SHRI DINESH MANGAL, JAIPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

ITA 519/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8727 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDER MEHTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Commercial expediency; Documents seized
• Section: 80C

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 519 TO 521/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 SHRI DINESH MANGAL, 4/238, SFS AGRAWAL FARM, MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABEPM 4041 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI VARINDER MEHTA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 17/12/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/12/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A), JAIPUR DATED 22.03 .2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECT IVELY. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, THESE APPEALS WERE HEAR D TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NO. 519 TO 521 /JP/2018 SHRI DINESH MANGAL VS. DCIT 2 2. IN ITA NO. 519/JP2018 FOR A.Y. 2010-11, THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 63,037/- OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RENTAL INCOME FROM HIS HOUSE PRO PERTY SITUATED AT 4/238 SFS MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR AND AGAINST THE SAID R ENTAL INCOME, HE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,59,137/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS 63,067 AND HIS FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER:- 12. THE SUBMISSION OF THE A/R IS CONSIDERED CAREFU LLY BUT NOT FOUND CONVINCING. IT MAY BE SUBMITTED THAT ORIGINALLY, HO USING LOAN OF RS. 11.50 LACS WAS OBTAINED IN THE YEAR 2002 FROM S BI FOR ACQUISITION OF HOUSE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS LOAN WAS P ARTLY PAID IN DIFFERENT YEARS AND AS ON 31.3.2007, IT WAS OUTSTAN DING AT RS. 9.61 LACS. THIS OUTSTANDING AMOUNT WAS REPAID ON 25.9.2007 BY TAKING LOAN OF RS. 17.60 LACS FROM LIC. THIS LOAN AMOUNT IS APPARENTLY FOR ACQUIRING OF HOUSE PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 24(B) OF THE ACT. OUT OF 17.60 LACS, AMOUNT OF RS. 9.61 LACS, AT THE MOST CA N BE CONSIDERED AGAINST HOUSE PROPERTY AND BALANCE AMOUNT IS A TYPE OF MORTGAGE LOAN ON HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT A HOUSING LOAN IN TERMS O F SECTION 24(B) OF THE IT ACT. AS PER CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND DETAILS OF P AYMENT U/S 80C THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY REPAYMENT OF LOAN AMOU NT MEANING THEREBY IT MAY BE CONSIDERED THAT WHOLE AMOUNT OF R S. 9.61 LACS REMAINED LOANED DURING ENTIRE PERIOD OF CURRENT YEA R. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED EXACT INTEREST RATE ON THIS LOAN AMOU NT AND THEREFORE REASONABLE RATE OF INTEREST IS CONSIDERED AT 10% AN D THUS AMOUNT OF RS. ITA NO. 519 TO 521 /JP/2018 SHRI DINESH MANGAL VS. DCIT 3 96100 IS CONSIDERED AS INTEREST AGAINST ORIGINAL OU TSTANDING AMOUNT OF HOUSING LOAN AND THIS IS ALLOWED AGAINST RENTAL INC OME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGAINST CLAIM OF RS. 159137. THUS ADDIT ION OF RS. 63037 IS MADE ON THIS COUNT. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWA NCE STATING THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT FACTUAL BASIS TO MAKE THE D ISALLOWANCE AND THE ASSESSEE SUBMISSIONS NOWHERE FACTUALLY REBUTS THE A OS FINDING. AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT OUT OF THE LOAN OF RS. 17.60 OBTAINED FROM LIC, A PART OF THE LOAN IS UTILIZED FOR GIVING DEPOSIT TO M/S IMAGING SUPER CONSULTANTS PVT . LTD. AS A PRE- CONDITION OF APPOINTMENT OF ASSESSEE AS A CONSULTAN T AND HEAD RADIATION ONCOLOGY AND FROM THIS COMPANY, THE ASSES SEE IS GETTING PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 11,11,656/- WHICH HAS BEEN DULY OFFERED TO TAX . HENCE, THE INTEREST WHICH HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO IS ELIGIBLE AGAINST THE SAID PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS FOR COMPUTIN G THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM PROFESSION. IT WAS FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE SAID CONTENTION WAS RAISED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ASSESSEES REPLY DATED 14.10.2013 WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH READS AS U NDER: 4. AS EXPLAINED IN OUR EARLIER LETTER DATED 26.09.2 013, ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN HOUSING LOAN AND TOP UP LOAN AGAINST THE HOUS E FROM THE BANK. INTEREST PAID ON THE HOUSING LOAN IS CLAIMED AS DED UCTION U/S 24 AND ITA NO. 519 TO 521 /JP/2018 SHRI DINESH MANGAL VS. DCIT 4 INTEREST PAID FOR TOP UP LOAN IS CLAIMED AS EXPENDI TURE AGAINST THE PROFESSIONAL FEES RECEIVED FROM M/S IMAGING SUPER C ONSULTANT PVT. LTD. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A M.D (RADIO T HERAPY) AND EXPERT IN RADIO THERAPY TREATMENT. M/S IMAGING SUPER CONSU LTANT PVT. LTD. IN WHICH ASSESSEE WAS APPOINTED AS A DIRECTOR ON 03.04 .2007 PURCHASED A LINEAR ACCELERATOR MACHINE WHICH WAS FIRST OF ITS K IND IN THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. BESIDES THIS MACHINE CERTAIN OTHER EQUIP MENTS LIKE HIGH DOSE RATE BRACHYTHERAPY, DOSIMETRY INSTRUMENTS AND TREATMENT PLANNING SYSTEM WERE PURCHASED. FOR PURCHASE OF THE SE EQUIPMENTS/ MACHINES FUNDS WAS REQUIRED BY THE COMPANY. TOWARDS CAPITAL COST OF THESE EQUIPMENTS THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED ADVANCE TO M/S IMAGING SUPER CONSULTANT PVT. LTD. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THA T ASSESSEE IS APPROVED LICENSEE BY ATOMIC ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD , BARC, GOVT. OF INDIA, MUMBAI AND THE PERSON WHO HOLDS SUCH LICENSE IS APPLOWED TO OPERATE SUCH MACHINES/EQUIPMENTS. DUE TO THESE NEW MACHINE/EQUIPMENTS MORE PATIENTS WERE ATTRACTED FOR THE RADIO THERAPY TREATMENT BY LATEST TECHNOLOGY I.E. 3DCRT, IMRT, IGRT, SRS, SRT. THIS HAS IN TURN RESULTED INTO MORE PROFESSION AL RECEIPT TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THIS COMPANY BASED ON DIFFERENT TYPE OF TREATMENT/PROCEDURE. THUS THE ADVANCE IN FORM OF UN SECURED LOAN/EQUITY CAPITAL WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/ S IMAGING SUPER CONSULTANT PVT. LTD. FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY FROM THE AMOUNT BORROWED FROM THE BANK. THEREFORE, THE INTEREST PAI D ON SUCH BORROWING IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 36(1)(III) AGAINST THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COUR T IN CASE OF S.A. BUILDER 288 ITR 1. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE INTEREST FREE FUND TO M/S IMAGING SUPER CONSULTANT PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 519 TO 521 /JP/2018 SHRI DINESH MANGAL VS. DCIT 5 FOR ACQUISITION OF MACHINE AS A PART OF HIS APPOINT MENT WITH SEAROC CANCER CENTER (UNIT OF M/S IMAGING SUPER CONSULTANT PVT. LTD.) COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER IS ENCLOSED. 5. THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE FINDIN G OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE ON LOAN TAKEN FROM THE LIC AND A PART OF SUCH INTEREST EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY. AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN ALTERNATE CONTE NTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SUCH INTEREST EXPENDITURE WH ERE DISALLOWED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY MAY BE ALLOWE D AS DEDUCTION UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM PROFESSION WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED AND OFFERED TO TAX HIS PROFESSIONAL RECEI PTS. WE FIND THAT THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION SO RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE AO AND EVEN BY THE LD CIT(A). THEREFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH SHALL EXAMINE THE SAME AS P ER LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. ITA NO. 519 TO 521 /JP/2018 SHRI DINESH MANGAL VS. DCIT 6 ITA NO. 520/JP/2018 7. NOW, COMING TO ITA NO. 520/JP/2018 FOR AY 2011-1 2. GROUND NO. 1 IS SIMILAR TO SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL IN ITA NO . 519/JP2018, THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS AND DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN ITA NO. 519/JP/2018 SHALL APPLY EQUALLY IN THIS REGARD. GROUND NO. 1 O F ASSESSEES APPEAL IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. GROUND NO. 2 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL RELATES TO CON FIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,97,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSE D INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH. 9. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 08.06.2011 AT THE DIFFERENT PREMISES OF DR. ANISH MARU GROUP AND THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED UNDER THE SEARCH A S HE WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SAID GROUP. DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED AS PER ANNEXURE AS OF PANCHNA MA DATED 08.06.2011 PAGE NO. 1 OF EXHIBIT 1 AND PAGE NO. 1 OF EXHIBIT 2 WHICH WERE CONTAINING ENTRIES RELATED TO CERTAIN PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY ITEMS IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2010 TO MAY 2011 AND DETAILS THEREOF ARE REPRODUCED AT PARA 13 OF THE AOS ORDER. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO E XPLAIN THESE ENTRIES AND TO EXPLAIN WHY THE SAME MAY NOT BE TREA TED AS ENTRIES RELATING TO PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY BY THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NOTHINGS ON THESE PAGES WER E MADE BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF ENQUIRY MADE B Y HER AND SINCE NO ITA NO. 519 TO 521 /JP/2018 SHRI DINESH MANGAL VS. DCIT 7 JEWELLERY ITEM WAS PURCHASED, NO PAYMENT WAS MADE A ND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ASSUMPTION OF PURCHASE OF JEW ELLERY ITEMS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REPLY SO FILED BY THE AR WAS NOT FOU ND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO AND HIS FINDINGS ARE CONTAINED AT PARA 16 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 16. REPLY OF THE A/R IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THE ENTRIES ARE NOT IN RESPECT OF ANY ENQUIRY BUT THESE ARE WIT H CLEAR DESCRIPTION OF DATE/MONTH, DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS OF JEWELLERY AND A MOUNT. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENQUIRY SUCH TYPE OF ENTRIES ARE NOT MAD E WITH DATE/MONTH AND AMOUNT. SUCH ENTRIES CAN BE MADE ONLY AS A MEMO RANDA ENTRY FOR ANY ACTUAL TRANSACTION. MOREOVER, THESE ENTRIES ARE FOUND NOTED IN THE SAME NOTE BOOKS (EXHIBIT NO. 1 AND 2) WHEREIN THE W IFE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTED MONTH WISE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES ON OTHER P AGES OF THE EXHIBITS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED ENTRIES OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES ENTERED ON OTHER PAGES OF THESE NOTE BOOKS AND HAS CLAIMED THAT HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES NOTED IN THESE EXHIBITS ARE THE ACTUA L EXPENSES INCURRED BY HER WIFE AND ARE INCLUDED IN TOTAL DRAWING OF TH E FAMILY. THUS WHEN THE ENTRIES ON OTHER PAGES ARE ACTUAL ENTRIES, THE NOTINGS MADE ON PAGE NO. 1, AS DESCRIPTED ABOVE, ARE ALSO REAL AND CORRE CT ENTRIES. THESE ENTRIES CLEARLY INDICATING UNDISCLOSED PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY BY THE ASSESSEE IN AY 2011-12 (RS. 197600) AND IN AY 2012- 13 (RS. 160000). ADDITION OF THESE AMOUNTS IS ACCORDINGLY MADE IN RE SPECTIVE YEARS AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE I S LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE IT ACT ON THIS ADDITION FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN SEPARATELY ISSUED. ITA NO. 519 TO 521 /JP/2018 SHRI DINESH MANGAL VS. DCIT 8 10. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAI D ADDITION HOLDING THAT NO FACTUAL BASIS IS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SUBMISSION REBUTTING THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO W THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US 11. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT DISPUTED TH AT NOTHINGS AT PAGE 1 OF THESE TWO EXHIBITS ARE IN THE HANDWRITING OF SMT. BEENA MANGAL, WIFE OF ASSESSEE. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOT HIS WIFE WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT NOTINGS ON THESE PAGES AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. FOR THE FIRST TIME THE ENQUIRY IN RESPECT OF THESE PAPERS W ERE MADE BY THE AO IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN REPLY DATED 26.09.2013, THE ASSESSEE WHILE GIVING THE PAGE WISE DETAILS OF VARI OUS ANNEXURE, WITH REFERENCE TO THESE PAPERS HAS EXPLAINED THAT THESE NOTINGS ARE IN RESPECT OF THE ENQUIRIES MADE BY HER AND THAT NO SU CH JEWELLERY IS PURCHASE. THEREAFTER VIDE LETTER DATED 14.10.2013 I T WAS EXPLAINED THAT NOTINGS ON PAGE 1 OF EXHIBIT 1 IS IN RESPECT OF THE ENQUIRY MADE BY FATHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE AND NOTINGS ON PAGE OF EXHIBIT 2 IS IN RESPECT OF ENQUIRY MADE BY ASSESSEES WIFE. IT W AS FURTHER STATED THAT NO SUCH JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED NOR THESE ITEMS WER E FOUND IN THE INVENTORY OF JEWELLERY PREPARED AT THE TIME OF SEAR CH. THE AFFIDAVIT OF ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. BEENA MANGAL WAS FILED. IN THI S AFFIDAVIT SHE HAS EXPLAINED THE DETAILS OF THE ENQUIRY MADE BY HER WH ICH RESULTED INTO THESE NOTINGS. THIS AFFIDAVIT IS NOT CONTROVERTED. THEREFORE, WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL TO ESTABLISH THAT THE NOTING S OF JEWELLERY ON THESE PAPERS IS ACTUALLY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE A DDITION MADE BY THE AO IS ONLY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. ITA NO. 519 TO 521 /JP/2018 SHRI DINESH MANGAL VS. DCIT 9 12. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT R EFERRED TO THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 14-10-2013 AND THE AFFI DAVIT OF SMT. BEENA MANGAL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FROM THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE NOTINGS ON THE PAPER IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE PAPER DO NOT CONT AIN THE NAME OF ANY PARTY FROM WHOM THE JEWELLERY IS PURCHASE NOR THERE IS ANY NOTING OF THE PAYMENT. FURTHER ON OTHER PAGES OF THIS ANNEXUR E THE DETAILS OF THE HOUSE HOLD ACTUALLY INCURRED ARE NOTED BUT THESE NO TINGS ARE MADE ON THE LAST PAGE OF THE DIARY WHICH ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE SAME DO NOT REPRESENT THE ACTUAL PURCHASE OF THE JEWELLERY. THI S IS ALSO CORRELATED FROM THE FACT THAT THE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY NOTED ON THESE PAGES WERE NOT FOUND IN SEARCH. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 14 -10-2013 READS AS UNDER: 6. THE PAPER AT EXHIBIT 1 PAGE 61 AND EXHIBIT-2 PA GE 1, ARE IN THE HANDWRITING OF SMT. BEENA MANGAL, WIFE OF ASSESSEE. SHE HAD ENQUIRED ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE ITEMS NOTED AT EXHIBIT-1 PAG E 61 ON AN ENQUIRY MADE BY HER FATHER-IN-LAW. SIMILARLY, IN RESECT OF ITEMS NOTED AT PAGE 1 OF EXHIBIT-2, THE ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY HER. HOWEVER NO SUCH ITEMS WERE PURCHASED. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT NEITH ER THE WEIGHT OF GOLD/DIAMOND NOR THE RATE OF GOLD/DIAMOND PER GM/CT IS MENTIONED AGAINST THESE ITEMS. HAD THESE ITEMS BEEN PURCHASED , THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ROUGH ESTIMATE SLIP OR THE DETAILED WORKING OF THE AMOUNT AS FOUND NOTED ON PAGE 6 AND 7 OF EXHIBIT-8. FURTHER, THE ITEMS NOTED ON THESE TWO PAGES WERE NOT FOUND IN THE SEARCH AS EVI DENT FROM THE INVENTORY OF JEWELRY PREPARED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH . THE AFFIDAVIT OF SMT. BEENA MANGAL IN THIS CONNECTION IS ENCLOSED. H ENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING PAYMENT IN RESPEC T OF THESE ITEMS, ITA NO. 519 TO 521 /JP/2018 SHRI DINESH MANGAL VS. DCIT 10 SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF NOTING MADE BY SMT. BEENA MA NGAL, MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN NO SUCH ITEM WAS FOUND IN THE SEA RCH, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE ABOUT UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT SHOULD BE DR AWN. 13. THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE FINDI NGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT HAS NOT REFERRED THE REPLY O F THE ASSESSEE DATED 14-10-2013 AND THE AFFIDAVIT OF SMT. BEENA MA NGAL. SINCE WE HAVE SET-ASIDE THE OTHER ISSUE, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE SAME A FRESH AFTER TAKING INT O CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND AFFIDAVIT. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 521/JP2018 15. NOW, COMING TO ITA NO. 520/JP/2018 FOR AY 2011- 12. GROUND NO. 1 IS SIMILAR TO SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL IN ITA NO . 519/JP2018, THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS AND DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN ITA NO. 519/JP/2018 SHALL APPLY EQUALLY IN THIS REGARD. GROUND NO. 1 O F ASSESSEES APPEAL IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 519 TO 521 /JP/2018 SHRI DINESH MANGAL VS. DCIT 11 16. IN ITA NO. 521/JP2018 FOR AY 2012-13, GROUND N O. 1 IS SIMILAR TO SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 519/JP2018, AND GR OUND NO. 2 IS SIMILAR TO GROUND NO. 2 IN ITA NO. 520/JP/2018. T HEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS AND DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN ITA NO. 519 & 520/JP/18 SHALL APPLY EQUALLY IN THIS REGARD. IN THE RESULT, BOTH T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN THE RESULT, ALL THREE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/12/2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 20/12/2018. * SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI DINESH MANGAL, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 519 TO 521/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR.