Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2914 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
5 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-10-2021
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
02-09-2021
Assessment Year
2015-2016
Appeal Filed On
11-05-2021
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH A, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) .., .. , # % BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VP & SHRI R.L. NEGI, JM ./ ITA NO. 70 & 71/CHD/2021 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 & 2015-2016 SMT. JATINDER KAUR KOTHI NO. 2. OPP GURUNANAK PUBLIC SCHOOL, SARABHA NAGAR, LUDHIANA- 141001, PUNJAB THE DCIT CC-1 AAYAKAR BHAWAN OPP. BVM SCHOOL, KITCHLU NAGAR, LUDHIANA- 141001, PUNJAB ./ PAN NO: AIAPK8721G / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 75 & 76/CHD/2021 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 & 2015-2016 SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR KOTHI NO. 2, OPP. GURUNANAK PUBLIC SCHOOL, SARABHA NAGAR, LUDHIANA THE DCIT CC-1 LUDHIANA ./ PAN NO: AGJPK5110C / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE ! / REVENUE BY : SMT. C. CHANDRAKANTA ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 02/09/2021 ! &/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/10/2021 / ORDER PER BENCH: APPELLANT/ASSESSEE SMT. JATINDER KAUR HAS CHALLENGE D THE TWO ORDERS DATED 08.04.2021 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5/ LUDHIANA (FOR SHORT THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREBY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE 2 SMT. JATINDER KAUR ITA NOS. 70 & 71/CHD/2021 SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR ITA NOS. 75 & 76 / CHD/2021 ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY TH E AO U/S 153C/153A/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (FOR SH ORT THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 AND 2015-16. SIMIL ARLY, APPELLANT/ASSESSEE SMT. HARBAJAN KAUR HAS CHALLENGE D THE TWO ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEALS FILED BY HER AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO U/S 153C/153A/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 AND 2015-16. SINCE SOME OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE BASED ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THESE WERE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF B Y THIS COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 70/CHD/2021 FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZU RE OPERATION UNDER SECTION132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SH. SURIN DER SINGH BINDRA ON 01.11.2017. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH S OME DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PROPERTY BELONGING TO HIS BROTHERS WIFE SMT. JITENDER KAUR (ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE) W/ O SH. HARVINDER SINGH, WERE SEIZED. ON THE BASIS OF THE SA ID SEIZURE, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE T HEREOF, THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 18.11.2019 D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,18,960/-. ACCORDINGLY, AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153C/153A/143(3) OF THE ACT AND DETERMINE D THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 5,41,710/- AFTER MAKI NG ADDITION OF RS. 3,22,750/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE IN CO NNECTION WITH RENOVATION OF HER HOUSE. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE L D. CIT(A) 3 SMT. JATINDER KAUR ITA NOS. 70 & 71/CHD/2021 SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR ITA NOS. 75 & 76 / CHD/2021 RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 1,73,202/-. STILL AG GRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER P ASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN GIVING PART RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE RESIDE NTIAL BUILDUP HOUSE AMOUNTING RS. 1,73,202/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT N O INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELATING TO THE PART ADDITIONS AS CONFIRMED BY THE WORTHY CIT(A). 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING AN D IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS AND FACTS AS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A ) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DIS POSE OFF. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASS ESSEE AND HER MOTHER-IN-LAW SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR, JOINTLY PURC HASED A BUILT- UP HOUSE IN THE YEAR 2012. THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSE E IN THE SAID HOUSE IS 25% AND SHARE OF HER MOTHER-IN-LAW IS 75%. A LTHOUGH, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO EVIDENCE WAS RECOVERE D, YET THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT IN THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2014-14 AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,20,000/- AND IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2015-16 AN AMOUNT OF RS. 19,53,000/- WAS SPENT ON RE NOVATION OF THE SAID HOUSE. THE AO REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED THE MATTER TO VALUATION CELL AND ON THE BA SIS OF THE VALUATION REPORT, MADE ADDITION OF RS. 3,22,750/- B EING 25% OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. THE LD. 4 SMT. JATINDER KAUR ITA NOS. 70 & 71/CHD/2021 SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR ITA NOS. 75 & 76 / CHD/2021 COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT SINCE ACTION OF AO IN REFERR ING THE MATTER TO VALUATION CELL IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, WAS CONTRARY TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ABHINAV MITTAL 351 ITR 0020 , THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASI S OF VALUATION REPORT. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER RELIED UPON THE JUD GMENT OF THE HON,BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWALA 380 ITR 573 (DELHI), DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE ITAT I N THE CASE OF USG BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 87 ITR (TRIB.)151 (DELHI) AND OTHER CASES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CONTENTION. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT EVEN THE VALUATION REPORT RELIED U PON BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS IN THE NAME OF SH. SURINDER SIN GH BINDRA AND SH. HARVINDER SINGH, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE AND HER MO THER-IN-LAW ARE THE JOINT OWNERS OF HOUSE IN QUESTION. THE LD. COUNSEL ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW, THE SA ME IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE ON THIS POINT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE (DR) SUPPORTING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMI TTED THAT SINCE THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE FOR RENOVATION OF HOUSE IN QUESTION WAS HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE, THE AO HAD NO OPTION BUT TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE VAL UATION CELL FOR ASCERTAINING THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE. MOREOVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SINCE RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 1,73,202/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,22,750/- MADE BY THE AO, NO FURTH ER ACTION IS REQUIRED IN THIS MATTER. 5 SMT. JATINDER KAUR ITA NOS. 70 & 71/CHD/2021 SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR ITA NOS. 75 & 76 / CHD/2021 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAI LABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE CASES REFERRED AND RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE A RE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HER MOTHER-IN-LAW, SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR JOINTLY PURCHASED THE HOUSE IN QUESTION IN THE YEAR 2012. T HE ASSESSEE SHARE IN THE SAID HOUSE IS 25% AND THE SHARE OF SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR IS 75%. FURTHER, DURING THE SEARCH ACTION NO IN CRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS RECOVERED OR SEIZED IN RESPECT OF THE A LLEGED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CO-OWNER OF THE SAID HOUSE. NOW THE ONLY ISSUE WHICH REQUIRES DETERMINATION IS WHE THER THE ADDITION MADE/SUSTAINED ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION R EPORT OBTAINED BY THE AO IS SUSTAINABLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND THE OTHER CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL. 6. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL, THE HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ABHINAV KUMAR MITTAL (SUPRA), HAS HELD THAT WHEN NO MATERIAL IS FOUND TO JUSTIFY THE ACTION OF AO IN REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR HIS OPINION, TH EN THE VALUATION ARRIVED AT BY THE DVO WOULD BE OF NO CONSEQUENCE. I N THE SAID CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME. SUBSEQ UENTLY, A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT AND SURVEY OPERATION U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF A COMPANY, ITS GROUP C OMPANIES AND DIRECTORS OF THOSE COMPANIES. ON THE BASIS OF THE S AID OPERATION, AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 153(C) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED TO TREAT THE RETURN ALREADY FILE D AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153(C) OF THE ACT. THE A O REFERRED THE 6 SMT. JATINDER KAUR ITA NOS. 70 & 71/CHD/2021 SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR ITA NOS. 75 & 76 / CHD/2021 QUESTION OF VALUATION OF THE PROPERTIES PURCHASED B Y THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUES AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS OPINED BY THE DVO, WAS MADE BY THE AO. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SECON D APPEAL REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT SINCE NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH TO JUSTIFY THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO, THE ACTION WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER HELD THAT THERE MUST B E SOME MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE WAS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO HELD THAT THE DVOS REPORT WAS NOT RELIABLE BEING BASED ON INCOMPARABLE SALES A ND THAT THE BURDEN WAS ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE REAL INVE STMENT WAS MORE THAN THE DECLARATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FURTHER APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UP HELD THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING AS UNDER: - 6. WE HAVE NO REASON TO DIFFER FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL, PARTICULARLY, AS NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS, WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR HIS OPINION ON VALUATION OF THE SAID PROPERTIES . IF THAT BE THE CASE, THEN THE VALUATION ARRIVED AT BY THE DVO WOULD BE OF NO CONSEQUENCE. IN ANY EVENT, THE TRIBUNAL HAS A LSO, ON FACTS, HELD THAT THE DVOS VALUATION WAS BASED ON INCOMPARABLE SALES, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW . 7. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEES CASE IS FU LLY COVERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN TH E SAID CASE. FURTHER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW H AVE NOT POINTED OUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN QUESTION MORE THAN THE AMOUNT DECLARE D BY THE HER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HENCE RESPECTFULLY F OLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. 7 SMT. JATINDER KAUR ITA NOS. 70 & 71/CHD/2021 SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR ITA NOS. 75 & 76 / CHD/2021 ABHINAV KUMAR MITTAL (SUPRA), WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO. 71/CHD/2021 FOR THE A.Y. 2015-16 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ALSO, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION, DISCUSSED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THA T DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 19,53,000/- WAS SPENT FOR RENOVATION OF THE BUILT-UP HOUSE JOINTLY PURCHASED BY THE HER AND SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR. THE AO REJECTING THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE, MADE ADDITION OF RS 19,69,875/- (BEING 25 % OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT) AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. THE AO FURTHER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 3,75,000/- ON ACCOU NT OF UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAIN. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE I NCURRED ON RENOVATION OF HOUSE TO RS. 10,57,127/-, HOWEVER, CON FIRMED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAI N. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER P ASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN GIVING PART RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE RESIDE NTIAL BUILDUP HOUSE AMOUNTING RS. 10,57,127/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SA LE AGREEMENT AS SEIZED AND HAS ERRED IN RELYING ONLY O N THE ORAL STATEMENT OF THE FAMILY MEMBER. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT N O INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF 8 SMT. JATINDER KAUR ITA NOS. 70 & 71/CHD/2021 SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR ITA NOS. 75 & 76 / CHD/2021 SEARCH RELATING TO THE PART ADDITIONS AS CONFIRMED BY THE WORTHY CIT(A). 5. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING R S. 3,75,000/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DIS POSE OFF. 3. GROUND NO 1 TO 4 OF THIS APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 DISCUSSED AND DECIDED ABOVE. SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED T HE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES APPEA L ITA NO70/CHD/2014-15 AFORESAID, CONSISTENT WITH OUR FIND INGS IN THE SAID CASE, WE ALLOW THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. VIDE GROUND NO 5 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3, 75,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAIN. DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE IN THE RESIDENCE OF SH. SURINDER SINGH BINDRA, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING TO EXCHANGE OF HOUSE SIT UATED AT 99-B, SOUTH MODEL GRAM LUDHIANA, OWNED BY FOUR CO-OWNERS I NCLUDING THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE, WERE SEIZED. DURING POST -SEARCH INVESTIGATION SH. SURINDER SINGH BINDRA STATED THAT THE SAID HOUSE WAS EXCHANGED WITH A RESIDENTIAL PLOT OWNED BY SH. IQ BALJIT SINGH AND THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID HOUSE WA S APPROXIMATELY RS. 83 LACS WHEREAS PLOT WAS PURCHASED FOR RS. 48 LACS. HENCE, THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 35 LAC S WAS RECEIVED IN CASH. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION AND SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF HER SHARE SHOULD NOT BE MADE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT NO AMOUNT 9 SMT. JATINDER KAUR ITA NOS. 70 & 71/CHD/2021 SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR ITA NOS. 75 & 76 / CHD/2021 WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AS THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN VA LUE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. HOWEVER, REJECTING THE SUBMISSION S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS 3,75,000/-, HOL DING THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE OF TWO PROPERTIES THUS COME S TO 20 LACS AS THE CO-OWNERS OF THE HOUSE HAD ACTUALLY RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 35 LACS. 5. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MENTIONED IN PARA 4.4 OF THE ORDER THAT AS PER THE SALE DEED, THE HOUSE WAS SOLD FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 68 L ACS AND NOT FOR RS. 83 LACS. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DAULAT RAWAT MAL VS. CIT 87 ITR 349 , THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE RATIO LAI D DOWN IN THE SAID CASE, WHEN THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS PITTED A GAINST ORAL EVIDENCE THEN THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WOULD PREVAIL . THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE SETTLED L AW THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SEARCH HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE UNL ESS IT IS CORROBORATED BY THE OTHER EVIDENCE. ACCORDINGLY, TH E LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE MADE/SUSTA INED THE ADDITION ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES, THEREFORE LIA BLE TO BE DELETED AND ALSO CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTING THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE CO-OWNER HAS STATED BEFORE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS . 35 LACS WAS RECEIVED IN CASH, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY MADE A DDITION TO THE EXTENT OF THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE. 10 SMT. JATINDER KAUR ITA NOS. 70 & 71/CHD/2021 SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR ITA NOS. 75 & 76 / CHD/2021 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LD . COUNSEL BEFORE US. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL THE AO HAD M ADE ADDITION OF RS. 3,75,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAIN MERELY O N THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI S.S. BINDRA, ONE OF THE CO-OW NERS OF THE HOUSE IN QUESTION. WE FURTHER NOTICED THAT AO HAS EVEN NOT EXAMINED SHRI IQBALJIT SINGH TO ASCERTAIN THE ACTUA L SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID HOUSE. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL EVEN THE OTHER CO-OWNERS WERE NOT EXAMINED. AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DAULAT RAM RAWAT MAL VS CIT (SUPRA), IN THE PRESENT CASE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WOULD PREVAIL OVER THE ORAL STATEMENT RELIE D UPON BY THE AO. HENCE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO. 75/CHD/2021 FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15 ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS THE CO-OWNER OF HOUSE PURC HASED IN 2012 WITH SMT. JATINDER KAUR AS DISCUSSED IN THE CAS E OF CO-OWNER SMT. JATINDER KAUR IN HER APPEALS ITA NO. 70 & 71/C HD/2021. AS DISCUSSED IN THE CASE OF SMT. JITENDER KAUR SINCE T HE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS HAVING 75% OF SHARE IN THE SAID HOUSE, A O MADE ADDITION OF RS. 9,68,250/- I.E., 75% OF THE TOTAL EX PENDITURE INCURRED FOR RENOVATION OF THE SAID HOUSE DURING TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT OBTAI NED FROM DVO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO FURTHER M ADE ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD 11 SMT. JATINDER KAUR ITA NOS. 70 & 71/CHD/2021 SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR ITA NOS. 75 & 76 / CHD/2021 EXPENSES/WITHDRAWAL. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER H EARING THE ASSESSEE PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND RESTRICTED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT O F UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT TO RS. 5,19,608/- AND ADDITION MADE ON A CCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES TO RS. 1,50,000/-. S TILL AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER P ASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN GIVING PART RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED 'UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT' IN THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDUP HOUSE AMOUNTING RS. 5,19,608/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNDISCLOSED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AMOUNTING RS. 1,50,000/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT N O INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELA TING TO THE PART ADDITIONS AS CONFIRMED BY THE WORTHY CIT(A). 5. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING A ND IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS AND FACTS AS FILED BEFORE THE CIT ( A) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOS E OFF. 3. GROUND NO.1, 4, 5 & 6 OF THIS APPEAL ARE GENER AL IN NATURE HENCE, DO NOT REQUIRE SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 4. VIDE GROUND NO. 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGE D THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5, 19,608/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNE XPLAINED 12 SMT. JATINDER KAUR ITA NOS. 70 & 71/CHD/2021 SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR ITA NOS. 75 & 76 / CHD/2021 INVESTMENT/ EXPENSES INCURRED IN RENOVATION IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SINCE THIS ISSUE IS ARISING OUT OF THE COMMON SET OF FACTS IN THE CASE OF HER CO-OWNER SMT. JATINDER KAUR IN ITA NO. 70-71/CHD/2021 DISCUS SED ABOVE AND SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID CASE, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE FOR THE SAME REASONS. 5. VIDE GROUND NO.3 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,0 00/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY SUSTAINED THE SAID ADDITION. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CI T(A) ARE CONTRARY TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWALA ( SUPRA), DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF USG BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA). 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE F INDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD I N THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL, SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS RECOVER ED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. FURTHER, AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF YEAR WISE HOUSEHOLD EXP ENSES OF THE ASSESSEE, COPY OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE 22 & 2 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY 13 SMT. JATINDER KAUR ITA NOS. 70 & 71/CHD/2021 SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR ITA NOS. 75 & 76 / CHD/2021 COGENT AND CONVINCING REASON FOR SUSTAINING THE ADD ITION OF 1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CI T(A) IS NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. WE ACCORDINGLY, AL LOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A). GROUND IN ITA NO. 76/CHD/2021 FOR THE A.Y. 2015-16 THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS O F THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 DIS CUSSED ABOVE. IN THIS YEAR THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 59,09,625/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT I.E., ON RENOVATION OF HOUSE AND ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. IN THE FIRST APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDI TIONS TO 31,71,381/- AND 1,50,000/- RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD . CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN GIVING PART RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE RESIDE NTIAL BUILDUP HOUSE AMOUNTING RS. 31,71,381/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 3. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNDISCLOSED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AMOUN TING RS. 1,50,000/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT N O INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELATING TO THE PART ADDITIONS AS CONFIRMED BY THE WORTHY CIT(A). 5. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING A ND IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS AND FACTS AS FILED BEFORE THE CIT ( A) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14 SMT. JATINDER KAUR ITA NOS. 70 & 71/CHD/2021 SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR ITA NOS. 75 & 76 / CHD/2021 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DIS POSE OFF. 3. SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED BOTH THE ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2014-15 AF ORESAID, CONSISTENT WITH OUR FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE AY 2014- 15 AFORESAID, WE ALLOW GROUND NO. 2 & 3 OF THIS APPEA L AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. SINCE, WE HAVE DECIDED THE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE GROUND NO 1,4,5 AND 6, WHICH ARE OF GENERAL NATURE. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE SMT. JATINDER KAUR AND SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR FOR THE AY 20 14-15 & 2015-16 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH OCT. 2021. SD/- SD/- .., .. ( N.K. SAINI) (R.L. NEGI ) / VICE PRESIDENT # %/ JUDICIAL MEMBER AG/ RKK DATE: ! ,- .-/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. // CIT 4. / ()/ THE CIT(A) 5. - 4, & 4, 7/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. / GUARD FILE 15 SMT. JATINDER KAUR ITA NOS. 70 & 71/CHD/2021 SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR ITA NOS. 75 & 76 / CHD/2021 1 DRAFT DICTATED 2 DRAFT FIRST PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 3 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR. PS/PS 4 FINAL DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 5 ORDER SIGNED AND PRONOUNCED ON 6 FILE SENT TO THE B ENCH CLERK 7 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER
Mehul