The ACIT, 2(1), Bhopal V. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA, Bhopal

ITA 606/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6303 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJIV VARSHANE
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA S
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Search and seizure
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 622/IND/2014 A.Y. : 2011-12 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA, ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL VS BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. AARPL5228N I.T.A.NO. 606/IND/2014 A.Y. : 2011-12 ACIT, 1(2), SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA, BHOPAL VS BHOPAL. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHISH GOYAL AND SHRI N. D. PATWA, ADVOCATES DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAJIV VARSHANE, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 06 . 0 4 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 . 0 4 .2016 I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 2 2 O R D E R PER D.T.GARASIA, J.M. APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND DEPARTMENT ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL, DATED 17.07. 2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER :- 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME AS DIRECTORS SALARY FRO M M/S. LILASONS BREWERIES LTD. AND M/S. LILASONS INFRASTRU CTURE PVT. LTD, INTEREST ON DEPOSITS AND INTEREST ON SAVING BA NK ACCOUNT. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S. 132(1) WAS CARR IED OUT ON 28.10.2010 AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEE HAS ITS REGULAR RETURN FOR A.Y. 2011-12 ON 17..02.2012 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 3,88,43,300/- WHICH INCLUDED THE INCOM E SURRENDERED OF RS. 3,86,93,880/-. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS, AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT AND IN THE LOCKER FO LLOWING AMOUNTS OF ORNAMENTS AND JEWELLERY WERE FOUND: I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 3 3 S.NO. PLACE GOLD (IN RS.) SILVER (IN RS.) TOTAL (IN RS.) 1. RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE LOCATED AT E 4/132, ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL 67,27,944 14,90,045 82,17,989 2. LOCKER NO. 14, DENA BANK, TT NAGAR BHOPAL 24,13,150 -- 24,13,150 TOTAL (RS.) 91,41,094 14,90,045 1,06,31,139 5. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF TH E ABOVE MENTIONED JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THAT THE LOCKER NO. 14 DENA BANK , T.T.NAGAR, BHOPAL, WAS IN THE NAME OF SHRI DHARMENDR A KUMAR LILA AND SHRI RAKESH LILA AND THE JEWELLERY F OUND IN THE LOCKER BELONGED TO SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR LILA A ND HIS WIFE. SMT. MADHU LILA. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT JEWELLE RY WAS FOUND IN THE DIFFERENT BED ROOMS OF THE FAMILY MEMB ERS OF SMT. RASHMI LILA, SMT. MONIKA LILA, SMT. CHAMPA LILA AND SMT. MADHI LILA AND, THUS, THE JEWELLERY BELONGED TO THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS AND NECESSARY EXPLANATION FOR THE SO URCE OF ACQUISITION HAD BEEN EXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF RESP ECTIVE FAMILY MEMBERS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT JEWELLE RY FOUND IN THE BED ROOMS OF EACH FAMILY MEMBER HAVE BEEN DI SCLOSED I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 4 4 EITHER IN VDIS OR IN THEIR BALANCE SHEET., BUT THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY ITEMWISE DETAILS OF THE JEWELLE RY AND ALSO THE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WERE NOT TALLIED WITH THE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY IN THE V DIS DISCLOSURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED PROOF WHI CH COULD SUBSTANTIATE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE SAME ONE WHICH IS DECLARED IN THE VDI S DISCLOSURE. 6. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CI T(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 55,12,389/- AND D ELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 51,18,750/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : - 3.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANTS MA IN CONTENTION IS THAT JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH BELONGS TO ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS RESIDING I N THE HOUSE AS THE SAME WAS FOUND IN THE BED ROOMS OF DIF FERENT PERSONS. IT IS ALSO THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY HAD DECLARED JEWELLERY IN VDI S AND AFTER SELLING SOME JEWELLERY IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, T HE I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 5 5 BALANCE WAS REFLECTED IN THEIR BALANCE SHEETS. HOWE VER, ON EXAMINATION OF FACTS OF THE APPELLANT, THE SUBMISSI ON OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE IN TOTALITY . THE APPELLANT OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE NOT FILED ANY WEALTH TAX RETURNS FOR THE RELEVANT PERIODS DISCLOS ING THE AVAILABILITY OF THE JEWELLERY IN THEIR HANDS. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE IS VARIATION IN THE JEWELLERY FO UND AND CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE NAME OF VARIOUS FAM ILY MEMBERS AND JEWELLERY CLAIMED TO BE DECLARED IN VDI S ON 24.12.1997 AND THEREAFTER SOLD GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGH ING 2096.600 ON 17.03.1998 AND 1101.780 GMS. ON 26.05.1999 AND, THUS, THE BALANCE GOLD JEWELLERY WO RKED OUT 1184.570 GMS, WHEREAS IN THE ROOM STATED TO BE BED ROOM OF SMT. MONIKA LILA ORNAMENTS AND JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1765.550 GMS. WAS FOUND. SIMILARLY IN THE ORDER CASES ALSO, THERE IS MISMATCH BETWEEN THE JEWELLERY FOUND AND DECLARED IN VDIS. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT AFTER DECLARATION IN VDIS, THE FAMILY HAD SOLEMNIZED MARR IAGES IN THE FAMILY SUCH AS OF MR. RAKESH LILA ON 11.05.2 003 AND THE SISTER OF APPELLANT, MS. MADHU ON 28.02.200 2. IT I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 6 6 CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE APPELLANT FAMILY MUST HAV E GIVEN JEWELLERY TO MS. MADHU IN HER MARRIAGE WHICH IS CUSTOMARY IN A BUSINESS FAMILY OF REPUTE. REGARDING SILVER ITEMS, IT IS NOTICED THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF P HOOL CHAND LILA HUF AS ON 31.03.2010 IN THE FIXED ASSETS , SILVER ORNAMENTS OF RS. 23,030/- ONLY WERE SHOWN, WHEREAS TOTAL SILVER ITEMS WERE FOUND VALUING AT RS . 14,90,045/-. HOWEVER, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TO TAL JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS UNEXPLAINED. IT IS A NORMAL CUSTOM IN INDIA THAT A WOMEN RECEIVES JEWELLERY ON HER MARRIAGE AND ON OTHER OCC ASIONS SUCH AS BIRTH OF CHILD ETC. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THERE IS NO YARDSTICK TO ASCERTAIN THE QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY AS REASONABLE IN THE HANDS OF WOMEN AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS WHICH DEPENDS ON THE CUSTOMS AND STATUS OF THE FAMILY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, REFERENCE CAN BE MA DE TO THE GUIDELINES VIDE INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 DATED 11.0 5.1996 ISSUED BY THE BOARD (CBDT) REGARDING SEIZURE OF JEW ELLERY AND ORNAMENTS IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ABOVE RE FERRED INSTRUCTION READS AS UNDER :- I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 7 7 INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 DATED 11.05.1994: INSTANCES OF SEIZURE OF JEWELLERY OF SMALL QUANTITY OF SMALL QUANTITY IN COURSE OF OPERATIONS UNDER SECTIO N 132 HAVE COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE BOARD. THE QUESTION OF A COMMON APPROACH TO SITUATIONS WHERE SEARCH PARTIES COME ACROSS ITEMS OF JEWELLERY, HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE BOARD AND FOLLOWING ARE ISSUED FOR STRICT COMPLIANCE. (I) IN THE CASE OF A WEALTH-TAX ASSESSEE, GOLD JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS FOUND IN EXCESS OF THE GROS S WEIGHT DECLARED IN THE WEALTH-TAX RETURN ONLY NEED TO BE SEIZED. (II) IN THE CASE OF A PERSON NOT ASSESSED TO WEALTH -TAX GOLD JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GMS. PER MARRIED LADY, 250 GMS. PER UNMARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS PER MALE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY NEED NOT BE SEIZED. (III) THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER MAY, HAVING REGARD TO THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY, AND THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICES OF THE COMMUNITY TO WHICH THE FAMILY BELONGS AND OTHER I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 8 8 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, DECIDE TO EXCLUDE A LARG ER QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS FROM SEIZURE. THIS SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME- TAX/COMMISSIONER AUTHORIZING THE SEARCH AT THE TIME OF FURNISHING THE SEARCH REPORT. (IV) IN ALL CASES, A DETAILED INVENTORY OF THE JEWE LLERY AND ORNAMENTS FOUND MUST BE PREPARED TO BE USED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT VARIOUS COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 IS ALSO RELEVANT I N CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION REGARDING JEWELRY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FOR ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE DECISI ON OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI VS. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 411 (GUJ.), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTION IS ALSO RELEVANT IN CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION REGARDING THE JEWELLERY FOUN D I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 9 9 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED IN THIS CASE AS UNDER : SO FAR AS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GOLD ORNAMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1 LAKH IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE EXPLANATION THAT WAS REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH SAYS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDING, STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE, SMT. KAILASHBEN CHOKSHI WAS RECORDED AND ACCORDING TO WHICH SHE HAD RECEIVED ABOUT 25 TOTALS OF GOLD EACH FROM HER PARENTS AND FROM HER PARENTS-IN-LAW SIDE AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE IN THE YEAR 1960. SHE HAD GIVEN 15 TOTALS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS TO HER DAUGHTER RITABEN AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 1988. IF THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, IN THE LIGHT OF THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD, ANY MIDDLE CLASS INDIAN I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 10 10 FAMILY MAY BE HAVING JEWELLERY AND GOLD ORNAMENTS TO THAT EXTENT. HENCE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE COUNT. EVEN IF THE BOARD CIRCULAR MAY NOT HAVE RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION, LOOKING TO THE QUANTUM OF HOLDING AND THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS IS A NORMAL HOLDING WHICH CAN BE FOUND IN ANY MIDDLE CLASS INDIAN FAMILY AND HENCE NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED ON THAT COUNT. SIMILAR VIEW WAS ALSO EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. PATI DEVI VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (1999) 240 ITR 0727 (KAR.). IN THE CASE OF ASHOK CHADDHA VS. ITO (2011) 14 TAXMAN.COM 57 (DELHI), THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT CONSIDERED THE POSSESSION OF JEWELLERY OF 906.900 GMS. BY A WOMEN IN A MARRIED LIFE OF 25 YEARS IN THE FORM OF STRIDHAN AND RECEIVED ON OTHER I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 11 11 OCCASION AS REASONABLE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER (HEAD NOTES) :- SECTION 69A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 UNEXPLAINED MONEYS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07- DURING A SEARCH AT ASSESSEES RESIDENTIAL PREMISES, 906.900 GMS JEWELLERY WAS FOUND FROM ASSESSEE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS MARRIED 25 YEARS BACK AND JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED BY HIS WIFE IN FORM OF STREE DHAN OR ON OTHER OCCASIONS SUCH AS BIRTH OF A CHILD, ETC. ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED ONLY 400 GMS OF JEWELLERY AS EXPLAINED AND TREATED 506.900 GMS OF JEWELLERY AS UNEXPLAINED AND, ACCORDINGLY, MADE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69A WHETHER COLLECTING JEWELLERY OF 906.900 GMS BY A WOMAN IN A MARRIED LIFE OF 25 YEARS IN FORM OF STREEDHAN OR ON OTHER OCCASIONS IS ABNORMAL HELD, NO WHETHER THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN TREATING ONLY 400 GMS AS REASONABLE AND TREATING REMAINING JEWELLERY I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 12 12 AS UNEXPLAINED HELD, YES WHETHER, THEREFORE, ADDITION MADE WAS TO BE DELETED HELD, YES [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE] IN VIEW OF THE BOARD INSTRUCTION, THE JEWELLERY FOU ND WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED AS REASONABLE RESPECT OF TH E APPELLANT FAMILY WORKS OUT AS UNDER : NAME STATUS REASONABLE JEWELLERY AS PER INSTRUCTION SMT. CHAMPA DEVI LILA MARRIED 500 GMS SHRI ARUN LILA MARRIED 100 GMS SMT. MONIKA LILA MARRIED 500 GMS MISS CHANDANI LILA UNMARRIED 250 GMS MASTER KANHA LILA UNMARRIED 100 GMS SHRI DHARMENDRA LILA MARRIED 100 GMS SMT. MADHU LILA MARRIED 500 GMS MISS. BHAVYA LILA UNMARRIED 250 GMS SHRI RAKESH LILA MARRIED 100 GMS SMT. RASHMI LILA MARRIED 500 GMS MISS YATI LILA UNMARRIED 250 GMS MASTER RACHIT LILA UNMARRIED 100 GMS TOTAL 3250 GMS HENCE, AS PER BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO. 1916, NORMALL Y THE GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 3250 GMS HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS REASONABLE AND EVEN WAS NOT LIABLE FO R SEIZURE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 13 13 CONSIDERING THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY, CUSTOM AND PRACTICE OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY TO WHICH THE FAMILY OF THE APPELLANT BELONGS, IT IS CONSIDERED T HAT GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 3250 GMS WAS REASONABLE TO BE RECEIVED BY THE FAMILY MEMBER ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS REPRESENTING STRIDHAN AND PERSONAL JEWELLERY OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS. ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE VALUE OF GOLD JEWELLERY ADOPTED FOR VALUATION @ RS. 15,750/- PER 10 GMS. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 3250 GMS WORKS OUT AT RS. 51,18,750/-. HENCE, THE JEWELLERY VALUING AT RS. 51,18,750/- IS CONSIDERED AS REASONABLE AND EXPLAINED AS BELONGING TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE BALANCE OF RS. 55,12,389/- (RS. 1,06,31,139 RS. 51,18,750/-) IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN THE GOLD, DIAMOND AND SILVER JEWELLERY/ITEMS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HENCE, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 55,12,389/- IS CONFIRMED. IN THE RESULTS, THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS. 51,18,750/-. I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 14 14 7. FIRST, WE WILL DEAL WITH THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T.A.NO. 622/IND/2014. 8. THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE H AS ORALLY ARGUED AS WELL AS FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION . THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION IS ON PAGE 8 TO 14, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION OUGHT TO BE DELETED. THE SUBMISSIONS ARE TWO FOLD: - I. THESE ARE NOT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE NOT FOUND IN ASSESSEES POSSESSION II. ALTERNATIVELY, THESE ARE COVERED IN VDIS DECLARATIO N OF FAMILY MEMBERS/ ALREADY OFFERED IN EARLIER YEARS I T RETURNS. I. THESE ARE NOT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE NOT FOUND IN ASSESSEES POSSESSION IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE JEWELLERY WAS NOT FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE APPELLANT. JEWELLERY WAS FOUND FROM THE BED-ROOMS OF EACH FAMILY MEMBERS/ BANK LOCKER OF FAMILY MEMBERS, WHO OWNED THE JEWELLERY AND SUBMITTED THAT THEY WERE ALREADY OFFE RED I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 15 15 IN THE INCOME-TAX/ WEALTH-TAX RETURNS. NONE OF THE FAMILY MEMBER ALLEGED THAT THE JEWELLERY BELONGED T O THE APPELLANT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BOTH TO THE LEARNED AO/ CIT(A) THAT THE JEWELLERY DOES NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. NOR IT WAS FOUND FROM HIS POSSESSION. TH EY STILL CHOOSE TO MAKE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT WITHOUT COUNTERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE JEWELLERY WAS F OUND FROM THEIR POSSESSION, WHO ARE SEPARATE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES. THEY OWNED THE JEWELLERY IN THE STATEMEN T RECORDED ON OATH. THE PRESUMPTION U/S. 292C IS IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE, WHICH STATES THAT IF ANY ASSET IS FOUND TO BE IN POSSESSION OF A PERSON, IT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE BELONGING TO HIM. THE PERSON HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE OWNERSHIP OF SAME AND HAS GIVEN EXPLANATION FOR SAME. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BROUGH T ANY MATERIAL TO REBUT THIS PRESUMPTION. SPECIFICALLY FOR EACH FAMILY MEMBER, IT IS SUBMITTE D AS UNDER: - I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 16 16 (A) FOUND FROM THE BED ROOM OF RAKESH / RASHMI LILA BROTHER OF ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE ARE SEPARATE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES. DURING SEARCH, THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE BED ROOM OF BROTHER AND HIS WIFE HAD BEEN CLAIMED BY THEM TO BE BELONGING TO THEM. (B) FOUND FROM THE BED ROOM OF MONIKA LILA/ ARUN LILA (ASSESSEE) THE JEWELLERY WAS FOUND FROM THE BED ROOM OF SMT MONIKA LILA AND THE ASSESSEE ARUN LILA. SMT. MONIKA LILA IS A SEPARATE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEE. DURING SEARCH, IN HER STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH, SHE ACCEPTED THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE JEWELLERY BELONGE D TO HER. IN DCIT VS VINOD KAMRA 102 TTJ 152 (JODH.) , IT WAS HELD THAT ADDITION, IN RESPECT OF ENTIRE SEIZED GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH BELONGED TO ASSESSEES WIFE WHO HERSELF, AN INCOME-TAX ASSESSEE AND CLAIMED I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 17 17 OWNERSHIP OF THE SAID JEWELLERY, CANNOT BE MADE IN ASSESSEES HANDS. (C) FOUND FROM THE BED ROOM OF SMT. CHAMPA DEVI W/O LATE SHRI PHOOL CHAND LILA MOTHER OF ASSESSEE IS A SEPARATE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEE. SHE IS REGULARLY FILING HER RETURN. DURIN G SEARCH, THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE BED ROOM OF MOTH ER HAD BEEN CLAIMED BY HER TO BE BELONGING TO HER. (D) SILVER JEWELLERY FOUND FROM THE BED ROOM OF DHARMENDRA/ MADHU LILA BROTHER OF ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE ARE SEPARATE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES. DURING SEARCH, THE SILVER JEWELLERY WAS FOUND IN THE BED ROOM OF BROTHER AND HIS WIFE HAD BEEN CLAIMED BY THEM TO BE BELONGING T O THEM. (E) FOUND FROM THE LOCKER NO. 14 DENA BANK OF DHARMENDRA LILA AND RAKESH LILA (I) THIS LOCKER BELONGS TO BROTHERS OF ASSESSEE AND THEIR WIFE. ALL OF THEM ARE SEPARATE INCOME-TAX I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 18 18 ASSESSEES. THE FACT THAT LOCKER NO. 14 IS OWNED BY DHARMENDRA LILA AND RAKESH LILA IS ESTABLISHED FROM PG. 6 SR. NO. 9 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHERE IT IS STATED THAT THE LOCKER IS IN THE NAME OF RAKESH LILA AND DHARMENDRA LILA. (II) DURING SEARCH, THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE LOCKER OF BROTHERS HAD BEEN CLAIMED BY THEM TO BE BELONGING TO THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES. THUS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THESE ITEMS WERE NEITHER FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF ASSESSEE, NOR ANY EVIDENCE WAS FOUND TO ESTABLISH THE OWNERSHIP OF SAME. THE FAMILY MEMBERS, FROM WHOM THESE JEWELLERY ITEMS WERE FOUND, WERE SEPARATE INCOME- TAX/ WEALTH-TAX ASSESSEES. THEY OWNED IN THE JEWELLERY IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH. CLEARL Y IN THE PANCHANAMA, THEIR NAME IS MENTIONED. THEREFORE, THESE JEWELLERY ITEMS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT. I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 19 19 IN CIT VS SOORAJMAL NANUMAL, 181 ITR 340, IT WAS HELD THAT BEING JEWELLERY WAS FOUND IN THE BED ROOM OF THE FAMILY MEMBER AND THEY HAVE ALSO SHOWN THE SAME IN THEIR PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET AND BEING IT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE JEWELLERY WAS ACQUIRED DURING THE RELEVANT AY, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. II. ALTERNATIVELY, THESE ARE COVERED IN VDIS DECLARATION OF FAMILY MEMBERS/ ALREADY OFFERED IN EARLIER YEARS IT RETURNS. IT IS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SUBMITTED THAT THE JEWELL ERY IS WITHIN LIMITS OF THE JEWELLERY DECLARED BY THE FAMI LY IN THE RETURN/ VDIS. A SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND AND DECLARED IN THE RETURN/ VDIS IS AS UNDER: - I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 20 20 CHART 2 SUMMARY OF JEWELLERY FOUND AND ALREADY DECLARED PERSON FROM WHOSE POSSESSION FOUND FOUND COVERED BY VDIS DECLARATION (AS REDUCED BY SALES) / INCOME- TAX RETURNS GOLD (GMS) STONES (CTS) SILVER (GMS) GOLD (GMS) STONES (CTS) SILVER (GMS) RAKESH/ RASHMI LILA 778.536 81.520 8128 1317.450 63.800 - MONIKA LILA/ ARUN LILA 1565.718 24.160 14500 847.200 45.95 - CHAMPA DEVI LILA 1056.200 26.500 16867 4732.000 (BY 2002 RETURN) 39.72 - DHARMENDRA / MADHU LILA - - 16545 - - - DHARMENDRA/ RAKESH LILA (LOCKER NO. 14, DENA BANK) 1353.510 - - 12127.830 - - PHOOL CHAND (HUF) - - - - - 54044 SHIVDATTARAI PHOOL CHAND (HUF) - - - - - 50664 TOTAL 4753.964 132.180 56040 19024.480 149.470 104708 LESS: JEWELLERY FOUND 4753.964 132.180 56040 SURPLUS STILL AVAILABLE 14270.516 17.290 48668 IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN BAMMANA SWARNA REKH A 94 TTJ 885 (VIZAG), IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN THE JOINT FA MILIES ARE PUTTING TOGETHER, THIS IS QUITE A NATURAL THING THAT ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY MAY TAKE THE JEWELLERY FR OM I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 21 21 EACH OTHER AND WEAR THE SAME. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE ITAT HELD THAT FOR ASCERTAINING THE UNDISCLOSED JEW ELLERY OF THE FAMILY, THE TOTAL JEWELLERY DISCLOSED BY THE ME MBERS HAVE TO BE AGGREGATED AND THEN THE SAME SHALL BE COMPARED TO THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE FAMILY AS A WHOLE. THUS, THE JEWELLERY WAS SUFFICIENTLY DISCLOSED IN T HE RETURNS/ VDIS OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS TO COVER THE JE WELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. LD CIT(A), DID NOT ACCEPT THIS VDIS DECLARATION HOL DING AS UNDER: - (A) NO WEALTH-TAX RETURN IS FILED : - WEALTH-TAX PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS. WHETHER THESE JEWELLERY ITEMS ARE ASSESSABLE UNDER WEALTH-TAX OR NOT IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE WEALTH-TAX. ANY DEFAULT UNDER WEALTH-TAX, WILL NOT AFFECT THE BENEFIT OF TAX ALREADY PAID IN VDIS UNDER THE INCOME-TAX. I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 22 22 (B) THERE IS VARIATION IN THE JEWELLERY FOUND AND CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE NAME OF VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS AND JEWELLERY CLAIMED TO BE DECLARED IN VDIS AND SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET: - IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE VARIATION IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT IN THE FAMILIES, IT IS AN ORDINARY FACT THAT O NE FAMILY MEMBER GIVES JEWELLERY TO ANOTHER FAMILY MEMBER FOR WEARING. FURTHER, THE JEWELLERY DECLARED IN VDIS IS ALREADY FOUND TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING SEARCH. AS NOTED BY LD CIT(A), THERE WERE MARRIAGES OF MR. RAKESH LILA AND MS. MADHU (SISTER). LD CIT(A) HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT JEWELLERY MUST HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE THEM AT THE OCCASION OF THEIR MARRIAGE. IN FACT DUE TO VARIOUS OCCASIONS LIKE MARRIAGE, BIRTH OF CHILD, BIRTHDAY, MARRIAGE ANNIVERSARY ETC. JEWELLERY WAS GIVEN AND RECEIVED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS. THIS INFACT HAS LEAD TO SHORTFALL OF JEWELLERY. CONSIDERING THE SAME, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ONLY A NOMINAL REDUCTION/ INCREASE IN JEWELLERY. I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 23 23 NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OF ANY UNRECORDED PURCHASE, SALE OF JEWELLERY. JEWELLERY WAS STILL SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE GIFTS GIVEN AT VARIOUS OCCA SIONS. IN ANY CASE, GIFTING MORE THAN 14 KGS OF GOLD WILL BE AN IMPOSSIBLE EVENT, WHICH LD CIT(A) RELIED ON. FURTHER, THE DETAILS OF JEWELLERY DECLARED BY EACH FAMILY MEMBER IS EXPLAINED AS UNDER: - 1. RAKESH / RASHMI LILA (A) THE JEWELLERY WAS EXPLAINED BY HIM TO BE WITHIN LIM ITS OF VDIS DECLARATION. ITEM GMS VALUE VDIS 97 (PB 26) GOLD 20779.30 52,51,057 PB 28 DIAMOND 63.8 CT 6,12,983 TOTAL - 58,64,040 GOLD JEWELLERY SOLD IN 97-98 (PB 29) GOLD 15548.25 38,55,966 SOLD IN 98 - 99 AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX PAID (PB 30) GOLD 2334.80 5,79,029 SOLD IN 99 - 00 AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX PAID (PB 31) GOLD 1578.50 3,60,845 BALANCE GOLD - 1317.450 GMS DIAMOND 63.8 CT 10,68,200 THE JEWELLERY IS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2000 FILED WITH INCOME-TAX RETURNS. THIS IS FURTHER SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF 31.03.2010. I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 24 24 AFTER CONSIDERING THE VDIS DECLARATION STILL 1317.75 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY SHALL BE AVAILABLE. THE GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND WAS 778.536 GMS , WHICH IS WITHIN THE LIMIT OF THE VDIS DECLARATION. (B) THE EXPLANATION FOR SILVER JEWELLERY IS GIVEN IN TH E SUBSEQUENT PARAS SEPARATELY. (C) LOOKING TO THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY AND THE FACT TH AT THE JEWELLERY RECEIVED AT THE MARRIAGE OF RAKESH AND RASHMI LILA WOULD BE KEPT AS SRIDHAM, THE JEWELLE RY IS JUSTIFIABLE. 2. FOUND FROM THE BED ROOM OF MONIKA LILA/ ARUN LILA (ASSESSEE): IN VDIS- 97, SMT. MONIKA LILA HAS DECLARED CERTAIN JEWELLERY AS PER BELOW CHART AND PART OF WHICH WAS SOLD IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS AS ENUMERATED ABOVE. I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 25 25 ITEM GMS VALUE VDIS 97 (PB 45) GOLD 4045.580 10,39,719 PB 46 DIAMOND / RUBY 45.95 CT 3,08,485 TOTAL 13,48,204 SOLD IN 97 - 98 AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX PAID (PB 47) GOLD 2096.60 5,19,956 SOLD IN 99 - 00 AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX PAID (PB 49) GOLD 1101.78 2,51,870 BALANCE GOLD 847.2 GMS DIAMOND/ RUBY 45.95 CT 16,05,981 THE BALANCE JEWELLERY WAS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET ON 31.03.2000 FILED ALONGWITH RETURN AND ALSO IN TH E BALANCE SHEET OF 31.03.2010. THE GOLD JEWELLERY LEFT WITH SMT. MONIKA LILA AS AB OVE IS 847.200 GMS (NET WEIGHT), IN COMPARISON OF 1565.718 GMS (NET WEIGHT) FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE BED-ROOM OF THE APPELLANT. THE FIGURES BEFORE LD CI T(A) WERE SUBMITTED CONSIDERING SOME FIGURES ON GROSS WE IGHT AND SOME ON NET WEIGHT, WHICH WAS NOT PROPER. THE CORRECT FIGURES ARE REFLECTED NOW, WHICH IS BASED O N NET WEIGHT. THE BALANCE OF 720.518 GMS, BELONGS TO HER MOTHER-I N-LAW SMT. CHAMPA DEVI LILA WHICH IS GIVEN BY HER TO HER ELDEST I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 26 26 DAUGHTER-IN-LAW (SMT. MONIKA LILA) FOR WEARING PURP OSES ONLY. THUS, THE JEWELLERY DECLARED IN VDIS IS SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE ADDITION MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE. SMT. MONIKA LILA, DURING SEARCH EXPLAINED THAT SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED B Y HER DURING HER MARRIAGE. THE EXPLANATION FOR SILVER JEWELLERY IS GIVEN IN TH E SUBSEQUENT PARAS SEPARATELY. 3. FOUND FROM THE BED ROOM OF SMT. CHAMPA DEVI W/O LATE SHRI PHOOL CHAND LILA: (A) IN HER INCOME-TAX RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2002-03 , IN THE BALANCE SHEET, THE GOLD ORNAMENTS OF RS. 18,92, 786 WERE DECLARED AND DIAMOND ORNAMENTS OF RS. 2,78,077 WERE DECLARED. THE SAME ARE HELD BY HER CONTINUOUS LY TILL TODAY, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM BALANCE SHEET OF 31.03.2002 AND 31.03.2010. IF THE GOLD ORNAMENTS OF RS. 18,92,786 ARE DIVIDED BY THE PREVAILING RATE OF RS. I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 27 27 4,000/ TOLA OF 2002, THE APPROXIMATE WEIGHT COMES T O 4732 GMS . FOR DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF RS. 2,73,077, IF SAME IS DIVIDED BY THE PREVAILING RATE OF RS. 7,000 OF 2002, THE APPROXIMATE WEIGHT COMES TO 39.72 CTS . (B) SMT. CHAMPA DEVI HAS ALSO GIVEN 720.518 GMS JEWELLERY TO HER ELDEST DAUGHTER-IN-LAW SMT. MONIKA LILA (WIFE OF ASSESSEE) FOR WEARING PURPOSE. THIS JEWELL ERY WAS FOUND FROM THE BED ROOM OF SMT. MONIKA AND ARUN LILA. THE JEWELLERY DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AT 4732 GMS IS SUFFICIENT TO COVER BOTH THE JEWELLERY OF 1056.200 GMS FOUND FROM THE BED ROOM OF CHAMPA DEVI AND 720.518 GMS FOUND FROM THE BED ROOM OF SMT. MONIKA LILA. (C) THE EXPLANATION FOR SILVER JEWELLERY IS GIVEN IN TH E SUBSEQUENT PARAS SEPARATELY. 4. SILVER JEWELLERY FOUND FROM THE BED ROOM OF DHARMENDRA/ MADHU LILA: THE EXPLANATION FOR THIS SILVER JEWELLERY IS GIVEN IN THE SUBSEQUENT PARAS SEPARATELY. I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 28 28 5. FOUND FROM THE LOCKER NO. 14 DENA BANK OF DHARMENDRA LILA AND RAKESH LILA (A) IN VDIS- 97, DHARMENDRA LILA HAS DECLARED CERTAIN JEWELLERY AS PER BELOW CHART AND PART OF WHICH WAS SOLD IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS AS ENUMERATED ABOVE. ITEM GMS VALUE VDIS 97 (PB 67) GOLD 12127.830 30,35,628 PART OF THE JEWELLERY WAS SOLD. THE BALANCE JEWELLE RY WAS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET ON 31.03.2002 AN D ALSO IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF 31.03.2010. THE GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE LOCKER AT 1353.510 GMS IS VERY MUCH LOWER THAN THE JEWELLERY DECLARED IN V DIS AT 12127.830 GMS. (B) IN THE RETURN OF INCOME SUBMITTED FOR A.Y. 2002-03, DHARMENDRA LILA HAS SHOWN GOLD ORNAMENTS OF RS. 17,95,270. THESE GOLD ORNAMENTS ARE LYING WITH HIM TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH ALSO, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE BALANCE SHEET FILED CONTINUOUSLY. 6. EXPLANATION FOR SILVER JEWELLERY I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 29 29 (A) THE TOTAL SILVER JEWELLERY INCLUDING UTENSILS ETC. FOUND FROM THE BED-ROOM OF VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS AMOUNTE D TO 56040 GMS (56.04 KGS) (B) THIS JEWELLERY BELONGS TO PHOOL CHAND LILA (HUF) 54.044 KGS AND SHIVDUTTRAI PHOOL CHAND LILA (HUF) - 50.664 KGS. (C) IN VDIS 1997 SCHEME, PHOOL CHAND LILA (HUF) HAD OFFERED 54.044 KGS OF SILVER AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,88 5. ALSO, SHIVDUTTRAI PHOOL CHAND LILA (HUF) HAS DISCLO SED 50.664 KGS. AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,145. (D) IN F.Y. 2002-03, SHIVDUTTRAI PHOOL CHAND LILA (HUF) HAS TRANSFERRED ENTIRE 50.664 KGS OF JEWELLERY AND UTEN SILS TO PHOOL CHAND LILA (HUF). THE TOTAL JEWELLERY AND UTENSILS NOW LYING WITH PHOOL CHAND LILA (HUF) ARE 104.708 KGS. (E) PHOOL CHAND LILA (HUF) IS REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX SINCE LONG. FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2003, THEY HA D FILED THE BALANCE SHEET ALONGWITH THE RETURN, IN WH ICH THEY HAVE SHOWN THE SILVER ORNAMENTS AND UTENSILS O F I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 30 30 104.708 KGS. AMOUNTING TO RS. 23,030 [RS. 11,885 + 11,145]. (F) PHOOL CHAND LILA (HUF) HAD DECLARED SILVER JEWELLER Y OF 104.708 KGS VALUING RS. 23,030 IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF A.Y. 2010-11. (G) THIS JEWELLERY OF 104.708 KGS IS SUFFICIENT TO EXPL AIN THE 56.04 KGS. JEWELLERY FOUND DURING SEARCH. SUBMISSIONS AS REGARDS INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 (A) INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 DT. 11.05.1994 HAS BEEN DISCUS SED BY LD CIT(A) ON PG. 16 ONWARDS. ON THE BASIS OF SAM E, HE HAS ALLOWED A DEDUCTION OF 3250 GMS OF GOLD FOR THE FAMILY @ RS. 15,750/- TOLA AND CONSIDERING THE SAME GAVE R ELIEF OF RS. 51,18,750/-. (B) IN THE INSTRUCTION ITSELF IN PARA (III), IT IS STAT ED THAT A HIGHER QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS CAN BE ACCEPTED, CONSIDERING THE CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES OF THE COMMUNITY TO WHICH FAMILY BELONGS AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 31 31 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LD AO HAS MENTIONED IN PARA 2 OF HIS ORDER ABOUT THE STATUS OF FAMILY WHIC H IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A MEMBER OF LILASONS GROUP OF BHOPAL. THE LILASONS GROUP IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF BEER. THE GROUP IS WELL KNO WN FOR ITS FAMOUS KHAJURAHO BRAND OF BEER. IT HAS SET-UP T WO BREWERIES SO FAR, UNDER THE HEAD LILASONS BREWERIES LIMITED, BHOPAL AND LILASONS INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD (MAHARASHTRA). THE GROUP HAS ALSO VENTUR ED INTO REAL ESTATE BY CARRYING OUT PROJECTS OF CONSTR UCTION OF LUXURY APARTMENTS AND SHOPPING MALL AT A PRIME LOCA TION OF BHOPAL....... FURTHER, THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO ACCEPT A HIGH ER QUANTITY IS THE VOLUMINOUS DECLARATION MADE BY THE FAMILY IN VDIS, WHICH COVERS THE AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. (C) IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 IS ALSO RELEVANT FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT. JUDGMENTS OF VARIOU S I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 32 32 HIGH COURTS IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE WERE QUOTED BY LD CIT(A). THUS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT LOOKING TO STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE- FAMILY AND THE FACT THAT EVIDENCES WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED PRIOR TO THE BLOCK PERIOD AND WAS A PART OF STRIDHAN RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE, AND THAT ALREADY MORE JEWELLERY W AS OFFERED IN VDIS ITSELF, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 9. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS ARGUED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE D ECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAILASHBE N MANHARLAL VHOKSHI VS. CIT, (2010) 328 ITR 411 (GUJ) AND HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS RELIED UPON THE CIRC ULAR AND DELETED THE ADDITION, BUT THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS HAS HELD THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTION DAT ED 11.5.1994, WHICH ENABLES THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER TO E XCLUDE A LARGER QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS FROM SE IZURE WILL BE APPLICABLE ONLY IF THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CO ME TO THE I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 33 33 CONCLUSION THAT THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY AND CUSTOM AND PRACTICES OF COMMUNITY IS REQUIRE HOLDING OF SUCH J EWELLERY. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE ST ATUS OF THE FAMILY AND BOARDS CIRCULAR, GRANTED THE NECESSARY RELIEF. THEREFORE, FURTHER RELIEF IS NOT REQUIRED. MOREOVER , IN THE CASE OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS, WHO HAVE NOT FILED WEALTH TAX RETURNS FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD DISCLOSING AVAILABILITY OF JEWELLERY IN THEIR HANDS. MOREOVER, THERE IS A VARIATION OF JEWE LLERY FOUND AND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAMES OF VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS AND JEWELLERY CLAIMED TO BE DECLARED IN VDIS AND SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET IN THE CASE OF MONIKA LIL A. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT SHE HAD DECLARED GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWE LLERY WEIGHING 4382.950 GMS. IN VDIS SCHEME 1997 ON 24.12. 1997, THEREAFTER, SOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 2096.600 AND 11 01.780 GMS. ON 17.03.1998 AND 26.05.1999 AND, THUS, THE B ALANCE GOLD JEWELLERY WORKED OUT TO 1184.57 GMS., WHEREAS IN THE BED ROOM OF SMT. MONIKA LILA GOLD ORNAMENTS AND JEWELLE RY WEIGHING 1765.55 GM. WAS FOUND. THUS, WHERE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AS PER THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, TH E ASSESSEE I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 34 34 IS REQUIRED TO SHOW THE EVIDENCE. THAT EXCESS JEWELL ERY WAS FOUND, WHICH WAS REQUIRED AS PER THE STATUS OF THE FA MILY MEMBERS. NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND. THEREFORE, THE LD. C IT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN HIS ACTION. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FILED A CHART OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND SUMMARY OF THE ADDITION ON PA GE 10 OF THE COMPILATION, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- CHART 2 SUMMARY OF JEWELLERY FOUND AND ALREADY DECLARED PERSON FROM WHOSE POSSESSION FOUND FOUND COVERED BY VDIS DECLARATION (AS REDUCED BY SALES) / INCOME- TAX RETURNS GOLD (GMS) STONES (CTS) SILVER (GMS) GOLD (GMS) STONES (CTS) SILVER (GMS) RAKESH/ RASHMI LILA 778.536 81.520 8128 1317.450 63.800 - MONIKA LILA/ ARUN LILA 1565.718 24.160 14500 847.200 45.95 - CHAMPA DEVI LILA 1056.200 26.500 16867 4732.000 (BY 2002 RETURN) 39.72 - DHARMENDRA / MADHU LILA - - 16545 - - - DHARMENDRA/ RAKESH LILA (LOCKER NO. 14, DENA BANK) 1353.510 - - 12127.830 - - PHOOL CHAND (HUF) - - - - - 54044 I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 35 35 SHIVDATTARAI PHOOL CHAND (HUF) - - - - - 50664 TOTAL 4753.964 132.180 56040 19024.480 149.470 104708 LESS: JEWELLERY FOUND 4753.964 132.180 56040 SURPLUS STILL AVAILABLE 14270.516 17.290 48668 11. LOOKING TO THE ABOVE CHART, WE FOUND THAT IN THE C ASE OF RAKESH/RASHMI LILA, THE GOLD WAS FOUND AT 778.536 GMS., STONES AT 81.520 CTS. AND SILVER AT 8128 GMS. AS PE R VDIS DECLARATION, 1317.450 GMS. GOLD WAS DECLARED. THEREF ORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE GOLD FOUND WAS LESS THAN DECLARED I N VDIS. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED. IN RESPECT OF S TONES, IT WAS 81.520 CTS. WAS FOUND AND AS PER THE DECLARATION 63 .800 CTS. WAS DECLARED IN VDIS. THEREFORE, 81.520 (-) 63.800 = 17.72 CTS. REMAINING IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF RAKESH/RASHMI LILA. SILVER WAS NOT DECLARED IN VDIS . THEREFORE, SILVER OF 8128 GMS. IS REQUIRED TO BE AD DED IN THE HANDS OF RAKESH/RASHMI LILA. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF MONIKA LILA, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION. THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN HIS ACTION IN THE CASE OF MR S. MONIKA LILA. THEREFORE, OUR INTERFERENCE IS NOT REQUIRED. IN TH E CASE OF I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 36 36 CHAMPA DEVI LILA, THE GOLD DECLARED IN VDIS IS 4732 .000 AND WAS FOUND LESS. SIMILARLY, STONES WERE ALSO FOUND AT 26.500 AND STONES DECLARED UNDER VDIS IS AT 39.72 CTS. THE REFORE, NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED. IN RESPECT OF SILVER WEIGHING 16867 GMS. IS TO BE CONFIRMED IN THE HANDS OF CHAMPA DEVI LILA . IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA AND RAKESH LILA IN VDIS 12127.83 0 GMS. OF GOLD WAS DECLARED AND GOLD FOUND IN THE LOCKER NO . 14, DENA BANK WAS 1353.510 GMS. EXCESS GOLD DECLARED IN VDIS COMES TO 10774.32. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR IN THE HANDS OF DHARMENDRA/RAKESH LILA. 12. WE FOUND FROM THE CHART WHICH IS ON PAGE NO.10 OF TH E WRITTEN SUBMISSION. FROM THE CHART IT IS FOUND THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAKESH/RASHMI LILA, THE GOLD FOUND WAS MUCH LESSER THAN COVERED BY VDIS DECLARATION. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF CHAMPA DEVI LILA, MUCH MORE GOLD AND STONES WERE FOU ND THAN WHAT IS DECLARED IN VDIS. IN THE CASE OF DHARME NDRA AND MADHU LILA, IN THEIR POSSESSION, SILVER FOUND 16545 GMS AND IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA AND RAKESH LILA, GOLD FOU ND WAS MUCH MORE AND IN THE RETURN, IT WAS FOUND LESS AND U NDER VDIS, IT WAS DECLARED 12127.830 GMS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 37 37 ALREADY GRANTED BENEFIT TO DHARMENDRA LILA 100 GMS. AND MADHU LILA OF 500 GMS, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS CA LLED FOR. THE SILVER WAS FOUND IN THE CASE OF RAKESH AND RASHMI LI LA AT 8128 GMS, MONICA LILA AND ARUN LILA AT 14500 GMS. , CHAMPA DEVI LILA, THE SILVER WAS FOUND 16867 GMS. AND DHARM ENDRA AND MADHU LILA AT 16545 GMS. THUS, TOTAL SILVER FOU ND WAS 56040 GMS., BUT WE FOUND THAT IN THE CASE OF PHOOLCH AND HUF, THE SILVER WAS DECLARED AT 54044 GMS. AND IN T HE CASE OF SHIVDATTARAI PHOOLCHAND, HUF, THE SILVER DECLARED AT 50664 GMS. THUS, THE TOTAL SILVER DECLARED IS 104708 GMS. IN PHOOLCHANDCHAND HUF AND SHIVDATTARAI PHOOLCHAND, HU F IS MUCH MORE THAN WHAT WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF RAKESH LILA/RASHMI LILA, MONICA LILA/ARUN LILA, CHA MPA DEVI LILA AND DHARMENDRA/ MAADHU LILA. THESE ARE ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE HUF, WHICH IS EXPLAINED IN THE FAMILY TREE CHART BY THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE. 13. THUS, THIS IS ALL EXPLAINED IN THE CHART GIVEN ON P AGE NO. 10 OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 38 38 CHART 2 SUMMARY OF JEWELLERY FOUND AND ALREADY DECLARED PERSON FROM WHOSE POSSESSION FOUND FOUND COVERED BY VDIS DECLARATION (AS REDUCED BY SALES) / INCOME-TAX RETURNS GOLD (GMS) STONES (CTS) SILVER (GMS) GOLD (GMS) STONES (CTS) SILVER (GMS) RAKESH/ RASHMI LILA 778.536 81.520 8128 1317.450 63.800 - MONIKA LILA/ ARUN LILA 1565.718 24.160 14500 847.200 45.95 - CHAMPA DEVI LILA 1056.200 26.500 16867 4732.000 (BY 2002 RETURN) 39.72 - DHARMENDRA / MADHU LILA - - 16545 - - - DHARMENDRA/ RAKESH LILA (LOCKER NO. 14, DENA BANK) 1353.510 - - 12127.830 - - PHOOL CHAND (HUF) - - - - - 54044 SHIVDATTARAI PHOOL CHAND (HUF) - - - - - 50664 TOTAL 4753.964 132.180 56040 19024.480 149.470 104708 LESS: JEWELLERY FOUND 4753.964 132.180 56040 SURPLUS STILL AVAILABLE 14270.516 17.290 48668 14. FROM THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO ADDITION I S REQUIRED. WE FOUND THAT FOR CLARIFICATION, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO GIVEN THE FAMILY TREE I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 39 39 ON PAGE NO. 1 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- FAMILY TREE LATE SHRI PHOOL CHAND LILA SMT. CHAMPA DEVI LILA (67 YEARS) ARUN LILA (47 YEARS) DHARMENDRA LILA 45 YRS RAKESH LILA (43 YEARS * DOM - DATE OF MARRIAGE 15. FROM THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO ADDITION I S CALLED FOR IN RESPECT OF FAMILY MEMBERS EXCEPT MONI CA LILA. IN THE CASE OF MONICA LILA, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRM ED THE ADDITION OF 718.518 GMS. FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE CONTENTION BEFORE US THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUND FROM MONICA LILA BELONGS TO RAKESH LILA AND SOME JEWELLERY BELONG TO MOTHER OF MADHU AGRAWAL W/O YOGESH AGRAWAL (41 YR.) DOM 28.02.2002 [LIVING SEPARATELY] SITA BANSAL W/O VINOD BANSAL (48 YRS.) DOM 07.06.1985 [LIVING SEPARATELY] DOM 05/05/1992 DOM 14/02/1997 DOM 11/05/2003 MADHU LILA 41 YEARS MONIKA LILA 41 YEARS RASHMI LILA (35 YEARS) KANHA LILA (16) BHAVYA LILA DAUGHTER (12) RACHIT LILA (5) CHANDANI LILA DAUGHTER (19) YATI LILA DAUGHTER (10) I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 40 40 THE ASSESSEE, SMT. CHAMPA DEVI. SHE IS ALSO FILING THE RETURN. THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE H AS ALSO GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT OF THESE TWO PERSONS BEFO RE US. WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE IN THE CASE OF MONICA LILA THAT THE EXCESS GOLD WAS FOU ND FROM THE BEDROOM OF MONICA LILA BELONGS TO OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO ENDORSE THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1565 .718 GMS. (-) 847.200 GMS. DECLARED IN VDIS. THEREFORE, 718.5 18 GMS. IS TO BE CONFIRMED. THE RATE OF GOLD WAS TAKEN AT 10 GM S PER RS. 15750/- THAT COMES TO 11,31,666/- WHICH IS CONFIRMED AND REST OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 51,18,750/- (-) RS. 11, 31,666/- = RS. 39,87,084/- IS DELETED. 16. HAVING HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE HAVE HELD THAT EXCESS GOLD, STONES AND SILVER FOUND BY R ESPECTIVE PERSONS ARE TO BE ADDED IN THEIR HANDS AS PER THE C HART. IN THE CASE OF MONIKA LILA, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1565.718 G MS (BEING THE NET WEIGHT) WAS FOUND, BUT AS PER THE BALANCE SH EET, I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 41 41 847.200 GMS WERE DECLARED IN VDIS. THEREFORE, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN THE CASE OF SMT. MONIKA LILA IN MAKING ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 718.518 G MS. WE FIND FROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WEAL TH TAX PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS, WHERE THESE JE WELLERY ITEMS ARE ASSESSABLE IN WEALTH TAX OR NOT TO BE ASSE SSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF WEALTH TAX ACT. ANY DEFAULT IN WE ALTH TAX ACT WILL NOT AFFECT THE BENEFIT OF TAX ALREADY PAID UNDER VDIS UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. WE HAVE ALREADY GIV EN THE BENEFIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TRIED TO TAKE THE BE NEFIT OF INSTRUCTION NO.1916 DATED 11.5.1994, BUT AS PER THE INSTRUCTION, THE MINIMUM JEWELLERY BENEFIT MUST BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS ALREAD Y GRANTED THAT BENEFIT ON PAGE NO.19 OF HIS ORDER AND SEPARAT E BENEFIT IS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED. I.T.A.NO. 606/IND/2014 DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL : 18. THE DEPARTMENT IS ALSO IN APPEAL AND HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- I.T.A.NOS. 622 AND 606/IND./2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LI LA VS. ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL AND ACIT VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA A.Y.2011-12 42 42 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIA(A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING A RELIEF OF RS. 51 ,18,750/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1,06,31,139/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD, DIAMOND AND SILVER JEWELLERY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2011-12. 19. SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, AS PER OUR OBSERVATIONS IN FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS, THE DEPA RTMENTAL APPEAL IS ALSO COVERED AND NO FURTHER OBSERVATION I S REQUIRED. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED AND DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 06 TH APRIL, 2016. (B.C.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 06 TH APRIL, 2016. CPU*