. 144 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A. O IN THE PRESENT CASE UNDER SEC. 153A/143(3), DATED 19.12.2018 WAS INVALID, AND THUS LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN ON THE SAID COUNT ITSELF; AND (II) THAT, AS NO NOTICE WHICH IS MANDAT ORILY REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESEE, THER EFORE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SEC. 153A/143(3), DATED 19.12.2018 COULD NOT BE SUSTAINE D AND WAS LIABLE TO BE VACATED. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE AFORESAID C LAIM OF THE ASSESEE AND ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO ACCEPT THE SAME. ADMITTEDLY, THE A.O HAD ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2), DATED 12.09.2018 (WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE A SSESEE ON 13.09.2018). ALSO, NOTICE UNDER SEC. 142(1), DATED 03/04.10.2018 WAS ISSUED T O THE ASSESEE (WHICH WAS SERVED UPON HER ON 13.09.2018). IN COMPLIANCE TO THE AFORESIAD NOTICES THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY PARTICIPATED IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HAD FURNISHED THE REQUISITE REPLIES TO THE QUERIES WHICH WERE RAISED BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND THAT THE A.O WAS DULY VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION TO FRAME THE ASSESMENT UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A), THAT AS HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ISHA BEEVI VS. TRO (1975) 101 ITR 449 ( SC), A WRONG REFERENCE TO A SECTION UNDER WHICH AN ORDER IS MADE WOULD NOT ON SUCH STANDALONE BASIS VITIATE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BUT IN ORDER TO SEE AS TO WHETHER AN ORDER IS VALID OR NOT HAS TO BE DETERMINED BY VERIFYING AS TO WHETHER THE A.O HAD ANY POWER AT ALL TO MAKE SUCH A SSESSMENT. AS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IF THE POWER IS OTHERWISE AVAILABLE WITH THE A.O, THE FACT THAT SOURCE OF SUCH POWER HAD BEEN INCORRECTLY DESCRIBED WOULD NOT VITI ATE THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM. NOW, IN THE CASE BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE A.O WHO WAS DULY V ESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION TO FRAME THE ASSESEMENT UNDER SEC. 143(3) HAD INADVERTENTLY MADE A MENTION OF SEC. 153A ALONG WITH SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AFOR ESAID MISTAKE CANNOT BE STRETCHED TO THE EXTENT FOR RENDERING THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A .O UNDER SEC. 143(3) AS INVALID AND VOID AB-INITIO ON THE SAID COUNT. ACCORDINLY, FINDING NO SUBSTANCE IN THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE P A G E | 8 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT ASSESEE, WE DECLINE TO ACCEPT THE SAME AND UPHOLD T HE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A), WHO IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW HAD RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE SAME. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS DISMISSED. 7. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,35,000/- (OUT OF RS. 6,85,000/ -), THAT WAS MADE BY THE A.O BY TREATING THE DULY DISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESEE FROM TUITIONS AND ART WORK AS AN UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE ACT. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINA BOVE, THE ASSESSE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 6,85,000/- IN HER BANK ACCOUNT WITH KOTAK MA HINDRA BANK, JALANDHAR. ALTHOUGH, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESEE THAT THE SOURCE OF THE AFO RESAID CASH DEPOSITS WAS HER BUSINESS RECEIPTS I.E .TUITION AND ART WORK, HOWEVER, THE A. O DECLINED TO ACCEPT THE SAME AND ASSESSED IT AS HER UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SEC. 68, WHICH WAS SUBJECTED TO THE SPECIAL TAX RATES UNDER SEC. 115BBE OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESEE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS, OBSERVED, THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD IN THE PRECEDING YEARS ALSO REFLECTED INCOME FROM TUITION AND ART WORK, TH US ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CASH DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4,50,000/- WERE SOURCED FROM HER BUSINESS RECEIPTS BUT UPHELD THE A DDITION OF BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,35,000/- UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE ACT, WHICH AS PER HIM WERE LIA BLE TO BE SUBJECTED TO THE SPECIAL RATES OF TAX CONTEMPLATED UNDER SEC. 115BBE OF THE ACT. 8. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE AFORESAID FACT PATTERN PERTAINING TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,85,000/- THAT WAS MADE BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE ACT, AND THEREAFTER HAD BEEN SCALED DOWN TO AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,35,000/- BY THE CIT(A). AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS MADE/SUSTAINTE D BY THE A.O/CIT(A) UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE ACT ARE IN CONTEXT OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESEE. ADMITTEDLY, AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S THE ASSESEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A SSESEE HAS INTER ALIA ASSAILED THE AFORESIAD ADDITION OF RS. 2,35,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT AS THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN VALIDLY MADE UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE A CT. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENGTH ON THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R AND ARE PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO HIS CLAIM THAT AS THE BANK ACCOUNT OR BANK PASSBOOK OF AN ASSESSEE CANNOT BE H ELD AS THE LATTERS 'BOOKS OF ACCOUNT', P A G E | 9 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT HENCE NO ADDITION IN RESPECT OF A CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN THE SAID ACCOUNT COULD BE VALIDLY MADE UNDER SEC.68 TO THE ACT. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS FORT IFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHAICHAND H. GANDHI (1983) 143 ITR 67 (BOM.). APART FROM THAT, WE FIND THAT A SIMILAR VIEW HAD BEEN ARR IVED AT BY A COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIZ. ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF MEHUL V. VYAS VS. ITO (2017) 764 ITD 296 (MUM), WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: '8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE S OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LO WER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BEFORE US. WE WILL FIRST DEAL WITH THE OBJECTION RAISED P A G E |5 ITA NO.105/ASR./2017 A.Y. 2008-09 SHRI SATISH KUMAR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER BY THE ID. A.R AS REGARDS THE A DDITION OF RS.10,53,000/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE A.O UNDER SECT ION 68 OF THE 'ACT', IN RESPECT OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND SUBSTANTIAL F ORCE IN THE \CONTENTION OF THE ID. A.R THAT AN ADDI TION UNDER SECTION 68 CAN ONLY BE MADE WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE ASSESSEE EITHER OFFERS NO EX PLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE AS REGARDS TH E SAME, OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IN THE OPINION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY . THAT BEFORE ADVERTING FURTHER, WE HEREIN REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISION, VIZ. SECTION 68, WHICH READS AS UNDER : 'CASH CREDITS. WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM I S NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER, SAT ISFACTORY, THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PR EVIOUS YEAR........... ' THAT A BARE PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID DEEMING SECTIO N THEREIN REVEALS THAT AN ADDITION UNDER THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION CAN ONLY BE MADE WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR. THUS, TH E VERY SINE QUA NON FOR MAKING OF AN ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 PRESUPPOSES A CREDIT OF T HE AFORESAID AMOUNT IN THE 'BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE' MAINTAINED FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR. WE NOT BEING OBLIVIOUS OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT A STATUTORY PROVISION HAS TO BE STRICTLY CONST RUED AND INTERPRETED AS PER ITS PLAIN LITERAL INTERPRETATION, AND NO WORD HOWSOEVER MEANINGFUL IT MAY SO APPEAR CAN BE ALLOWED TO BE READ INTO A STATUTORY PROVISION IN THE GARB OF GIVING EF FECT TO THE UNDERLYING INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE, THUS CONSTRUE THE SCOPE AND GAMUT OF THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISION BY ACCORDING A PLAIN MEANING TO THE LANGUAGE USED IN SEC. 68. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT A CREDIT IN THE 'BANK ACCOUNT' OF AN ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSTRUED A S A CREDIT IN THE 'BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE', FOR THE VERY REASON THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE THE 'BOOKS' OF THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH IT REMAINS AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE 'BAN K ACCOUNT' OF AN ASSESSEE IS THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE BANK, OR IN OTHER WORDS THE A CCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF THE P A G E | 10 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT BANK, BUT THE SAME IN NO WAY CAN BE HELD TO BE THE 'BOOKS' OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE SCOPE AND GAMUT OF THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISION, VIZ. SEC. 68, AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AN ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF A CASH DEPOSIT IN THE 'BANK ACCOUNT' OF AN ASSESSEE, IN THE ABSENCE OF TH E SAME FOUND CREDITED IN THE 'BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE' MAINTAINED FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR CANNOT B E BROUGHT TO TAX BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68. AS OBSERVED HEREINABOVE, OUR AFORESA ID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHAICHAND'N. GANDHI (1983) 141 ITR 67 (BOMBAY) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: - 'AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS POINTED OUT, IT IS FAIRLY WELL SETTLED THAT WHEN MONEYS ARE DEPOSITED IN A BANK, THE RELATIONSHIP THAT IS CONSTITUTED BETWEEN THE BANKER AND THE CUST OMER IS ONE OF DEBTOR AND CREDITOR AND NOT OF TRUST EE AND BENEFICIARY. APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE, THE PASS BOOK SUPPLIED BY THE BANK TO ITS CONSTITUENT IS ONLY A COPY OF THE CONSTITUENT'S ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS MAINTAINED BY TH E BANK. IT IS NOT AS IF THE PASS BOOK IS MAINTAINED BY THE BANK AS THE AGENT OF THE CONSTITUENT, NOR CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE PASS BOOK IS MAINTAINED BY THE BANK UNDER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CONSTITUENT. IN VIEW OF THIS, T HE TRIBUNAL WAS, WITH RESPECT, JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE PASS BOOK SUPPLIED BY THE BANK TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS A BOOK OF THE ASSESS EE, THAT IS, A BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE OR UNDER HIS INST RUCTIONS. IN OUR VIEW, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED I N THE CONCLUSIONS AT WHICH IT ARRIVED.' WE FIND THAT THE AFORESAID VIEW OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAD THEREAFTER BEEN FOLLOWED BY A 'SMC' OF THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. MANSHI MAHENDRA PITKAR VS. ITO 1(2), THANE (2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM 68 (MUMBAI TRIB.) ALSO A SIMILAR VIEW HAD ALSO BEEN ARRIVED AT IN A 'THIRD MEMBER' DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. MADHU RAITANI VS. ACIT (2011) 10 TAXMANN.COM 206 (GAUHATI) (TM), AS WELL AS BY A COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO, BARABANKI VS. KAMAL KUMAR MISHRA (2013 ) 33 TAXAMANN.COM 610 (LUCKNOW TRIB.). THUS IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS OF THE CASE READ IN LIGHT OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDI TION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2,35,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 , HAS TO FAIL, FOR THE VERY REASON THAT AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE BOM BAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHAICHAND N. GANDHI (SUPRA), A BANK PASS BOOK OR BA NK STATEMENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A 'BOOK' MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY PREVIOU S YEAR WITHIN THE MEANING AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ON THI S COUNT ITSELF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION RS.2,35,000/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED. WE THUS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,35,000/- SUSTAINED BY HIM UNDER SE C.68 OF THE ACT. AS WE HAVE QUASHED THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,35,000/- THAT WAS SUSTAINED BY TH E CIT(A) UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE ACT, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, THEREFORE, WE REFRAIN FROM ADVERTING TO AND THEREIN ADJUDICATING THE CONTENTIONS P A G E | 11 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT ADVANCED BY THE LD. A.R AS REGARDS THE MERITS OF TH E SAID ADDITION, WHICH ARE THUS LEFT OPEN. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. 9. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD ERRED IN TREATING 600 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY (OUT OF 1100 G RAMS) AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SEC. 69B OF THE ACT, AND RESULTANTLY MAKING AN ADDI TION OF ITS IMPUGNED VALUE OF RS. 18,61,200/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED ON THE ASS ESSEE AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS GOLD JEWELLERY (WEIGHING 2272.30 GRAMS) AND 10.16 CARAT OF DIAMOND WAS FOUND, AS UNDER : S.NO. NAME OF THE BANK LOCKER NO. NET WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY & DIAMOND FOUND IN GRAMS VALUE AS PER VALUATION REPORT REMARKS 1. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA GARHA ROAD, JALANDHAR 175 757.020 23,55,846/ - WHOLE OF JEWELLERY WAS SEIZED 2. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA GARHA ROAD, JALANDHAR 178 502.720 15,64,464/ - OUT OF THIS 170.600 GRAMS JEWELLERY WAS SEIZED 3. ICICI BANK, CHOTTI BARADARI BRANCH, JALANDHAR 09 924.400 28,76,962/ - TOTAL NET WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY & DIAMOND FOUND FROM LOCKERS 2184.14 67,97,273/ - 4. RESIDENCE 99, CHOTTI BARADARY, JALANDHAR 88.160 (APPROXIMATELY) 2,74,354/ - GRAND TOTAL 2272.30 70,71,627/ - AS CAN BE GATHERED FROM THE AFORESAID DETAILS OWNER SHIP OF NO SPECIFIC PART OF THE GOLD JEWELLERY AND DIAMOND FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCE EDINGS COULD CONCLUSIVELY AND IRREFUTABLY BE RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE I.E. SMT. MEERA AGGARWAL . HOWEVER, IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT 1100 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY (INCLUDING DIAMON D) WAS RECEIVED BY HER AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE FROM HER FATHER SH. SANDEEP MAINI. IN SUPP ORT OF HER AFORESAID CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED WITH THE A.O A DULY ATTESTED AFFIDA VIT OF HER FATHER SH. SANDEEP MAINI. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, THE A.O ALLOWED A BENEF IT OF 500 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME COULD SAFELY BE HELD TO HAVE B EEN RECEIVED BY HER AS GIFTS OVER THE YEARS FROM HER RELATIVES, WHILE FOR HE TREATED THE BALANC E GOLD JEWELLERY OF 600 GRAMS AS HER UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. ADOPTING THE VALUE OF THE G OLD JEWELLERY AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E. P A G E | 12 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT RS. 3,102/- PER GRAM, THE A.O VALUED THE AFORESAID 600 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AT RS. 18,61,200/-, WHICH WAS ADDED BY HIM AS AN UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT UNDER SEC. 69B OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE V IEW TAKEN BY THE A.O UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,61,200/- MADE BY HIM UNDER SEC. 69B OF THE A CT. 10. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENGTH ON THE ISSUE UNDE R CONSIDERATION AND FIND SUBSTANTIAL FORCE IN THE CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R. AS OBSERVED BY U S HEREINABOVE, IT IS A MATTER OF FACT BORNE FROM THE RECORDS THAT NO PART OF GOLD JEWELLERY WEI GHING 2272.30 GRAMS THAT WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS FROM THE RESIDENCE /BANK LOCKERS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS COULD BE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, IT WAS ONLY PURSUANT TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED 1100 GR AMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY (INCLUDING DIAMOND) AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE FROM HER FATHER SH. SAN DEEP MAINI, THAT THE A.O HAD RELATED THE OWNERSHIP OF 1100 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY (OUT OF 2 272.30 GRAMS) TO THE ASSESSEE. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE BASIS FOR HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS TH E OWNER OF 1100 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY (INCLUDING DIAMOND) WAS ONLY HER CLAIM FILED BEFORE THE A.O. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH SHE HAD SUPPORTED ON THE BASI S OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF HER FATHER SH. SANDEEP MAINI, THAT SHE WAS THE OWNER OF 1100 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY (OUT OF 2272.30 GRAMS) WAS TO BE ACCEPTED, THEN WE FIND NO REASON THAT AS TO WHY THE SOURCE OF HER OWNERSHIP FORMING PART OF THE SAME STATEMENT WAS NOT TO BE ACCEPTED. APART FROM THAT, WE FIND THAT NOW WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF 1100 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY ON THE BASIS OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF HER FATHER SH. SANDEEP MAINI, THEREIN IT WAS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE A.O TO HAVE VERIFIED THE SAID FACTUAL POSITION BY CALLI NG FOR THE REQUISITE DETAILS FROM THE DEPONENT I.E. SH. SANDEEP MAINI. WE ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSEL VES TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SUMMARILY REJECTION BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OF THE AFORESAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE AFORESAID 1100 GRAMS O F GOLD JEWELLERY. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN IN THE CASE OF SMT. HUMA HUSSAIN VS. CIT (2007) 291 ITR 475 (RAJ). IN THE AF ORESAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CERTAIN INVESTMENTS HAD CLAIMED THE SAME TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY HER AS GIFTS AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE, AND ALSO SUBSEQUENTLY FRO M TIME TO TIME EVERY YEAR ON HER MARRIAGE ANNIVERSARY. IN SUPPORT OF HER AFORESAID CLAIM, SHE HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF HER FATHER, WHICH HOWEVER WAS REJECTED BY THE A.O WHO FRAMED THE ASSE SSMENT ON THE SAME DAY WITHOUT P A G E | 13 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASS ESSEE OR CALLING UPON THE DEPONENT TO CLARIFY THE DEFICIENCY IN THE AFFIDAVIT, IF ANY, AND ASKING THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF HER FATHER. IN THE BACK DROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT, AND HAD DIRECTE D THE A.O TO HOLD A PROPER ENQUIRY INTO THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORE SAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SUMMARILY DISCARDING OF THE AFORESAID CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE AFORESAID 1100 GRAMS OF GOLD JEW ELLERY (INCLUDING DIAMOND), CANNOT BE ACCEPTED ON OUR PART. 11. AS REGARDS THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O THAT THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING RECEIVED 1100 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED, FOR THE REASON THAT NO WEALTH TAX RETURNS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREIN REFLECTING THE SAID GOLD JEWELLERY AS AN ASSET UNDER SEC. 2( EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957, WE FIND THAT THE SAME HAD BEEN REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON THE GROUND, THAT AS HER NET WEALTH REMAINED BELOW THE EXEMPTION LIMIT CONTEMPLATED IN THE WEALT H TAX ACT, 1957 OVER THE YEARS, THEREFORE, SHE WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO FILE THE RETURNS FOR THE SAID YEARS. IN ORDER TO FORTIFY HER AFORESAID CLAIM THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE DETAILS AS REG ARDS THE VALUE OF THE 1100 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY, AS AGAINST THE BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT AS WAS AVAILABLE OVER THE YEARS UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957, AS UNDER :- ASSESSMENT YEAR WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY IN GRAM VALUE OF JEWELLERY AT THE MARKET RATE OF RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND AS PER METHOD OF VALUATION OF GOLD ORNAMENTS INITIAL EXEMPTION LIMIT 2007 - 08 1100 GRAM 8,08,170/ - 15,00,000/ - 2008 - 09 1100 GRAM 10,35,848/ - 15,00,000/ 2009 - 10 1100 GRAM 13,14,970/ - 15,00,000/ 2010 - 11 1100 GRAM 14,23,422/ - 30,00,000/ - 2011 - 12 1100 GRAM 18,35,154/ - 30,00,000/ 2012 - 13 1100 GRAM 24,44,410/ - 30,00,000/ 2013 - 14 1100 GRAM 25,73,109/ - 30,00,000/ 2014 - 15 1100 GRAM 24,74,043/ - 30,00,000/ 2015 - 16 1100 GRAM 23,02,850/ - 30,00,000/ ON A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID DETAILS, WE FIND OURS ELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS HER NET WEALTH OVER THE YEARS HA D REMAINED BELOW THE BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT, THEREFORE, SHE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO FILE HER WEALTH TAX RETURNS FOR THE SAID YEARS. IN FACT, WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS .SATYA NARAIN PATNI (2014) 366 P A G E | 14 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT ITR 325 (RAJ), HAD HELD, THAT PURSUANT TO LIMITING OF THE ASSETS FALLING WITH THE DEFINITION OF ASSETS UNDER SEC. 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 19 57, ALONG WITH RAISING OF THE BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT FROM A.Y. 1993-94 ONWARDS TO AN AMO UNT TO RS. 15 LACS, ASSESSES WHO WERE PRIOR TO 01.04.1992 FURNISHING THEIR WEALTH TAX RET URN, HAD CHOSEN NOT TO FILE THE SAME AS THEIR NET WEALTH REMAINED BELOW THE BASIC EXEMPTION LIM IT. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, IT WAS CONCLUDED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT IT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSETS HELD BY AN ASSESSEE WERE TO BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOS ED, SIMPLY FOR THE REASON THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN REFLECTED UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957. IN T HE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS, WE ARE UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE ADVERSE INFERENCE S DRAWN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF 1100 GRAMS OF GOLD JEW ELLERY BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE REASON, THAT THE SAME WAS NOT BACKED BY SUPPORTING WEALTH TAX RE TURNS. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION THAT IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF 1100 GRAMS OF GOLD JEW ELLERY (INCLUDING DIAMOND) MERITS ACCEPTANCE. WE THUS VACATE THE ADDITION OF RS.18,61 ,200/- MADE BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 69B OF THE ACT. 12. ALTERNATIVELY, WE ARE ALSO INCLINED TO ACCEPT T HE CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R THAT IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE VALUE OF THE 600 GRAMS O F GOLD JEWELLERY (OUT OF 1100 GRAMS) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SEC. 69B OF THE ACT. BEFORE PROCEEDING ANY FURTHER, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO CULL OUT SEC. 69B OF THE ACT, WHICH REA DS AS UNDER : 69B. WHERE IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS OR IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE, AND THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FINDS THAT THE AMOUNT EXPENDED ON MAKIN G SUCH INVESTMENTS OR IN ACQUIRING SUCH BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT RECOR DED IN THIS BEHALF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE AS SESSEE FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE ASSESSEE O FFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT SUCH EXCESS AMOUNT OR THE EXPLANA TION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER, SATISFACTORY, THE EXCESS AMOUNT MAY BE DEE MED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINAN CIAL YEAR. ON A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISION, WE FIND THAT THE SAME CAN BE INVOKED ONLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT OR IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE AND THE A.O FINDS THAT TH E AMOUNT EXPENDED ON MAKING SUCH INVESTMENTS OR IN ACQUIRING SUCH BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THIS BEHALF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAI NTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOU T SUCH EXCESS AMOUNT OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE A.O, S ATISFACTORY, THEN THE EXCESS AMOUNT MAY BE P A G E | 15 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FI NANCIAL YEAR. AS SUCH, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN ADDITION UNDER SEC. 69B CERTAIN CONDITION S THEREIN ENVISAGED ARE REQUIRED TO BE CUMULATIVELY SATISFIED VIZ. (I) THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS OR IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE A RTICLE; (II) THAT, THE A.O FINDS THAT THE AMOUNT EXPENDED ON MAKING SUCH INVESTMENTS OR IN ACQUIRING SUCH BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THIS BEHALF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY SOURCE OR INCOME ; AND (III) THAT, THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATIO N ABOUT SUCH EXCESS AMOUNT OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE O PINION OF THE A.O, SATISFACTORY. ACCORDINGLY, AS PER THE MANDATE OF SE C. 69B OF THE ACT, IT IS INTER ALIA REQUIRED THAT THE AMOUNT EXPENDED IN MAKING OF THE INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS ACQUIRING OF BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OF WHICH THE AS SESSEE IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER, EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME. ALSO, THE ADDITION UNDER SEC. 69B IS CONFINED TO TH E EXTENT THE AMOUNT EXPENDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MAKING OF THE AFORESAID INVESTMENTS IS FOUND TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. NOW, IN THE CASE BEFORE US, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. APART FROM THAT, THOUGH AN ADDITION UNDER SEC. 69B IS LIA BLE TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT THE AMOUNT EXPENDED IN MAKING OF THE INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSE E TOWARDS ACQUIRING OF THE BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE IS FOUND TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BUT WE FIND, THAT IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE ENTIRE VALUE OF THE 600 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH HAVE BEEN HELD BY THE A.O AS AN UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 69B OF THE ACT, HAD BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE VERY BASIS FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 69B IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS FOUND TO BE SERIOUSLY AMISS VIZ. (I) THAT, AS THE A SSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE OF RECORDING OF THE I NVESTMENT OF 600 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE COMPREHENDED; AND (I I) THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF RECORDING OF THE INVESTMENT IN 600 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO OCCASION FOR MAKING OF AN ADDITION OF THE EXCESS UN RECORDED VALUE OF SUCH INVESTMENT UNDER SEC. 69B OF THE ACT. ON THE BASIS OF OUR AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS, WE ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION THAT IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE A.O COULD NOT HAVE MADE THE ADDITION AS REGARDS THE IMPUGNED VALUE OF THE 600 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLE RY UNDER SEC. 69B OF THE ACT. AS SUCH, WE P A G E | 16 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY TH E LD. A.R THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 69B OF THE ACT. IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, WE HEREIN CONCLUDE THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 69B OF RS. 18,61,200/-, IS EVEN OTHERWISE NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 4 TO 10 ARE ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS . 13. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 11 BEING GENERAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 14. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY HEREIN DEAL WITH A PROCE DURAL ISSUE THAT THOUGH THE HEARING OF THE CAPTIONED APPEAL WAS CONCLUDED ON 06/02/2020, H OWEVER, THIS ORDER IS BEING PRONOUNCED MUCH AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF C ONCLUSION OF HEARING. WE FIND THAT RULE 34(5) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1962, W HICH ENVISAGES THE PROCEDURE FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: (5) T HE PRONOUNCEMENT MAY BE IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MANNERS : (A) THE BENCH MAY PRONOUNCE TH E ORDER IMMEDIATELY UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. (B) IN CASE WHERE THE OR DER IS NOT PRONOUNCED IMMEDIATELY ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, THE BENCH SHALL GIVE A D ATE FOR PRONOUNCEMENT. IN A CASE WHERE NO DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT IS GIVEN BY THE BENCH, EVERY ENDEAVOUR SHALL BE MADE BY THE BENCH TO PRONOUNCE THE ORDER WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE HEARING OF THE CASE WAS CONCLUDED BUT, WHERE IT IS NOT PRACTICABLE SO TO DO ON THE GROUND OF EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE BENCH SHALL FIX A FUTURE DAY FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER, AND SUCH DATE SHALL NOT ORDINARILY BE A DAY BEYOND A FURTHER PERIOD OF 30 DAYS AND DUE NOTICE OF THE DAY SO FIXED SHALL BE GIVEN ON TH E NOTICE BOARD. AS SUCH, ORDINARILY THE ORDER ON AN APPEAL SHOULD BE PRONOUNCED BY THE BENCH WITH IN NO MORE THAN 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING. IT IS, HOWEVER, IMPORTANT T O NOTE THAT THE EXPRESSION ORDINARILY HAS BEEN USED IN THE SAID RULE ITSELF. THIS RULE WAS IN SERTED AS A RESULT OF DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHIVSAGAR VEG RESTAURANT VS AC IT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (BOM)] WHEREIN IT WAS INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS UNDER: WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE PRESIDENT OF THE APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL TO FRAME AND LAY DOWN THE GUIDELINES IN THE SIMILAR LINES AS ARE LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ANIL RAI (SUPRA) AND TO ISSUE APPROPRI ATE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIONS TO ALL THE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT BEHALF. WE HOPE AND TRUST THAT SU ITABLE GUIDELINES SHALL BE FRAMED AND ISSUED BY THE PRESID ENT OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WITHIN SHORTEST REASONABLE TIME AND FOLLOWED STRICTLY BY ALL THE BE NCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE MEANWHILE (EMPHASIS, BY UNDERLINING, SUPPLIED BY US NOW), ALL THE REVISIONA L AND APPELLATE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE INCOME-TAX AC T P A G E | 17 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT ARE DIRECTED TO DECIDE MATTERS HEARD BY THEM WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE CASE IS CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT. IN THE RULE SO FRAMED, AS A RESULT OF THESE DIRECTI ONS, THE EXPRESSION ORDINARILY HAS BEEN INSERTED IN THE REQUIREMENT TO PRONOUNCE THE ORDER WITHIN A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS. THE QUESTION THEN ARISES WHETHER OR NOT THE PASSING OF THIS ORDE R, BEYOND A PERIOD OF NINETY DAYS IN THE CASE BEFORE US WAS NECESSITATED BY ANY EXTRAORDINARY C IRCUMSTANCES. 15. WE FIND THAT THE AFORESAID ISSUE AFTER EXHAUST IVE DELIBERATIONS HAD BEEN ANSWERED BY A COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIZ. ITAT, MUMBAI F BENCH IN DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI VS. JSW LIMITED & ORS. [ITA NO. 6264/MUM/18 ; DATED 14/05/2020, WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : LET US IN THIS LIGHT REVERT TO THE PREVAILING SI TUATION IN THE COUNTRY. ON 24TH MARCH, 2020, HONBL E PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA TOOK THE BOLD STEP OF IMPOSING A NATIONWIDE LOCKDOWN, FOR 21 DAYS, TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF COVID 19 EPIDEMIC, AND THIS LOCKDOWN WAS EXTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. THE EPIDEMIC SITUATION BEING GRAVE, THERE WAS NOT MUCH OF A RELA XATION IN SUBSEQUENT LOCKDOWNS ALSO. IN ANY CASE, THERE WAS UNPRECEDENTED DISRUPTION OF JUDICIAL WOK ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT HAS B EEN SUCH AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION, CAUSING DISRUPTION IN THE FUNCTIONING OF JUDICIAL MACHINERY, THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, IN AN UNPRECEDENTED ORDER IN THE HISTORY OF INDIA AND VIDE ORDER DATED 6.5.2020 READ WITH ORDER DATED 23.3.2020, EXTENDED THE LIMITATION TO EXCLUDE NOT ONLY THIS LOCKDOWN PERIOD BUT ALSO A FEW MORE DAYS PRIOR TO, AND AFTER , THE LOCKDOWN BY OBSERVING THAT IN CASE THE LIMITATION EXPIRED AFTER 15.03.2020 THEN THE PERIOD FROM 15.03.2020 TILL THE DATE ON WHICH THE LOCKDOW N IS LIFTED IN THE JURISDICTIONAL AREA WHERE THE DISP UTE LIES OR WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES SHALL BE EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD OF 15 DAYS AFTER THE LIFTING OF LOCKDOWN. HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN AN ORDE R DATED 15TH APRIL 2020, HAS, BESIDES EXTENDING THE V ALIDITY OF ALL INTERIM ORDERS, HAS ALSO OBSERVED TH AT, IT IS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT WHILE CALCULATING TIME F OR DISPOSAL OF MATTERS MADE TIME-BOUND BY THIS COUR T, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 CO NTINUES TO OPERATE SHALL BE ADDED AND TIME SHALL STAND EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY, AND ALSO OBSERVED THAT ARRANGEMENT CONTINUED BY AN ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 TILL 30TH APRIL 2020 SHALL CONTINUE FURT HER TILL 15TH JUNE 2020. IT HAS BEEN AN UNPRECEDEN TED SITUATION NOT ONLY IN INDIA BUT ALL OVER THE WORLD. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS, VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 1 9TH FEBRUARY 2020, TAKEN THE STAND THAT, THE CORONAVIRU S SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A CASE OF NATURAL CALAMITY AND FMC (I.E. FORCE MAJEURE CLAUSE) MAYBE INVOKED, WHEREVER CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE, FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCEDURE. THE TERM FORCE MAJEURE HAS BEEN DEFINED IN BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, AS AN EVENT OR EFFECT THAT CAN BE NEITHER ANTICIPATED NOR CONTROLL ED WHEN SUCH IS THE POSITION, AND IT IS OFFICIALLY SO NOTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE COVID-1 9 EPIDEMIC HAS BEEN NOTIFIED AS A DISASTER UNDER THE NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT, 2005, AND ALS O IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE, THE PERIOD DURING WHICH LOCKDOWN WAS IN FORCE CAN BE ANYTHING BUT AN ORDINARY PERIOD. 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT RATHER THAN TAKING A PEDANTIC VIEW OF THE RULE REQUIRING PRONOUNCEMENT O F ORDERS WITHIN 90 DAYS, DISREGARDING THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WAS IN LOCKDOWN, WE SH OULD COMPUTE THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS BY EXCLUDING AT LEAST THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE LOCKDOWN WAS IN F ORCE. WE MUST FACTOR GROUND REALITIES IN MIND WHILE INTERPRETING THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE PRONOUNCEMENT O F THE ORDER. LAW IS NOT BROODING OMNIPOTENCE IN THE SKY. IT IS A PRAGMATIC TOOL OF THE SOCIAL ORDER. TH E TENETS OF LAW BEING ENACTED ON THE BASIS OF PRAGMATISM, AND THAT IS HOW THE LAW IS REQUIRED TO INTERPRETED. THE INTERPRETATION SO ASSIGNED BY US I S NOT ONLY IN CONSONANCE WITH THE LETTER AND SPIRIT O F RULE 34(5) BUT IS ALSO A PRAGMATIC APPROACH AT A TIME WHEN A DISASTER, NOTIFIED UNDER THE DISASTER MANAGE MENT ACT 2005, IS CAUSING UNPRECEDENTED DISRUPTION IN THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR JUSTICE DELIVE RY SYSTEM. UNDOUBTEDLY, IN THE CASE OF OTTERS CLUB VS P A G E | 18 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (BOM)], HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DID NOT APPROVE AN ORDER BEING PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BEYOND A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS, BUT THEN I N THE PRESENT SITUATION HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ITSELF HAS, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 15TH APRIL 2020, HE LD THAT DIRECTED WHILE CALCULATING THE TIME FOR DI SPOSAL OF MATTERS MADE TIME BOUND BY THIS COURT, THE PERIO D FOR WHICH THE ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 CONTINUES TO OPERATE SHALL BE ADDED AND TIME SHALL STAND EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY. THE EXTRAORDINARY STEPS TAKEN SUO MOTU BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO INDICATE THAT THIS PERIOD OF LOCKDOWN CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ORDINARY PERIOD DURING WHICH THE NORMAL TIME LIMITS ARE TO REMAIN IN FORCE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN WITHO UT THE WORDS ORDINARILY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOV E ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL POSITION, THE PERIOD DURING W HICH LOCKOUT WAS IN FORCE IS TO EXCLUDED FOR THE PU RPOSE OF TIME LIMITS SET OUT IN RULE 34(5) OF THE APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. VIEWED THUS, THE EXCEPTION , TO 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, INHE RENT IN RULE 34(5)(C), WITH RESPECT TO THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS WITHIN NINETY DAYS, CLEARLY COMES INTO PLAY IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE AFO RESAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND FINDING OURSELVES TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SAME, THEREIN RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE SAME. AS SUCH, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE LOCKOUT WAS IN FORCE SHALL STAND EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE T IME LIMIT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ORDERS, AS ENVISAGED IN RULE 34(5) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL R ULES, 1963. 16. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S PARTLY ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. ORDER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE INCOME TA X (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1962, BY PLACING THE DETAILS ON THE NOTICE BOARD. SD/- SD/- (L. P. SAHU) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 30.06.2020 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITS AR 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, P A G E | 19 ITA NO. 511/ASR./2019 A.Y. 2017-18 SMT.MEERA AGGARWAL VS. ACIT / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) /ITAT, AMRITSAR. BENCH, AMRITSAR.