Sh. Parminder Singh, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 666/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 66621514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK KR GOYAL
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENTAND S HRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 663 TO 665/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2007-08 SHRI HARVINDER SINGH VS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. ASRPS 7914C & ITA NOS. 666 TO 668/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2007-08 SHRI PARMINDER SINGH VS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. ADLPS 0854L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI ASHOK KR.GOYAL & SUDHIR SEHG AL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 01.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.08.2012 ORDER PER BENCH THESE ARE SIX APPEALS, THREE PERTAINING TO SHRI HAR VINDER SINGH FOR VARIOUS YEARS AND REMAINING THREE APPEALS HAVING IDENTICAL GROUNDS, PERTAINING TO SHRI PARMINDER SINGH ALL AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, LUDH IANA DATED 16.4.2012 PASSED U/S 250(6) THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') . 2. IN VIEW OF ALMOST IDENTICAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN A LL THE SIX APPEALS, THE SAME WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DEALT WITH BY WAY OF THIS COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3 FIRSTLY, WE SHALL DEAL WITH APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E SHRI HARVINDER SINGH IN ITA NO. 663/CHD/2012. 4. IN GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE -APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 42,0 00/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRA WALS. 5. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT IS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE CASE AND ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE, WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECI SION OF THE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTIC S LTD, MUMBAI VS DCIT (ITA NOS. 5108 TO 5022 & 5059/M/10 DATED 6.12.2012). 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE CAS E OF THE REVENUE. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A CHART INDICATING HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT, SHOWING HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWA LS ESTIMATED BY THE CIT(A). 3 SH. HARVINDER SINGH CHART SHOWING THE HOUSHOLD WITHDRAWALS AS DISCLOSED AND ESTIMATED BY THE AO/CIT (A) ASTT.YEAR HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS DISCLOSED HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS ESTIMATED BY THE AO. REMAR KS 2003-04 48,000.00 60,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 HARVINDER SINGH PARMINDER SINGH MOTHER SAVNEET KAUR W/O HARVINDER SINGH INDERJIT KAUR W/O PARMINDER SINGH 90,000/- HARVINDER SINGH 90,000/- PARMINDER SINGH 180000/- CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) 138000.00 2005-06 60,000.00 60,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 1 0,000.00 HARVINDER SINGH PARMINDER SINGH MOTHER SAVNEET KAUR W/O HARVINDER SINGH INDERJIT KAUR W/O PARMINDER SINGH 102000/- HARVINDER SINGH 102000/- PARMINDER SINGH 204000/- CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) 150000.00 2007-08 60,000.00 60,000.00 22,500.00 7,500.00 15,000.00 165000.00 HARVINDER SINGH PARMINDER SINGH MOTHER SAVNEET KAUR W/O HARVINDER SINGH INDERJIT KAUR W/O PARMINDER SINGH 114000/- HARVINDER SINGH 120000/- PARMINDER SINGH 234000/- CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MEETING ITS HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES A RE INADEQUATE IN THE FACE OF THE FACTS THAT ASSESSEE HAS TO SUPPORT THREE SCH OOL GOING CHILDREN WHO ARE STUDYING IN A WELL RENOWNED SCHOOL AT LUDHIANA. TH E ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE THE INFORMATION PERTAINING TO CONSUMPTION OF ELECTR ICITY ON MONTHLY BASIS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING AND QUANTIFICATION OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THEY ARE STAYING IN A J OINT FAMILY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE EXPENSES AT RS. 90, 000/- WHICH LED TO AN ADDITION OF RS. 42,000/- 9. BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT APPELLA NT WAS STAYING IN A JOINT FAMILY AND THE TOTAL WITHDRAWALS MADE BY HIS BROTHER SHRI PARMINDER SINGH, MOTHER SMT. JASBIR KAUR, AND WIFE SMT. SAVNE ET KAUR, STOOD AT RS. 75,000/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEETING THE HOUSEHOLD E XPENSES. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS CONTAINED IN PARA 4 OF THE APP ELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN UNDER:- 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT IS SENT HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ESTIMATION OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE IS BASED UPON L OGICAL ANALYSIS OF CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO IN THE FACE OF THE FACT THAT INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS NOT SUBMITTED. THE EXPENSES @ RS. 7500/- PER MO NTH IS A REASONABLE ESTIMATION IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES EVEN WHE N THE CONTRIBUTION OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THE ADDITION MADE IS THEREFORE, CON FIRMED . 10. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT SITUATION OF THE PRES ENT CASE AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE CONS IDERED VIEW, THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,000/- WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUS TICE, HENCE, THE ADDITION 5 OF RS. 10,000/- ON THIS ACCOUNT IS UPHELD. THUS, T HE ASSESSEE GETS PARTIAL RELIEF. 11. IN GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 OF THE APPEAL, IT IS CONTE NDED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,04,250/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN THE OFFICE AT B ASANT AVENUE. 12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD PURCHASED AN OFFICE AT BASANT AVENUE FOR RS. 1,48,500/- JOINTLY WITH HIS BROTHER. THE PROPERTY WAS VALUED AND AVO HAS VALUED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, OVER AND ABOVE THE COST OF LAND, AT RS. 2,08,500/-. THE SHA RE OF THE ASSESSEE COMES TO RS. 1,04,250/- AND THE SAME WAS ADDED AS UNDISCL OSED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE COURSE O F PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT NO CONSTRUCTION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN FACT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS PURC HASED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED ONE. A SALE DEED WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE - APPELLANT TO PROVE HIS CONTENTIONS. IN THE SALE DE ED, IT IS STATED THAT THE PROPERTY OF AREA MEASURING 99.93 SQUARE YARDS IN WH ICH ONLY ONE ROOM AND AS A COURT YARD IS ALREADY EXISTING AND THE TOTAL A MOUNT OF RS. 1,40,000/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE SELLERS FROM THE PURCHASER AND NOTHING IS DUE. 13. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. IT IS UNDISPUTED FA CT THAT THE SALE DEED FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATES THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS 6 PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT WITH ONE ROOM ALREADY CO NSTRUCTED THEREON. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRU CTION OF SAID PLOT, THEREFORE, REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION CELL ITSELF I S NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. AS THE SALE CON SIDERATION HAS BEEN SPECIFIED IN THE SALE DEED DATED 4.12.2012 DULY REG ISTERED BEFORE THE SUB- REGISTRAR LUDHIANA (WEST), THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT B E FASTEN WITH A LIABILITY, ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RE FERRED THE CASE TO THE VALUATION CELL OF THE DEPARTMENT, WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT( A) ARE SET ASIDE AND THESE GROUNDS I.E. GROUND NO.3 & 4 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AL LOWED. 14. GROUND NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GENERAL I N NATURE AND NO NEEDS NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. ITA NO. 664/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) 15. THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NOS.1 & 2 OF THE APPEA L CONTENDED THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 42,0 00/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOW HOUSEHO LD WITHDRAWALS. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE IDENTIC AL TO THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 IN ITA NOS.. 663/CHD/2011, RELATI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 BEING SIMILAR TO THE FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO . 663/CHD/2012, THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 ,000/- WOULD MEET THE 7 ENDS OF JUSTICE, WOULD MUTATIS-MUTADIS APPLY TO THI S APPEAL ALSO HENCE, THE ASSESSEE GETS PARTIAL RELIEF. . 16. THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- 3. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- AND RS. 1,90,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM MOTHER AND FATHER RESPECTIVELY BY NOT CONSIDERING THE BANK STATEMENT OF BOTH THE DONORS AND DONEE IN RESPECT O F SAID GIFT MADE ARE CROSSED TALLIED. 17. IN GROUND NO.3, THE ASSESSEE- APPELLANT CONTEND ED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- AN D RS. 1,90,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF GIFT RECEIVED F ROM MOTHER AND FATHER RESPECTIVELY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE BANK STATEMENT S OF THE DONORS. 18. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED AND CONSIDERED THE FA CTS OF THE CASE, RELEVANT RECORDS AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUN D THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED GIFTS FROM SMT. JASBIR KAUR, MOTHER OF TH E APPELLANT FOR RS. 50,000/- AND FROM SHRI JASPAL SINGH, AN AMOUNT OF R S. 1,90,000/-, FATHER OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION IN THE MATTER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODU CE THE DONORS AND ACCEPTED PART OF THE ADDITION AS UNDER:- DONOR TOTAL GIFT RECEIVED (IN RS.) AMOUNT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MOTHER 4,30,0000.00 3,80,000.00 50,000.00 FATHER 1,99,163.00 91,0763.00 1,90,000.00 8 19. BOTH THE DONORS ARE CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE APPE LLANT AND THEY ARE ASSESSED TO TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE AD DITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONFIRMATION IS ON PLAIN PAPER. THE ASSESS EE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPIES OF RETURN OF INCOME AND STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, GIFTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GE NUINE AND HELD THAT SUCH GIFTS REPRESENTED ASSESSEES OWN INCOME FROM UNDISC LOSED SOURCES. 20. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION. 21. IT IS A CASE OF GIFT BY THOSE RELATIVES SUCH AS MOTHER AND FATHER, WHO HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED THE GIFTS AND THE DONORS ARE AS SESSED TO INCOME TAX. IN SUCH A FACT SITUATION, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE A SSESSEE-APPELLANT HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE NATURE AND SOURCES OF GIFTS. THE APP ELLANT HAS FILED CONFIRMATION FROM THE MOTHER AND FATHER WHO ARE INC OME TAX ASSESSEES, HENCE, THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE UPHELD. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 22. GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND HEN CE NEEDS NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 665/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) 23. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO S.1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 54,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOW HOUSEHO LD WITHDRAWALS IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE VIDE GROU ND NOS. 1 & 2 IN ITA 9 NOS.. 663/CHD/2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 -04. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 BEING SIMILAR TO THE FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 663/CHD/2012, THEREFORE, OU R FINDINGS THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,000/- WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUS TICE, WOULD MUTATIS- MUTADIS APPLY TO THIS APPEAL ALSO HENCE, THE ASSES SEE GETS PARTIAL RELIEF. 24. IN GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 68,200/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN THE OFFICE AT BASANT AVENU E. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL AS WELL AS THE FACTS RELATING TO THI S ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 663/CHD/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 003-04. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. IN VIEW OF THE SIMILAR FACTS AND ISSUE B EING IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO.3 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 663/CHD/2012, THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE SET AS IDE AND THIS GROUND I.E. GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 25. VIDE GROUND NO.4, THE ASSESSEE- APPELLANT CONTE NDED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM FATHER WIT HOUT CONSIDERING THE BANK STATEMENTS. 26. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THOUGHT THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED GIFTS OF RS. 10 1,00,000/- FROM SMT. JASBIR KAUR, MOTHER OF THE AP PELLANT AND RS. 50,000/- FROM HIS WIFE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION IN THE MATTER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODU CE THE DONORS AND ACCEPTED PART OF THE ADDITION AS UNDER:- DONOR TOTAL GIFT RECEIVED (IN RS.) AMOUNT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MOTHER 1,00,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 WIFE 50,000.00 NIL 50,000.00 27. BOTH THE DONORS ARE CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE APPE LLANT AND THEY HAVE BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX, FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. THE A SSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONFIRMATION IS ON PLAIN PAPER. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPIES O F RETURN OF INCOME BANK ACCOUNT BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE GIFTS AND GENUINE AND HELD THA T IT REPRESENTED ASSESSEES OWN INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 28. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION. 29. IT IS A CASE OF GIFT BY THOSE RELATIVES SUCH AS MOTHER AND WIFE, WHO HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED THE GIFTS AND ARE ASSESSED TO I NCOME TAX. HOWEVER, GIFT OF RS. 50,000/- RECEIVED FROM THE MOTHER HAD BEEN M ADE THROUGH CHEQUE AND ON VERIFICATION OF BANK STATEMENT, IT WAS FOUND NO SUCH DEBIT ENTRY APPEARED THEREIN. IN VIEW OF THIS, SUCH AMOUNT OF GIFT OF RS. 50,000/- WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). IN SUCH A FACT SITUATION, TH E APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE 11 THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THUS, FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 30. GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION, HENCE ARE DISMIS SED. ITA NO. 666/CHD/2012SHRI PARMINDER SINGH (AY : 200 7-08) 31. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO S.1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 30,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOW HOUSEHO LD WITHDRAWALS IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE VIDE GROU ND NOS. 1 & 2 IN ITA NOS.. 663/CHD/2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 -04. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 BEING SIMILAR TO THE FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 663/CHD/2012, THEREFORE, OU R FINDINGS THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,000/- WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUS TICE, WOULD MUTATIS- MUTADIS APPLY TO THIS APPEAL ALSO HENCE, THE ASSES SEE GETS PARTIAL RELIEF. 32. IN GROUND NOS 3 & 4 OF THE APPEAL, IT IS CONTEN DED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,04,250/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN THE OFFICE AT B ASANT AVENUE. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL AS WELL AS THE FACTS RELATI NG TO THIS ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 663/CHD/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. IN VIEW OF THE SIMILAR FAC TS AND ISSUE BEING 12 IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO.3, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 663/CHD/2012, THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE SET ASIDE AND THESE GROUNDS I.E. GROUND NO.3 & 4 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED. 33. GROUND NO.5 OF THE APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE, NEED NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. ITA NO. 667/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) 34. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NOS.1 & 2 OF THE A PPEAL IS THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 42,000/- MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRA WALS IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 IN ITA NOS.. 663/CHD/2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE FACTS REL ATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 BEING SIMILAR TO THE FACTS FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 663/CHD/2012, THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,000/- WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WOULD MUTA TIS-MUTADIS APPLY TO THIS APPEAL ALSO HENCE, THE ASSESSEE GETS PARTIAL RELIEF. 35. VIDE GROUND NO.3, THE ASSESSEE- APPELLANT CONTE NDED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM MOTHER WIT HOUT CONSIDERING THE BANK STATEMENTS. 36. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THOUGHT THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE CASE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION 13 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE GI FTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF GIFT MADE BY THE ASSESSEES MOTHER TO THE TUNE OF RS. 50,000/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE IN THE FORM OF CHEQUE TRANSFER FROM DONORS BANK ACCOUNT HA S BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AS THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNT DOES NOT CO NTAIN ANY SUCH DEBIT ENTRY NOR THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 50,000/- FINDS ACC OUNTED FOR IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN RESPECT OF THE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCES OF SUCH GIFT, THEREFORE, FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE UPHELD. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. 37. GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND HEN CE NEEDS NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED ITA NO. 668/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) 38. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NOS.1 & 2 OF THE A PPEAL IS THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 60,000/- MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRA WALS IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 IN ITA NOS.. 663/CHD/2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE FACTS REL ATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 BEING SIMILAR TO THE FACTS FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 663/CHD/2012, THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,000/- WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WOULD MUTA TIS-MUTADIS APPLY TO THIS APPEAL ALSO HENCE, THE ASSESSEE GETS PARTIAL RELIEF. 14 39. IN GROUND NOS 3 & 4 OF THE APPEAL, IT IS CONTEN DED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 68,200/- MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN THE OFFICE AT B ASANT AVENUE. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL AS WELL AS THE FACTS RELATI NG TO THIS ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 663/CHD/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. IN VIEW OF THE SIMILAR FAC TS AND ISSUE BEING IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO.3, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 663/CHD/2012, THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE SET ASIDE AND THESE GROUNDS I.E. GROUND NO.3 & 4 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED. 40. GROUND NO.5 OF THE APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE, NEED NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSES ARE ALLO WED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND AUGUST, 2012 SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (MEHAR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 22 ND AUGUST, 2012 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 15 6.