DINESH G. VAZIRANI, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 46, MUMBAI

ITA 5867/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8869 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Search and seizure; Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 132

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI . , , !' !' !' !' #$ %& #$ %& #$ %& #$ %& , ,, , ' ' ' ' ( ( ( ( BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO. 5867/MUM./2009 ( '* + ',+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200809 ) MR. DINESH G. VAZIRANI 2 ND FLOOR, RUSI HOUSE DARABSHAW LANE OFF NEPEAN SEA ROAD MUMBAI 400 006 .. -. / APPELLANT * V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE46, MUMBAI .... /0-. / RESPONDENT - . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AADPV9691H . / ITA NO. 5868/MUM./2009 ( '* + ',+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200809 ) MRS. PADMA G. VAZIRANI FLAT NO.602, PRABHU KUTIR ALTAMOUNT ROAD MUMBAI 400 026 .. -. / APPELLANT * V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE46, MUMBAI .... /0-. / RESPONDENT - . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AADPV7575L '* +2$ 3 4 / ASSESSEE BY : MR. RAKESH JOSHI 5 ' 3 4 / REVENUE BY : MR. SATBIR SINGH MR. DINESH G. VAZIRANI MRS. PADMA G. VAZIRANI 2 *' 3 $ / DATE OF HEARING 19.07.2012 % 6, 3 $ / DATE OF ORDER 07/09/2012 % % % % / ORDER #$ %& #$ %& #$ %& #$ %& , ,, , ' ' ' ' 7 7 7 7 / PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ABOVE NAMED AS SESSEES, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF EVEN D ATE 21 ST AUGUST 2009, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), CENTR ALII, MUMBAI, FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R /W SECTION 153B(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200809. THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO DIFFERENT ASSESS EES INVOLVING COMMON ISSUES, EXCEPT VARIATION IN FIGURES, ARISING OUT OF MATERIALLY SIMILAR SET OF FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES AND WERE HEARD TOGETHER. AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE, THEREFORE, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. IN THE CASE OF MRS. PADMA G. VAZIRANI (FOR SHORT PADMA ) THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF ` 12,34,370, ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN DIAMOND JEWELLERY AND ADDITION OF ` 6,05,000, ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN ART WORK AND PAINTING. SI MILARLY, IN THE CASE OF MR. DINESH G. VAZIRANI, (FOR SHORT DINESH ), THE ADDITION OF ` 4,63,750, HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY AND ` 14,17,700, ON ACCOUNT OF ART WORK / PAINTINGS. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZU RE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT, WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE C ASE OF SAFFRON GROUP ON 17 TH APRIL 2007, AND BOTH THE ASSESSES WERE ALSO COVERE D UNDER THE SEARCH. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION, GOL D AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY, ARTICLES AND ART WORKS / PAINTINGS WERE FOUND AT TH E RESIDENCE OF PADMA, SITUATED AT 602, PRABHU KUTIR, 15, ALTAMOUNT ROAD, MUMBAI, AND AT THE RESIDENCE OF DINESH, SITUATED AT 6, RUSHI HOUSE, DU RAB SHAW LANE, NEPEAN MR. DINESH G. VAZIRANI MRS. PADMA G. VAZIRANI 3 SEA ROAD, MUMBAI. A LOCKER BEARING NO.780, IN UNION BANK OF INDIA, WAS ALSO SUBJECTED TO SEARCH, WHICH BELONGS TO MRS. MIN AL D. VAZIRANI (FOR SHORT MINAL ) WIFE OF DINESH AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF PADMA. FROM THESE CASES, FOLLOWING DIAMOND AND GOLD JEWELLERY WERE FOUND:- IN THE CASE OF PADMA ` 92,32,470 IN THE CASE OF DINESH ` 29,42,210 IN THE CASE OF MINAL ` 18,64,660 4. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH UNDER SECTION 132 (4), IN THE CASE OF PADMA AND DINESH, DETAILS REGARDING JEWELLERIES FOU ND WERE ASKED ON WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT MOST OF THE JEWELLERY HAS BEEN P URCHASED THROUGH CHEQUE PAYMENTS DRAWN FROM RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNT AND SOM E OF THEM WERE RECEIVED THROUGH GIFTS. NONE OF THEM ACCEPTED THAT THESE JEWELLERIES ARE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTI NY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO RECONCIL E GOLD / DIAMOND JEWELLERY AND VARIOUS OTHER ARTICLES FOUND AT THE T IME OF SEARCH. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED RECONCILIATION OF VARIOUS JE WELLERIES ACQUIRED FROM TIME TO TIME AND ARTICLES PURCHASED. A GIFT CONFIRM ATION LETTER WAS ALSO FILED FROM THE MOTHER OF MINAL (W/O OF DINESH AND DAUGHTE R IN LAW OF PADMA). INSOFAR AS RECONCILIATION OF GOLD JEWELLERY WAS CON CERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND, THEREFORE, HE ACCEPTED THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE GOLD JEWELLERIES. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO THE DIAMOND JE WELLERIES AGGREGATING TO ` 80,62,432, IN THE CASE OF PADMA AND DIAMOND JEWELL ERY OF ` 34,58,255 IN THE CASE OF DINESH, (WHICH ALSO INCLUDED JEWELLERY BELONGING TO MINAL), THE ASSESSEES WERE REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THES E DIAMOND JEWELLERIES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT MOST OF THESE ITEMS HAV E BEEN PURCHASED BY WAY OF CHEQUE AND HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. CERTAIN JEWELLERIES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF GIFT AT TH E TIME OF MARRIAGE OR BY THE MOTHER OF MINAL. RECONCILIATION OF SUCH JEWELLE RIES AND DETAILS OF CHEQUE PAYMENTS WITH THE NAME OF JEWELERS FROM WHOM JEWELL ERIES WERE PURCHASED, DATE OF PURCHASE AND CHEQUE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED. THE DETAILS REGARDING GIFT WHICH IS IN THE FORM OF CERTIFICATE FROM MOTHE R OF MINAL, WAS ALSO GIVEN. MR. DINESH G. VAZIRANI MRS. PADMA G. VAZIRANI 4 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE DETAI LS WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN PURCHASES / DONORS OF THE GIFT WERE NOT MADE AVAILA BLE AND NO PROOF WAS FILED. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT INSOFAR AS DIAMOND JEWELLERIES ARE CONCERNED, THE ITEMS FOUND AND TALLIED IN TERMS OF CARAT WITH THE ITEMS DISCLOSED, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE PROOF OF ACQUISITION OR GIFT RECEIVED. AFTER QUANTIFYING SUCH JEWELLERY WHICH HAS BEEN TABULATED AT PAGES-3 AND 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE NOTED THAT THE DIAMOND JEWELLE RY WORTH 12,34,370, IN THE CASE OF PADMA AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY WORTH ` 4,63,750, IN CASE OF DINESH, PROPER EXPLANATION COULD NOT BE FURNISHED. ACCORDINGLY, HE ADDED THE SAME. 5. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE, TEN PIECES OF AR T WORK IN THE CASE OF PADMA AND 133 PIECES OF ART WORK IN THE CASE OF DIN ESH WERE ALSO FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE. OUT OF THE SAME, SEVEN PIECES TO THE TUNE OF ` 8,05,000, IN THE CASE OF PADMA AND 33 PIECES TO THE TUNE OF ` 57,60,000, WAS SEIZED IN THE CASE OF DINESH. FOR EVALUATING SUCH ART WORK / PAINTING, AN EXPERT COMMITTEE WAS APPOINTED TO WORK OUT THE VALUE OF TH ESE ART WORK / PAINTING. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO RECONCILE THESE ART WO RKS AND IN RESPONSE TO WHICH RECONCILIATION AND DETAILS OF EACH AND EVERY ART WORK PURCHASED FROM TIME TO TIME AND ALSO, WHICH WERE GIFTED FROM VARIO US PERSONS WERE PROVIDED. INSOFAR AS CERTAIN ITEMS GIVEN IN THE FOR M OF GIFT AND PURCHASES MADE FROM OUTSIDE COUNTRY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HE LD THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WERE NOT PROPER. HE TABULATED SUCH DESC RIPTION OF ART PIECES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF ` 6,05,000, WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF PADMA. ` 14,17,700, WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF DINESH. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSI ONER (APPEALS) WHEREIN DETAIL SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ALONG WITH RECONCILIAT ION, SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE JEWELLERY AND ALSO THE VALUERS REPORT WHICH WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) REJEC TED THE SAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DREW FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS WHIC H ARE COMMON IN BOTH THE APPEALS:- MR. DINESH G. VAZIRANI MRS. PADMA G. VAZIRANI 5 2.3.2. AS FAR AS THE POSSESSION OF AFORESAID 11 I TEMS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY WORTH ` 4,63,750 IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT (I) NO WEALTH TAX RETURNS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY THE AP PELLANT OR BY APPELLANTS FAMILY MEMBERS. (II) NO VALUATION REPORT INDICATING ANY OF THE AFORESAID 11 ITEMS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY NEITHER IN THE NAME OF THE APPELL ANT NOR IN THE NAME OF ANY FAMILY MEMBER. (III) NO PURCHASE BILLS, WHATSOEVER PRODUCED IN SUPPORT O F THE AFORESAID DIAMOND JEWELLERY. (IV) NO GIFT DEED PRODUCED TO EXPLAIN THE POSSESSION OF THE AFORESAID DIAMOND JEWELLERY. (V) THE APPELLANT FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE, MODE AN D SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE AFORESAID 11 ITEMS OF DIAMOND JE WELLERY FOUND FROM HIS NEPEAN SEA ROAD, MUMBAI, RESIDENTIAL PREMI SES AND BANK LOCKER NO.780, UNITED BANK OF INDIA, PEDDAR RO AD BRANCH, MUMBAI. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE ACQUISITION OF THE AF ORESAID 11 ITEMS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY WORTH ` 4,63,750 IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 7. THEREAFTER, HE PROCEEDED TO ANALYSE VARIOUS DECISIO NS WITH REGARD TO EVIDENCE FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER DECISIONS ON SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE APPEA RING AT PAGE-16 / PARA- 2.3.3, ONWARDS. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO THE ADDIT IONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ART WORK / PAINING, HE, NOT ONLY UPHELD THE VALUATI ON DONE BY THE EXPERT COMMITTEE BUT ALSO THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEES WERE DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE US, SUBMIT TED THAT ALL THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY WHICH WERE FOUND FROM THE POSSESS ION OF THE ASSESSEE, WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND EACH & EVERY ITEM OF JEWELLERY WERE RECONCILED. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE SUMMARY OF TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND AND SUMMARY OF TOTAL JEWELLERY RECO NCILED. FURTHER, HE REFERRED TO THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS CHEQUES AND BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHICH MR. DINESH G. VAZIRANI MRS. PADMA G. VAZIRANI 6 JEWELLERIES WERE PURCHASED ALONG WITH YEARWISE DESC RIPTION, NAME OF JEWELER FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE, CHEQUE DETAILS, DATE OF PURCHASE AND THE AMOUNT PAID. HE SUBMITTED THAT UPTO THE DATE OF SEA RCH, THE JEWELLERY PURCHASED THROUGH CHEQUES AGGREGATED TO ` 83,46,695. THESE DETAILS ARE APPEARING AT PAGES-6 AND 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUERS REPORT DATED 22 ND MAY 1990, IN THE CASE OF PADMA, WHEREIN CARATWISE DETAILS OF DIAMOND WERE PROVIDED TO SHOW THAT MOST OF THEM WERE PRIOR TO 31 ST MARCH 1990. RELYING ON THESE DOCUMENTS, HE SUBMITT ED THAT MOST OF THE JEWELLERIES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AND REC ORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. REGARDING JEWELLERY RECEIVED BY WAY OF GIF T, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MAJOR PART OF THE GIFT HAVE COME FROM MRS. VINA MOR JANI, FROM U.S.A., WHO IS MOTHER OF MINAL AND W/O DINESH. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, HE SUBMITTED THAT A COPY OF CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY HER IS APPEARING AT PAGE-10 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN SHE HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND ITE MWISE DETAILS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY WHICH WAS GIVEN TO HER DAUGHTER AT THE TI ME OF HER WEDDING IN DECEMBER 1994. HE SUBMITTED THAT IF SUCH JEWELLERIE S ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THEN THERE REMAINS NO UNEXPLAINED IT EM WITH REGARD TO THE JEWELLERY RECEIVED BY WAY OF GIFT. ALTERNATIVELY, H E SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEE HAVE VERY HEAVY WITHDRAWALS IN ALL THE YEA RS WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE CHART GIVEN AT PAGE-11 OF THE PAPER BOOK FROM W HERE HE POINTED OUT THAT THE WITHDRAWALS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 ITSE LF WAS AT ` 80,19,717, AND THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN JEWELLERIES AND APPARELS WHE RE A AT ` 51,08,207. SIMILAR WITHDRAWAL AND INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AS WELL AS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. FROM THIS , HE SUBMITTED THAT NONE OF THE ADDITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ON THIS SCORE, CAN BE SUSTAINED. REGARDING ART WORKS AND PA INTINGS, HE SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE ASSESSES WERE THEMSELVES VERY TALENTE D PAINTERS AND MOST OF THE PAINTINGS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED THROUGH CHEQUES. SOME OF THE PAINTING HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH GIFT OR HAVE BEEN PURCHA SED MUCH BEFORE THE PERIOD COVERED UNDER THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 153A, FOR PALTRY SUMS. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, HE SUBMITTED THAT ONE OF THE SKETCH ES BY MR. M.F. HUSSAIN, WAS RECEIVED BY PADMA, AT THE TIME OF LUNCH WITH HI M IN LONDON WHEREIN HE MADE A SKETCH WITH INK ON A NAPKIN PAPER AND GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS MR. DINESH G. VAZIRANI MRS. PADMA G. VAZIRANI 7 HAS BEEN VALUED AT ` 2,50,000, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD NO COST OF ACQUISITION. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF DINESH, HE S UBMITTED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN PAINTINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN BOUGHT FROM CHINA FOR A VERY PALTRY SUM AND THE SAME HAS BEEN VALUED AT A VERY HEAVY PRICE. SIMILAR INSTANCES WERE POINTED OUT BY HIM TO VARIOUS OTHER PAINTINGS WHICH WAS EITHER PURCHASED SEVERAL YEARS AGO OR RECEIVED AS GIFT IN SOME PUBLI C FORUM. HE, THUS, CONCLUDED THAT NOT ONLY THE VALUATION IS TOO EXCESS IVE KEEPING IN VIEW THE MODE OF ACQUISITION, BUT ALSO VERY ARBITRARY. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT WHATEVER DESCRIPTION OF GOLD JEWELLE RY WAS FOUND TO BE TALLIED WITH THE PURCHASE BILLS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED THE SAME. EVEN IN THE CASE OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY, HE HAS ACCEP TED MOST OF THE ITEMS. IT WAS, IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN ITEMS, WHICH WERE RECEIV ED BY WAY OF GIFT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SAME. FURTHE R, HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE HEAVY DRAWINGS BY THE ASSESS EE BUT THE SAME HAS TO BE CO-RELATED WITH THE JEWELLERY. REGARDING CONV ERSION OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY, WHICH WAS ARGUED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL TO COUNTER THE ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT CARATWISE MATCHING OF JEWELLERY HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE, HE SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REGARDING AR T WORK AND PAINTING, NO PROPER EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN AS TO HOW IT WAS ACQUI RED AND THE VALUATION HAS BEEN DONE BY THE EXPERTS, THEREFORE, DISPUTE RE GARDING VALUATION CANNOT BE RAKED UP AT THIS STAGE. HE, THUS, HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND SUBMITTED THAT NO FURTHER BENEFIT SHOULD BE GIVEN AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF GIVEN SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT WITH REGARD TO THE JEWELLERY AN D PAINTINGS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEES. 10. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THA T, REGARDING GIFT, THE GIFT LETTER WAS ITSELF SEIZED AND BASED ON SUCH LETTER, THE INVESTIGATION WING, AFTER VERIFICATION, RELEASED THE JEWELLERY. I T WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REGARDING OLD JEWELLERY, PHOTOGRAPHS WERE SHOWN TO THE INVESTIGATION WING MR. DINESH G. VAZIRANI MRS. PADMA G. VAZIRANI 8 WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGES-7 AND 8 OF THE PAPER BO OK-II, WHEREIN IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.4, THIS WAS SPECIFICALLY CL ARIFIED. REGARDING RE- MAKING OF JEWELLERY, HE REFERRED TO THE DOCUMENTS P LACED AT PAGE-20 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN DIAMOND JEWELLERIES. IN CASE OF PADMA , AGGREGATE DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF ` 82,60,432, WAS FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE AND FROM THE BANK LOCKER. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE HAD STA TED ON OATH THAT IN MOST OF THE CASES, COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS WERE AVAILAB LE, ALONG WITH DETAILS OF PAYMENTS AND SOME OF THEM WERE RECEIVED BY WAY OF G IFT ON THE OCCASION OF HER MARRIAGE AND MARRIAGE OF HER SON. SHE ALSO SHOW ED THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE MARRIAGE OF HER SON AND DAUGHTER TO SHOW THAT M OST OF THE JEWELLERIES WERE ACQUIRED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THIS SPECIFIC A VERMENTS WAS GIVEN IN THE STATEMENT OF OATH ON ADMINISTERED ON 10 TH MAY 2007, WHICH, FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW:- Q.NO.4 DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE TO PLACE O N RECORD WITH REGARD TO THE JEWELLERY KEPT UNDER P.O. AT YOUR RES IDENCE AS PER P.O. DTD. 7.5.07? ANS. I AM PRODUCING COPIES OF BILLS ALONG WITH BANK PAYMENT DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY BY ME OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. AS REGARDS ITEM NOS.10(A), 10(B) AND 10(C). THE SAM E WAS GIVEN AS GIFT TO ME BY MY SISTER DR. SHILA VERGHESE ON THE O CCASION OF THE MARRIAGE OF MY SON IN 1994. AS REGARDS ITEM NOS.8, 16(A), 11(B) & 25(A), I AM SHOWING YOU THE PHOTOGRAPH AS WELL AS P HOTO ALBUM OF MY SON AS WELL AS DAUGHTERS WEDDING, WHICH TOOK PLACE IN 1994 & 1992, RESPECTIVELY. THESE PHOTOGRAPH CLEARLY SHOW THAT I HAVE BEEN WEARING THESE PIECES OF JEWELLERY AT THAT TIME. OTHER THAN THAT, THERE ARE QUITE A FEW PIECES THAT ARE QUITE OLD RECEIVED BY ME FROM MY MOTHER, RELATIVES AND INLAWS AT THE TIME OF MY WEDDING AND VARIOUS OTHER FESTIVALS AND OCCASIONS SUCH AS BIRTH OF CHILDREN E TC. AS REGARDS THE BALANCE DETAILS, I AM IN THE PROCESS OF COMPILING A LL MY BILLS AND OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, WHICH WILL BE SUBMITTED TO Y OU SHORTLY . 12. IN ANOTHER STATEMENT RECORDED ON 12 TH MAY 2007, IN RESPECT OF QUESTION NO.1, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED VARIOUS EVIDE NCES AND DOCUMENTS MR. DINESH G. VAZIRANI MRS. PADMA G. VAZIRANI 9 REGARDING JEWELLERIES. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE A ND RECORD, QUESTION NO.1 AND ANSWER THERETO IS ALSO REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: - DURING THE P.O. OPERATION YOU WERE ABLE TO GIVE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR ITEM NO. 2, 3, 8, 10(A), 10(B), 10(C), 11(A), 11(B), 11(C), 16(A), 16(B), 18, 1.9, 22(A), 22(B), 22(C), 25(A), 26, 27(A), 27(B), 30(C), 32(A), 32(B), 33(A), 33(B), 34, 38(A), 38(B) , 41(A), 41(B), 42, 43(A), 43(B), 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 AND 59 AMO UNTING TO RS.14,84,274/- IN RESPECT OF THE DIAMOND JEWELERY F OUND AT RESIDENCE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION ON 17.04.2007 AN D THE SAME WAS VALUED BY PRADEEP KUMAR J. JHAVERL, GOVERNMENT APPR OVED VALUER. IN ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, WHY THE BALANCE JE WEFLERY SHOULD NOT BE SEIZED AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, AND THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE TREATED AS AN UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT? ALL THIS DIAMOND JEWELLER) HAS BEEN ACQUIRED OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS EITHER BY PURCHASING OR THROUGH GIFTS FROM MY PAREN TS, IN-LAWS, RELATIVES AND OTHER MENDS AND WELL WISHERS. WE HAVE ALSO SUBMITTED THE GIFT LETTERS, VALUATION REPORTS, ETC. TO SUBSTA NTIATE THE SAME. ADDITIONALLY WE HAVE ALSO PRODUCED THE PHOTO ALBUMS FROM THE TIME OF MY SONS MARRIAGE AND MY DAUGHTERS WEDDING IN THE YEARS 1992 AND 1994. THESE PHOTOGRAPHS CLEARLY SHOW THAT SOME OF T HIS JEWELLERY HAS BEEN IN MY POSSESSION FROM THE TIME OF THESE WEDDIN GS. MOREOVER, WE HAVE ALSO PRODUCED VARIOUS BILLS WHICH WERE SUBSTAN TIATED BY BONAFIDE CHEQUE PAYMENTS FROM MY REGULAR BANK ACCOUNTS BUT T HEY DO NOT MATCH THE DESCRIPTION WITH THE WORDING OF THE VALUE R APPOINTED AS ABOVE. IT IS THE GENERAL PRACTICE OF THE JWELLERS T O WRITE THIS KIND OF DESCRIPTION AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE. NO ITEM IS IN EXCESS OF THE VALUE AS GIVEN BY THE VALUER AND THE CHEQUE AND THE VALUE ARE MATCHING AS PER THE PRICE PAID. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THESE FACTS PUT BEFORE YOU THE ENTIRE DIAMOND JEWELLEIY WOULD STAND EXPLAINED. SEVERAL OF THESE EVIDENCES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO YO U. HENCE I HAVE, NO OBJECTION AT THIS POINT IN TIME IN THE SEIZURE OF T HE SAID DIAMOND JEWELLERY, HOWEVER, IT MAYBE IMPERATIVE TO NOTE THA T NONE OF THESE ITEMS ARE FORMING MY UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS NOR IS MY ACCEPTANCE FOR THE SEIZURE AN ASSERTION OF THE SAME BEING AN U NDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. 13. FROM THE ABOVE ANSWERS GIVEN BY HE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO ALL THE ANOTHER JEWELLERIES FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ALO NG WITH THE EVIDENCES AND DETAILS AS WERE AVAILABLE. FURTHER, IN SUPPORT OF T HIS EXPLANATION, VALUATION REPORT DATED 31 ST MARCH 1990, GIVEN BY APPROVED VALUER WHEREIN DETAI L DESCRIPTION WITH REGARD TO QUANTITY IN CARATS AND G ROSS WEIGHT IN GRAMS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE COPY OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BEFORE US AT PAGES-8 AND 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK-II. DU RING THE COURSE OF MR. DINESH G. VAZIRANI MRS. PADMA G. VAZIRANI 10 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETA ILS OF CHEQUE PAYMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY AND THE BANK STATEMEN T ALONG WITH THE SUMMARY OF PURCHASES MADE THROUGH JEWELERS, DATE, C HEQUE NUMBER AND AMOUNT, RIGHT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 UP T O THE DATE OF SEARCH. THIS STATEMENT IS APPEARING AT PAGES-6 TO 9 AND 13 TO 14. THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF DETAILS OF THESE CHEQUES COMES TO ` 83,46,695 IN THE CASE OF PADMA. IN THE CASE OF DINESH AND HIS WIFE MINAL, THE AGGRE GATE VALUE OF CHEQUE PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY WERE ` 10,59,828 AND ` 19,91,302, RESPECTIVELY. BESIDES THIS, AS STATED ABOVE, VALUAT ION REPORT DATED 22 ND MAY 1990, SHOWING VARIOUS JEWELLERY WERE ALSO AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO 31 ST MARCH 1990. REGARDING JEWELLERY RECEIVED BY WAY OF GIFT, THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINLY RELIED UPON THE LETTER OF VINA , MOTHER OF MINAL AND DAUGHTER-IN- LAW OF PADMA. IN THE SAID CERTIFICATE, THE DETAILS OF ENTIRE JEWELLERY GIVEN AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. FROM THES E DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT A LL THE JEWELLERIES WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND ARE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR AND NOTHING IS UNEXPLAINED. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM HAS BEEN THAT WHAT HAS BEEN RE CORDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS IS MORE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND AT TH E TIME OF SEARCH. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CASE IS THAT SO ME OF THE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FILE ANY EVID ENCES OR COULD TALLY IN TERMS OF CARATS WITH THE ITEM DISCLOSED. HE HAS SHO RT LISTED CERTAIN ITEMS AGGREGATING TO ` 12,34,370, IN CASE OF PADMA AND ` 4,63,750, IN CASE OF DINESH. THIS FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS B EEN CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ALSO. 14. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE REMARK PURCHASE / GIFT. HE HAS NOT TRIED TO CO-RELATE WITH THE OVERALL SUMMARY OF JEWE LLERY PURCHASED AND GIFT WHICH WAS MOSTLY ACQUIRED AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE A ND GIFT BY MRS. BINA. THE OVERALL TALLY GIVEN IN THE RECONCILIATION EXPLAINS THE ENTIRE JEWELLERY. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HELD THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE IN POSSESSION OF JEWELLERY, THE CONCEPT OF OWNERSHIP GET ATTRACTED AND, THEREFORE, IT IS THE ASSESSEES ONUS TO DISCHARGE T HAT IT WAS ACQUIRED THROUGH PROPER SOURCES WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE ASSUMED TH AT IT WOULD BE AN MR. DINESH G. VAZIRANI MRS. PADMA G. VAZIRANI 11 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE HA S RELIED ON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS AND PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. IN OUR OPINION, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS ) TO GO INTO SUCH A THEORETICAL CONCEPTS LAID DOWN BY VARIOUS HIGH COUR TS / SUPREME COURT, HE SHOULD HAVE CONFINED HIMSELF TO THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE EVIDE NCE AND EXPLANATION FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF JEWELLERY FOUND. HIS CONCLU SION DRAWN IN PARA-2.3.2, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED NOT ONLY THE VALUAT ION REPORT, PURCHASE BILL, GIFT CERTIFICATE BUT HAS ALSO TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE, MODE AND SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY F OUND. ALL HIS OBSERVATIONS ARE NEGATIVED BY THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US IN T HE FORM OF PAPER BOOK WHICH WAS ALSO AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 15. NOW COMING TO THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE FIND THAT IN THE CHART GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE HAS REFERRED THAT MOST OF THE ITEMS WERE GIFTED / PURCHASED FROM DRAWINGS. HE HAS NOT LOOKED INTO THE RECONCILIATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE D ETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM FROM WHICH IT WOULD BE EVIDENTLY CLEAR THAT SOME OF THE JEWELLERY PERTAINED TO GIFT RECEIVED DURING THE COURSE OF MARRIAGE AND SOME OF THEM WERE IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO 31 ST MARCH 1990, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM VALUATION REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE AG GREGATE VALUE OF ENTIRE SUMMARY AND THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE GIFT CERTIF ICATE, IT WOULD BE SEEN THAT ALMOST THE ENTIRE JEWELLERY STANDS EXPLAINED. WHILE DRAWING ANY KIND OF ADVERSE INFERENCE FOR TREATING THE JEWELLERY FOUND AS UNEXPLAINED, ONE HAS TO LOOK INTO VARIOUS PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES BE CAUSE IN OUR INDIAN CUSTOM, GIFTING OF JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF MARRIAG E IS NORMAL PRACTICE AND CUSTOM AND IT BECOMES VERY DIFFICULT TO GIVE A DIRE CT EVIDENCE OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE JEWELLERY RECEIVED AT THE TIME O F MARRIAGE. ONE GOES BY CERTAIN CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES LIKE MARRIAGE PHOTO S, GIFT LETTERS ISSUED BY THE RELATIVES, ETC. IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, MOST O F THE ITEMS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH DET AILS OF CHEQUE MR. DINESH G. VAZIRANI MRS. PADMA G. VAZIRANI 12 PAYMENTS AND THE NAMES OF THE JEWELER HAVE BEEN GIV EN. IT IS ONLY ON FEW OF THE ITEMS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVE D AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE AND AT THE TIME OF HER SONS MARRIAGE. THE SE GIFTED JEWELLERIES CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AS THE SAME IS DUL Y SUPPORTED BY SUCH CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE LIKE GIFT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MOTHER OF DAUGHTER- IN-LAW AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF MARRIAGES SHOWN BEFORE TH E INVESTIGATION UNIT. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT SOME OF THE JEWELLERY REMAINED UNEXPLAINED CANNOT BE UPHELD . THERE IS ANOTHER GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT CARATWIS E ITEMS DISCLOSED DO NOT TALLY WITH THE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY FOUND. THIS GROUN D CANNOT, PER SE, BE ADVERSELY VIEWED, IF OVERALL TALLY OF CARATS AND GR AMS ARE RECONCILED. THERE MAY BE A CASE WHETHER JEWELLERIES GET RECYCLED AND EXCHANGED. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM A CERTIFICATE APPEARING AT PAGE-20 OF PAPER BOOK-II. THUS OVERALL SOURCE OF QUANTITY OF CARATS AND GRAMS WEIG HT IS REQUIRED TO BE LOOKED INTO. CONSEQUENTLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNE D ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THIS SCORE OF UNEXPLAINED DIAMOND JEWELLERIES, IS H EREBY DELETED. LIKEWISE, IN CASE OF DEEPAK ALSO, THE SAME REASONING WILL APPLY AND, ACCORDINGLY, IN CASE OF DEEPAK ALSO, NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY CAN BE MADE. THUS, GRO UND NO.1, RELATING TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY IN BOTH THE APPEALS STANDS ALLOWED. 16. NOW COMING TO THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT I N ART WORK AND PAINTINGS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION, THE ASSESSEE AND HER SON DEEPAK WERE FOUND IN POSSESSION OF SEVERAL ART WORKS AND PAINTINGS. IN FACT, BOTH OF THEM ARE THEMSELVES AN ARTIST. DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT SOME OF THE ART WORKS COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED PROPERLY BY THE ASSESS EE WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION. ACCORDINGLY, HE HAS MADE THE ADDITION, AFTER GIVING DETAILED SUMMARY ON VARIOUS PIECES OF ART WORK / PA INTINGS, TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SAME PROPERLY BY ADD UCING ANY EVIDENCE. ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS HAS BEEN THAT THESE ART WORK S / PAINTINGS WERE EITHER MR. DINESH G. VAZIRANI MRS. PADMA G. VAZIRANI 13 GIFTED TO THEM OR WERE PURCHASED FOR A PALTRY SUM F ROM VARIOUS PLACES. LOOKING TO THE OVER ALL HUGE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY BO TH THE ASSESSES, ACQUISITION OF SUCH PAINTING SHOULD NOT BE ADVERSEL Y VIEWED. ALTERNATIVELY, THE ASSESSEES PLEA HAS BEEN THAT THE VALUATION DON E BY THE EXPERT COMMITTEE IS TOO HIGH AND EXCESSIVE AND BY WAY OF I LLUSTRATION, VARIOUS EXAMPLES WERE GIVEN. FROM THE NARRATION GIVEN FOR T HE VARIOUS ART WORKS / PAINTINGS AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, AS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT IN SOME OF THE CASES , THE VALUATION SEEMS TO BE VERY HIGH LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE I TEMS HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF GIFT OR HAS BEEN PURCHASED FORM CHINA AND OT HER PLACES OF INDIA FOR A SMALL PRICE, FOR E.G., SKETCH DRAWN IN PAPER NAPKIN BY INK HAS BEEN GIFTED BY MR. M.F. HUSSAIN, HIMSELF, AT THE TIME OF LUNCH WIT H HER IN LONDON, WHICH IS MADE ON A VERY SMALL PIECE OF PAPER OF 13 X 8. TH IS HAS BEEN VALUED AT A PRICE OF ` 2,50,000. SIMILARLY, IN CASE OF DEEPAK, THERE IS A N ITEM OF PAINTING WHICH HAS BEEN GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY HIS WIFES FRIEND AND THE SAME HAS BEEN VALUED AT ` 5,00,000. SOME OF THE ITEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN ACQUIR ED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM CHINA AT ` 5,000, HAS BEEN VALUED AT ` 2,00,000 AND ` 6,00,000. SUCH A VALUATION, LOOKING TO THE SOURCE O F ACQUISITION SEEMS TO BE VERY ARBITRARY AND EXCESSIVE. 17. KEEPING IN VIEW THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE A RE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUE OF VALUATI ON OF ART WORK AND PAINTING SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND TO GET IT VALUED THROUGH AN INDEPENDENT VALUER AFTER LOOKING TO THE EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF ACQUISITION BY THE ASSESSEE. THE VALUE OF A PAINTING PER SE COULD BE MORE, HOWEVER, LOOKING TO THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION , SUCH A VALUE CANNOT BE ASCRIBED TO THE ART WORK / PAINTING. THERE COULD BE POSSIBILITY THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE ACQUIRED CERTAIN PAINTING AT A VE RY LOW COST EITHER FROM A FLEA MARKET OR FROM ABROAD OR BY WAY OF GIFT FROM F RIEND OR RELATIVE FOR WHICH SUCH A HIGH VALUATION CANNOT BE TAKEN. THUS, WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL BEAR IN MIND OR TAKE INTO CO NSIDERATION THESE FACTORS. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED I NVESTMENT IN ART WORKS / PAINTING IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR DENOVO MR. DINESH G. VAZIRANI MRS. PADMA G. VAZIRANI 14 ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF OUR AFORESTATED OBSERV ATIONS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE DUE AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASS ESSEE TO EXPLAIN THEIR CASES. THUS, GROUND NO.2, IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 18. 2 $: '* +2$ 3 ; <3 =>? #! #% '$ @ 3 5$ AB C 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. % 3 , ; D*: 7 TH SEPTEMBER 2012 3 E C ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH SEPTEMBER 2012 SD/- . .. . B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- #$ #$ #$ #$ %& %& %& %& ' ' ' ' AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, D* D* D* D* DATED: 7 TH SEPTEMBER 2012 % 3 /'$#F GF,$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) '* +2$ / THE ASSESSEE; (2) 5 ' / THE REVENUE; (3) H () / THE CIT(A); (4) H / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) F'KE /'$'* , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) E+ L / GUARD FILE. 0F$ /'$ / TRUE COPY %* / BY ORDER / 5. MN / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY '2O '*5 M' / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY = / A 5 / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI