DILIP MAHESHWARI, Jaipur V. DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 887/JPR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 88723114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K MEENA; VINOD JOHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: G G MUNDRA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Source of fund
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

1 ITA 887(3)-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH B JAIPUR. ( BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI N.L. KALRA ) ITA NO. 887 & 888/JP/2010 & 139/JP/2011 ASSTT. YEARS : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09. SHRI DILIP MAHESHWARI, VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIR CLE-1, P/O M/S. MAHESHWARI ASSOCIATES, JAIPUR. PARTANIYON KA MANDIR, PARTANIYON KA RASTA, JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.G. MUNDRA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VINOD JOHARI & S HRI D.K. MEENA DATE OF HEARING : 17.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.10.2011 ORDER DATED : 21/10/2011. PER BENCH : THESE ARE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDERS OF LD. CIT (A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSMENTS IN THIS CASE WERE COMPLETED UNDE R SECTION 153A/143(3). THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS COMPLETE D FIRST, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS TAKEN UP FIRST. 3. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE IS OBJECTING IN CONF IRMING ADDITION OF RS. 1,41,39,000/- MADE BY AO UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. 2 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE DISCUSSED BY LD. CIT (A) IN PARA 2 ONWARDS AT PAGES 2 & 3 ARE AS UNDER :- BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT APPELLANT BEING PARTNER OF M/S. MAHESHWARI ASSOCIATES, ALONGWITH OTHER GROUP PERSON S WAS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION, WHEREIN INCRIMINATING DO CUMENTS AND CASH IN DIFFERENT BUNDLES ETC WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. ON THE BUNDLES OF NOTES, DETAILS WERE MENTIONED WHICH REFLECTED THE NAME OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM MONEY WAS ADVANCED AND THE AMOUNT IN BUNDLE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF INTEREST. AFTER PREPARING THE DETAILS AND LIST O F SUCH BUNDLES, APPELLANT IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH HAS ADMITTED RS.5,99 ,80,000/- AS OUTSTANDING DEBTORS IN THE PARALLEL MONEY LENDING B USINESS AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND SAME WAS SURRENDERED IN THE HANDS OF FIRM. RELEVANT QUESTION NO. 5 AND ITS ANSWER ARE REPRODUCED BELOW : IZU LA- 5- VKT VKIDS ;GKA RYKKH DH DK;ZOKGH DS NK SJKU DQN UKSVKSA DS C.MY IK, X, GSA FTUES DQN FOOJ.K NTZ GSA D`I;K CRK,A FD ;G UKSVKSA DS C.MY FDL LANHKZ ESA CUK, X, GS ,OA BU IJ D;K FOOJ.K NTZ GSA MRRJ GEUS DQN O;FDR;KSA DKS UDN ESA DQN JKFK;KA M /KKJ NH GQBZ GSA BU O;FDR;KSA US GESA C;KT DS ISVS DQN UDN JKFK;KA FHKTOKBZ FKHA BU C.MY KSA ESA OGH C;KT DH JKFK;KA GS RFKK FOOJ.K ESA MU O;FDR;KSA DS UKE GS] FTU DKS JKFK;KA M/KKJ NH XBZ FKHA GEKJS O;OLKF;D IZFR'BKU RFKK GEKJS IKVZUJ JH FCBY N KL IJOKY DS ?KJ LS MDR C;KT JKFK;KSA DS DBZ C.MY IZKIR GQ, GSA BL LANHKZ ESA J H FCBY NKL IJOKY US GEKJS O;OLKF;D IZFR'BKU TKS FD IZFKE EAFTY] 1427] IJRKFU;KSA DK EA FNJ] IJRKFU;KSA DK JKLRK] TKSGJH CKTKJ] ESA FN, VIUS C;KUKSA ESA BL M/KKJ DH IZF;K] M/KKJ DH JKFK RFKK C.MYKSA IJ NTZ FOOJ.K ESA FOLR`R ESA TKUDKJH NH GSA OS C;KU ESJH LYKG IJ ESU VIUS GLRK{KJ HKH FD, GS] TKS ESJH LGEFR DKS VFHKO;DR DJRS GSA ESA ;G HKH LOHDKJ DJRK GWA FD GEUS YXHKX N% DJKSM :I;S DH UDN JKFK;KA FOFHKUU YKSXKSA DKS M/KKJ NS J[KH G S ,OA VKT DH FRFFK ESA VKMVLVSFMAX GSAA 2.1 FURTHER THE OTHER PARTNER SH. DILIP MHAESHWARI, CONFIRMED THE ABOVE FINDING THAT CASH ADVANCE TO DEBTORS OUTSTAND ING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH ON I.E 14.3.08 WAS RS. 5,96,82,500/- AND THI S FIGURE HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT ON THE BASIS OF FORMULA. 2.2 THE A.O. HAS NOTED THE DETAILS AVAILABLE ON NO TES PARTICULARLY THE NAME OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM MONEY WAS ADVANCED AND THE AMOUNT 3 AVAILABLE IN THE BUNDLE. CASH FOUND IN THE FORM OF SINGLE BUNDLE AND DOUBLE BUNDLE WAS SEPARATELY INVENTORIZED AND FINAL LY THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE WAS WORKED OUT CONSIDERING THE INTEREST 1% PER MONTH. BUNDLES FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE OF DILIP MAHESHWARI, THE APP ELLANT REFLECTED THE TOTAL MONEY ADVANCED TO VARIOUS OTHER PERSONS AMOUN TING TO RS. 4,79,35,000/-. SIMILARLY SAME TYPE OF BUNDLES OF CU RRENCY NOTES WERE FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE OF SB. BITTHAL DAS PARWAL AN D THE MONEY ADVANCED AS REFLECTED IN THESE CURRENCY NOTES WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 1,17,47,500/-. THUS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 5,96,82,500/- WAS OFFE RED FOR TAXATION IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM MIS MAHESHWARI ASSOCIATES, WHEREI N APPELLANT IS PARTNER. 2.3 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, ON PAGE 8 OF EXHIB IT A-4, ENTRIES RELATED TO PURCHASE OF TIKARIA AND MAHAPURA LAND WA S FOUND. THE APPELLANT ADMITTED THAT HE HAS PURCHASED LAND AT MA HAPURA FOR RS. 1,81,39,000/-, OUT OF WHICH RS. 40 LAKH WAS PAID TH ROUGH CHEQUE AND RS. 1,41,39,000/- WAS PAID IN CASH. THE APPELLANT EXPLA INED THAT RS. 1,42,00,000/- HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE CURRENT A CCOUNT WITH PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S MAHESHWARI ASSOCIATES, SOMEWHE RE APRIL, 2007 AND AS THE FIRM MAHESHWARI ASSOCIATES HAS ALREADY SURRE NDERED RS.5 .96 CRORES,. THE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLAN T WILL SURRENDERED RS. 5.96 CRORES, THE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPE LLANT WILL AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. THE A.O. REJECTED THE EXPLANATION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF FUND OF RS. 1,42,00,000/- ADVANCE BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM TO SH. DILIP MAHESHWARI IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2007 AS CASH ADVANCES OUTSTANDING TO OUTSIDERS AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E 14.3.08 WAS RS. 5,99,80,000/- AS ADMITTED BY BOTH T HE PARTNERS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND THIS FIGURE ARRIVED FROM THE BASIS OF FORMULA AS ENUMERATED ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT ON OATH ON THE DATE OF SEARCH HAS STATED IN HIS REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 5 AS ABOVE, WHICH CONFIRMS THAT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AMOUNT SU M OF RS. 5,99,80,000/- IN PARALLEL LENDING BUSINESS WAS OUTS TANDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E 14.3.08 AND SUM OWE TO THE FIRM BY THE DEBTORS ON 4 THE DATE OF SEARCH. IT IS FURTHER CRYSTAL CLEAR THA T SUCH CASH ADVANCES OF RS. 5,99,80,000/- DID NOT INCLUDE ANY SUM PAID T O SH. DILIP MAHESHWARI AS HIS NAME DID NOT APPEAR AS BORROWERS ON ANY OF THE NOTINGS ATTACHED TO THE CASH BUNDLE FOUND ON THE DA TE OF SEARCH AS ABOVE LAYING WITH THE CASH DEBTORS, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT FUND/CASH FLOW OF RS. 1,42,00,000/- WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2007, THUS THE BIFURCATION OF AMOUN T OF RS. 1,42,00,000/-IN ASSESSEES CURRENT ACCOUNT FROM TOT AL CASH DEBTORS OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S MAHDSHWARI ASSOCIATES ON TH E DATE OF SEARCH OF RS. 5,99,80,000/- IS JUST AFTER THOUGHT PLAY TO EXTRACT THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT FROM HIS ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSE D. THUS ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS THE ASSESSEE CLAIM IS NO T FOUND REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIABLE AND IS REJECTED. A.O. ADDED RS. 1,41,39,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT IN PURCHASE OF MAHAPURA LAND. 5. DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED BEFORE LD. CIT ( A) WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AT PAGE 5 ARE AS UNDER :- THE GROUND NO. (1) OF APPEAL RELATES TO OBJECTING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. IN NOT ACCEPTING PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT INVESTM ENT OF RS. 14139000/- MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL L AND(S) AT VILLAGE MAHAPURA, DIST. JAIPUR WAS MADE OUT WITHDRAWALS MAD E FROM FIRM M/S. MAHESHWARI ASSOCIATES IN WHICH HE WAS PARTNER AND T HEREBY MAKING ADDITION OF SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 14139000/- TO THE IN COME OF THE APPELLANT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE LD. A.O. REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE T HAT A SUM OF RS. 1,42,00,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN BY ASSESSEE FROM CURREN T ACCOUNT WITH THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S MAHESHWARI ASSOCIATES IN APRIL , 07 FOR MAKING ABOVE INVESTMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASH ADVANC ES MADE BY SAID FIRM OUTSTANDING AS ON DATE OF SEARCH WERE OF OUTSIDERS AND ON THE CASH BUNDLES NAME OF DILIP MAHESHWARI DO NOT APPEAR AS BORROWERS . IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ON THE CASH BUNDLES ON THE BAS IS OF WHICH UNDISCLOSED DEBTORS WERE CALCULATED THERE WAS NO IDENTIFIABLE N AMES AND 5 ALPHABETS/INITIALS/NAMES WHATEVER WAS NOTED WAS IMA GINARY AND UNIDENTIFIABLE AND THE UNDISCLOSED DEBTORS WERE DET ERMINED AND CALCULATED DUE TO THIS REASON ONLY. THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THOS E OF OUTSIDE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE THAT SUM OF RS. 1,42,00,000/- WAS DUE FROM HIM IN CURRENT ACCOUNT O F FIRM OUT OF SAID UNDISCLOSED DEBTORS OF RS. 6 CRORE IS ACCEPTABLE IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD ABOUT NAME OF UNDISCL OSED DEBTORS/ADVANCES. THE ASSESSEE DEBITED THIS SUM IN HIS CURRENT ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF PARTNERSHIP WHILE RECORDIN G THOSE UNDISCLOSED DEBTORS/ADVANCES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF FIRM WHICH EVIDENCES THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE IS CORRECT. THE LD. A.O. HA S REJECTED THE EXPLANATION IN ARBITRARY MANNER ONLY ON SURMISES AN D CONJECTURES WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEME NT RECORDED IN COURSE OF SEARCH CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED TR ANSACTION/INCOME WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN FOUND FROM ANY PAPER/DOCUMENT FOUND I N COURSE OF SEARCH AT HIS RESIDENCE OR AT BUSINESS PREMISES SHALL BE D EEMED TO HAVE BEEN COVERED WITH THE SAID SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 6 C RORE BY M/S. MAHESHWARI ASSOCIATES. IN VIEW OF THIS CATEGORICAL SURRENDER ACCEPTED IN COURSE OF SEARCH THE ABOVE ADDITION IS UNCALLED FOR . IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT ADDITION OF RS. 1,41, 39,000/- MADE IN THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S 69 B DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT (A) REJECTED THE GROUND OF THE AO ON THE REASONING RECORDED AT PARA 2.5 AT PAGES 6 & 7 ARE AS UNDER :- 2.5 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF LD. A.R AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED TH AT ON EACH BUNDLE NAME 6 OF THE PERSONS WAS WRITTEN TO WHOM MONEY HAS BEEN A DVANCED BY THE APPELLANTS FIRM M/S. MAHESHWARI ASSOCIATES, WHERE THE APPELLANT IS ALSO PARTNER. THESE BUNDLES OF CURRENCY NOTES WERE FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT AND THE CURRENCY NOTES ARE BASICALLY THE RECEIPT OF INTEREST FROM THE PARTIES TO WHOM ADVANCES WERE GIVEN. THE N AMES OF THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN TABULATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON PAGE 5, 6, 7 AND 8. THESE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE OUTSIDERS AND THERE FORE THE INTEREST HAS BEEN RECEIVED. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THERE IS NO ANY E VIDENCE OF MONEY BEING GIVEN BY FIRM M/S MAHESHWARI ASSOCIATES TO THE APPE LLANT WHICH CAN BE SAID TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SURRENDER OF RS. 5.99 CR ORE BY THE FIRM. SECONDLY, NAME OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO NOT APPEARI NG IN THE LIST OF PERSONS TO WHOM MONEY HAS BEEN ADVANCED, PREPARED ON THE BA SIS OF BUNDLES OF CURRENCY NOTES AVAILABLE. ALL THESE ADVANCES WHICH HAVE BEEN SURRENDERED IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANTS FIRM ARE TO THE OUTSIDE RS AS OBVIOUSLY THE INTEREST WOULD ONLY BE RECEIVED FROM THE OUTSIDERS. THIRDLY, THESE OUTSTANDING ADVANCES ARE UNDISPUTEDLY THE ADVANCES OUTSTANDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, I.E 14.3.08, WHEREAS INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF THE LAND HAS BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN APRIL- MAY, 2007. OBV IOUSLY, EVEN AFTER MAKING INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE F LAID BY THE APPELLA NT, THE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY HIS FIRM TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5.99 CROR E WHICH ARE OUTSTANDING AS ON MARCH, 2008. THUS BOTH THESE ISSUES VIZ INVES TMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN APRIL, MAY, 2007 AND THE OUTSTANDING ADVANCES GIVEN TO VARIOUS OUTSIDERS AS ON MARCH, 20 08, ARE INDEPENDENT AND EXCLUSIVE TO EACH OTHER. THUS EXPLANATION OF TH E SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND TO BE OUT OF ADVANCES SURRENDER ED, SO STATED BY THE APPELLANT, HAS BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE A.O. AN D ADDITION OF RS. 1,41,39,000/- SO MADE BY THE A.O. BEING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND, OVER AND ABOVE THE CHEQUE PAYMENT , IS HEREBY UPHELD. 7. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL HERE BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL. 7 8. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WERE REI TERATED HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE INCOME OF RS. 6 CRORES SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF ASSETS AND OTHER DEB TORS AND THIS HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY STATED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ITSELF AND THE L D. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE READ THE FULL ANSWER GIVEN IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 22. IT WAS A LSO SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF BALANCE SHEET ALONG WITH RETURN WAS FILED BEFORE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AT ALL. ATTENTION OF THE BENCH WAS DRAWN ON PAGES 16 AND 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK PLACED ON RECORD. ATTENTION OF THE BENCH WAS DRAWN ON COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACE D AT PAGES 1 TO 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO JUSTI FICATION IN MAKING A SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS. 1,41,39,000/-. FURTHER, ATTENTION OF THE BE NCH WAS DRAWN ON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PLACED ON RECORD. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. D/R STRONGLY PLACED RELIA NCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND LD. CIT (A). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E COULD NOT PROVE THE NEXUS OF RS. 6 CRORES DISCLOSED AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,41,39,000/ -. IN REPLY TO QUERY RAISED BY THE BENCH THAT WHETHER ANY SEPARATE ASSETS TOTALING RS. 6 CRORES OR ODD WHICH WAS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND OR NOT, IT WA S ADMITTED THAT A BUNDLE OF CURRENCY NOTES WAS FOUND WHICH WAS RS. 5 TO 7 LACS. HOWEVER, ON THE BASIS OF THIS BUNDLE AND OTHER LOOSE PAPERS, THE SEARCH PARTY WITH THE ASSIS TANCE OF ASSESSEE HAS ARRIVED AT A FIGURE OF RS. 6 CRORES WHICH WAS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESS EE. HOWEVER, AT THAT POINT OF TIME NO DETAIL IN RESPECT TO BORROWED AMOUNT OF RS. 1.40 CR ORES OR ODD WAS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT. IN COUNTER REPLY, THE L D. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT 8 IF REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 22 IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERA TION TO ITS TOTALITY, THEN THIS FACT WILL BE CLEAR. 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERED THEM CAREFULLY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING OTHER MATE RIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED. FOR THE SAKE OF UNDERSTANDING THE CASE IN A BETTER MANNER, WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE THE SECON D WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HERE AS UNDER :- IN THE MATTER OF ABOVE APPEAL IN CONTINUATION TO WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 3-10-2011 WE ARE FURTHER TO SU BMIT AS UNDER: - THE MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME OF ASSESSEE IS SHARE INCO ME AS PARTNER IN PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S MAHESHWARI ASSOCIAT ES. THE FIRM CARRIES ON BUSINESS OF FINANCE BROKERAGE ONLY AND I T DID NOT CARRIED ANY BUSINESS OF LENDING MONEY OF ITS OWN IN ANY OF THE EARLIER YEARS. IN COURSE OF SEARCH ON 15-03-08 AT BUSINESS PREMISES OF FIRM OR AT RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF ASSESSEE A FEW PAPERS WE RE FOUND AND SEIZED AND NO PAPER/DOCUMENT WAS FOUND EVIDENCING A NY BUSINESS OF LENDING OF MONEY CARRIED ON BY FIRM. IN COURSE O F SEARCH AT BUSINESS PREMISES OF FIRM AND AT RESIDENCE OF OTHER PARTNER BITHAL DAS PARWAL AUTHORIZED OFFICERS FOUND A FEW BUNDLES OF CURRENCY NOTES AGGREGATING TO A FEW LACS OF RUPEES ON WHICH SOME ALPHABETS/SHORT NAMES/INITIALS WERE FOUND NOTED. TH E AUTHORIZED OFFICERS THEREFROM INFERRED THAT THESE ARE BUNDLES OF INTEREST RECEIVED FROM PERSONS WHO BORROWED MONEY BUT THEY C OULD NOT FOUND ANY TRACE THAT WHO COULD BE PERSONS WHO WOULD HAVE ADVANCED THAT MONEY. THE ALPHABETS/SHORT NAMES/INIT IALS WERE ALSO NOT IDENTIFIABLE AND NO MATERIAL OR PAPER WAS FOUND THAT SAID ALLEGED BUNDLES OF INTEREST RECEIVED WERE ON WHAT R ATE OF INTEREST. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICERS WITH THIS BACK DROP DESIRED THAT ASSESSEE 9 SHOULD SURRENDER UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IN SEARCH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY PAPER/DOCUMENT HAVING BEEN FOUND O R SEIZED FROM HIS BUSINESS PREMISES OR FROM HIS RESIDENCE OR FROM A SHOP IN ANCESTRAL HOUSE AT PARTANION KA RASTA, JAIPUR WHERE HIS FATHER WAS SITTING AND CARRYING A SMALL BUSINESS. NO PAPER / D OCUMENT WAS CONFRONTED TO HIM WHILE RECORDING A STATEMENT U/S 1 32(4). THE ASSESSEE TO SAVE HIS BUSINESS FROM LENGTHY ENQUIRIE S IN RESPECT TO SAID BUNDLES OF NOTES AND TO COME CLEAN FROM ANY UN DISCLOSED INCOME OF THE FIRM OR OF HIS OWN OR OF HIS PARTNER BITHAL DAS PARWAL WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN OR WHICH MAY BE FOUND OR INFERRED FROM THE PAPERS/DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN FOUND AND SEIZED IN COURSE OF SEARCH AGREED TO ADMIT AND SURRENDER U NDISCLOSED INCOME OF ABOUT RS. 6 CRORE OF SAID FIRM M/S MAHESH WARI ASSOCIATES. THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF FIRM IN COURS E OF SEARCH WAS CALCULATED BY MAKING PRESUMPTIVE CALCULATIONS O N THE BASE OF SAID BUNDLES OF CURRENCY NOTES FOUND PRESUMING INTE REST RATE AND PERIOD OF INTEREST FOR RECORDING STATEMENT OF BOTH THE PARTNERS IN COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132(4). HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE S IMULTANEOUSLY MADE IT CLEAR IN HIS STATEMENT THAT THE SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 6 CRORE BY FIRM M/S MAHESHWARI ASSOCIATES IN WHICH HE IS PARTNER IS IN RESPECT OF ANY UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTION/INCOME WH ICH MAY HAVE BEEN FOUND FROM ANY PAPER/DOCUMENT FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH AT HIS RESIDENCE OR BUSINESS PREMISES AND IS EVIDENT F ROM Q. NO. 22 AND ITS ANSWER IN STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) ON 14-3-08 WHICH IS THE ONLY STATEMENT. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AT S EARCH ACCEPTED SURRENDER IN THE SAME TERMS IN WHICH IT WAS MADE AS THEY RAISED NO FURTHER QUESTION OR QUERY. THE ASSESSEE WHILE PREPARING ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM F OR THE YEAR ENDED 31-3-08 NOTICED THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 1, 42,00,000/- IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE MAHAPURA D URING F.Y. 10 2007-08 AND SO WHILE RECORDING ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM HE DEBITED RS. 1,42,0 0,000/- AGAINST HIS NAME OUT OF SAID SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 6,00 ,000/- AS STATED BY HIM IN HIS STATEMENT AND BALANCE WAS SHOWN AS SU NDRY ADVANCES. THE P & L A/C AND BALANCE SHEET OF FIRM W AS FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BEFORE COMMENC EMENT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CLEARLY SHOWING SAID ENTRY A ND IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF FIRM THE SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 6 CRORE WAS INCLUDED AND DUE TAX WAS PAID. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN CASE OF FIRM AND PART NERS WERE STARTED MUCH AFTER THE FILING OF RETURN OF INC OME AND ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS CONFRONTED THE PAPER RELATING TO SAID INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH PAPER WAS NEITHER FOUND AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF FIRM OR AT RESIDENCE OF ASSESSEE NOR IT WAS IN THE HANDWRITING OF ASSESSEE. THE PAPER WAS FOUND AT ANCESTRAL HOUSE AT PARTANION KA RASTA, JAIPUR. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE EXPLANATION I N ACCORDANCE WITH ABOVE STATED FACTS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT EXP LANATION FILED BY ASSESSEE WAS NOT AN AFTER THOUGHT PLOY TO EXTRACT THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT FROM HIS ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED AS AL LEGED BY LD. A.O. IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE SURRENDER OF ADDITION AL INCOME WAS CLEARLY WITH THE INTENTION TO END LITIGATION AND TO COVER ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH MAY BE FOUND FROM ANY PAPER/DOCUMENT FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WAS MADE CLEAR BY ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT U/S 132(4) DATED 04-3- 2008 (Q. NO. 22 AND ITS ANSWER). THE ALLEGED NAMES ON BUNDLES OF NO TES WERE NO EVIDENCE THAT THOSE NAME WERE OF SPECIFIC NAME OF B ORROWERS WHICH WERE NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN STATEMENT RECORDED FROM ASSESSEE OR HIS PARTNER. NO ENQUIRY WHATSOEVER WAS MADE IN 11 RESPECT TO ALLEGED NAMES AND AS CURRENCY NOTES WERE DEPOSITED IN BANK BY DEPARTMENT AFTER SEARCH THERE REMAINED NO E VIDENCE TO WHICH ASSESSEE COULD HAVE REBUT IN ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. THE DEPARTMENT ALSO ACCEPTED AS IT IS THE DECLARED ADDI TIONAL INCOME OF RS. 6 CRORE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF FIRM. IN VIEW OF T HESE FACTS THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE C ASE THE ASSESSEE PRAYS THAT EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED BY HIM I S CORRECT AND ACCEPTABLE. THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,42,00,000/- MADE BY A.O. CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT (A) DESERVES TO BE DELETED. THESE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE IN CONTINUATION TO WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 3.10.2011. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 3.10.2011, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED BRIEF FACTS, FINDINGS OF THE AO, THE WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AND THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A). FROM THE WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS AS WELL AS FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 6 CRORES DURING THE COURSE OF STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132( 4) ON 14.3.2008. IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 22, THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 6 CRORES BE TREATED AS AGAINST LOAN ADVANCED OR ANY OTHER UNDISCLOSED INCO ME FOUND MENTIONED IN THE LOOSE PAPERS FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AS WELL AS FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND ITS PARTNERS. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6 CRORES WAS DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM WHICH INCLUDES A SUM OF RS. 16.20 LACS SURRENDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNER SHRI DILIP MAHESHWARI WHO IS ASSESSEE HERE. THE COP Y OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND COPY OF BALANCE SHEET IS PLACED AT PAGES 16 & 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FROM THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IT IS CLEARLY SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLAR ED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 12 5,99,80,000/- AND FROM THE BALANCE SHEET IT IS SEEN THAT RS. 6 CRORES INCLUDES A SUM OF RS. 16.20 LACS SURRENDERED IN THE HANDS OF PARTNER. AF TER REDUCING AMOUNT OF RS. 16.20 LACS, THE BALANCE AMOUNT REMAINS RS. 5,83,80,000/- AND BR EAK-UP OF THIS AMOUNT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED IN THE BALANCE SHEET I.E. RS. 1,42,50,000 /- SHOWN IN THE NAME OF SHRI DILIP MAHESHWARI AND SHRI G.L. MAHESHWARI AND OTHER CASH ADVANCES ARE SHOWN AT RS. 4,41,30,000/- TOTAL OF THIS AMOUNT COMES RS. 5,83,8 0,000/-. IF THIS BALANCE SHEET IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THEN IT IS SEEN THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.42 CRORES REMAINED EXPLAINED. HOWEVER, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT ACCEPT ED THIS BREAK UP SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS THEY HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THIS BALA NCE SHEET. IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT BALANCE SHEET WAS FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN. THER EFORE, THIS BALANCE SHEET CANNOT BE IGNORED AND HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. EV EN AND OTHERWISE ASSESSEE FIRM WHERE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER, HAS AGREED TO SURRENDER A SU M OF RS. 6 CRORES AND HAS ALSO DISCLOSED THE SAME AND DUE TAX HAS BEEN PAID. NO ASSETS WHAT SOEVER WERE FOUND IN RELATION TO THIS RS. 6 CRORES. WHATEVER THE OTHER ASSETS WERE FOUND, THEY HAVE BEEN PART OF RECORD AND HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED. IT WAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ITSELF THAT THE BUNDLE OF CURRENCY NOTES FOUND RELA TE TO INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON VARIOUS ADVANCES GIVEN TO VARIOUS PERSONS. IT HAS ALSO BEE N CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT IF ANY OTHER ASSETS FOUND RECORDED IN ANY LOOSE PAPERS FRO M THE FAMILY MEMBERS OR PARTNERS OF THE FIRM, THEN THOSE ASSETS SHOULD BE COVERED BY TH E AMOUNT OF RS. 6 CRORES. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE HAS T O BE CONSIDERED IN TOTALITY, NOT IN PART AS AO HAS CONSIDERED REPLY TO THE QUESTION NO. 5 ON LY. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THIS ASPECT THROUGH HIS SUBMISSIONS AND THE SUBMISSIONS ARE ALSO VERY CLEAR WHICH WE HAVE DISCUSSED ABOVE. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ADDITION MADE AND SUSTAINED BY 13 LOWER AUTHORITIES WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, W E DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,41,39,000/-. 11. NOW WE WILL TAKE UP THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2004-05 IN ITA NO. 888/JP/2010. 12. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIR MING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,75,000/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED PAYMENT OF UNEXPLA INED INCOME. 13. BRIEF FACTS AND FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) HAVE BE EN DISCUSSED IN PARA 3 TO 3.2 IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER :- 3. GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 2,75, 000/- IN RESPECT OF CASH PAYMENTS OF RS. 1,25,000/- AND RS. 1,50,000/- MADE TO SH. CHHITAR AND SH. SUJA AS PER PAGE NO. 18 AND 22, 19 AND 32 OF ANN. A -14 SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS U/S 1`32 AT THE APPELLA NTS PREMISES ON 14.3.2008. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFOR E THE A.O. THAT BOTH THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE RECIPIENTS WERE FOR ONE PAYM ENT ONLY THE SOURCE OF WHICH WAS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE APPELLANTS CAPITAL A CCOUNT WITH THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S. MAHESHWARI ASSOCIATES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 6 CR5ORES WAS SURRENDERED BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM U/S 132(4) AND ALL THE UNRECORDED TRANSACTIONS OF T HE FIRM AND ITS PARTNERS WERE COVERED BY THE SAID AMOUNT. THE A.O. DID NOT A CCEPT THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION FOR THE REASON THAT THE SURRENDERED INCO ME WAS IN THE HANDS OF FIRM AND THAT TOO IN THE ASSTT. YEAR 2008-09. THERE FORE, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,75,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH PAYM ENTS. 3.1. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, TH E LD. A/R REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE A.O. IT WAS FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT TWO HAND-WRITTEN RECEIPTS BY THE FARMERS (COPY OF EACH OTHER) INDICATE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF RS. 1.50 LAKHS BY THEM FROM THE APPEL LANT AND THE SAME WERE NOT STAND. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE THIRD RECEIP T OF RS. 1,25,000/- IS DULY TYPED GIVING FULL PARTICULARS AND IN LEGAL LAN GUAGE BEARING REVENUE 14 STAMP AND DULY SIGNED AND WITNESSED. IT WAS STATED THAT THESE RECEIPTS PERTAIN TO THE PAYMENT MADE TO SH. CHITTAR AND SUJA FOR VACATING THE POSSESSION OF SOUTHERN PART OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAN D MEASURING 0.44 HECTARES WITH KHASRA NO. 777 AND ARE IN RESPECT OF ONE PAYMENT ONLY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT REASONS FOR THE TWO RECEIPTS IS THAT SETTLEMENT FOR VACATION OF POSSESSION OF LAND WITH THESE PERSONS W AS IN PROCESS AND THEY AGREED TO SETTLE THE MATTER ON THE PAYMENT OF RS. 1 .50 LAKHS AND BROUGHT WITH THEM A HAND WRITTEN RECEIPT WHICH WAS NOT ACTE D UPON. THE MATTER WAS FURTHER NEGOTIATED AND THE AMOUNT WAS SETTLED A T RS. 1,25,000/- AND A PROPER RECEIPT WAS GOT PREPARED AND FINALLY PAYMENT OF RS. 1,25,000/- WAS MADE. THE FARMERS LEFT THE RECEIPTS BROUGHT WITH TH EM AND THE SAME REMAINED WITH THE APPELLANT. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUB MITTED THAT ONLY ONE PAYMENT OF RS. 1,25,000/- WAS MADE IN CASH. 3.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. A.R AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. I AM NOT INCLINED T O AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY HIM. FIRST OF ALL. THE AMOUNT MEN TIONED IN THE HAND WRITTEN RECEIPTS IS RS. 1.50 LAKHS WHEREAS THE AMOU NT MENTIONED IN THE TYPED RECEIPT IS RS. 1,25,000/-. THE EXPLANATION RE GARDING AMOUNT SETTLED AT RS. 1,25,000/- IS ONLY A SELF SERVING STATEMENT BECAUSE THE HAND WRITTEN RECEIPT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT TWO FARMERS HAD RECEIVED THE PAYMENT OF RS. 1.50 LAKHS FROM THE APPELLANT IN CASH. FURTHER, IF THE TYPED RECEIPT WAS PREPARED IN LIEU OF THE HAND WRITTEN RECEIPTS, A ME NTION OF THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE TYPED RECEIPT. FURTHER, IF TH E TYPED RECEIPT HAD REPLACED THE HAND WRITTEN RECEIPTS, THE HAND WRITTE N RECEIPTS WOULD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED WHEREAS THE SAME WERE FOUND IN THE P OSSESSION OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS IN HIS CASE. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THE HAND WRITTEN RECEIPTS A ND TYPED RECEIPT ARE FOR ONE PAYMENT ONLY. AS REGARDS THE ARS AGREEMENT OF THE PAYMENT HAVING BEEN MADE OUT OF THE SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 6 CR ORES BY THE FIRM, THE SAME ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE THE INCOME WAS SURRENDERED IN THE ASSTT. YEAR 2008-09 WHEREAS THE ASSTT. YEAR INVOLVE D IN THE PRESENT APPEAL 15 IS 2004-05. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I AM OF THE CON SIDERED VIEW THAT THE A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 2,75,0 00/- AS CASH PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. A CCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,75,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. IS UPHE LD. 14. THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE REITERATED HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. D/R PLACED RELIANCE ON T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 16. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED IN THIS GROUND AL SO. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/- AND RS. 1,25,000/- ON AC COUNT OF CASH PAYMENT TO SHRI CHITTAR AND SUJA. ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS NOT ACCEPTED THAT A SUM OF RS. 6 CRORES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SURRENDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM A ND THIS AMOUNT COVERED THEREIN. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN FACT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,25, 000/- WAS ONLY GIVEN AND NOT RS. 2,75,000/-. HOWEVER, BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HA VE NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT A SUM OF R S. 6 CRORES HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM ON ACCOUNT OF CASH LOAN OR CASH P AYMENT TO VARIOUS PARTIES IN PAST. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 1,25,000/ - OR RS. 2,75,000/- HAS TO BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED FOR THE REASON THAT HUGFE AMOUNT HAS ALRE ADY BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 22, IT HAS BEEN CLE ARLY STATED THAT WHATEVER THE AMOUNT FOUND RECORDED, GIVEN TO ANY PERSON BY THE FAMILY M EMBERS OR BY ITS PARTNERS SHOULD BE TREATED AS COVERED BY THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6 CRORES. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE AO AND LD. 16 CIT (A) SHOULD NOT HAVE DRAWN ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE . IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DELETE THIS ADDITION OF RS. 2,75, 000/- IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 LISTED AS IT A NO. 887/JP/2010, THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,14,115/-. 17. THIS ADDITION IS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY. IN FACT, TOTAL JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1,875 GRAM VALUED AT RS. 30,17,987/-. OUT OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, JEWELL ERY WORTH RS. 11,89,400/- WAS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND A SUM OF RS. 1 0,00,000/- WAS SURRENDERED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. BALANCE JEWELLERY VALUED AT RS. 8,28,570/- WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS EXPLAINED, EX CEPT JEWELLERY OF RS. 1,14,115/-. THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 18. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED IN THIS GROUND AL SO. IT IS SEEN THAT OUT OF TOTAL JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1,875 GRAMS, JEWELLERY WEIGHING 738 GRAMS WAS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. A SUM OF RS. 10,00,000/- WAS SURRENDERED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY WEIGHING AT 622 GRAMS. THE REMAINING JEW LLERY OF 515 GRAMS VALUED AT RS. 8,28,750/- WAS STATED TO BE BELONGING TO HIS WIFE S MT. K. MAHESHWARI. AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR, THE JEWELLERY TO THIS EXTENT SHOULD; HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS EXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO TREAT PART OF JEWELLERY AS EX PLAINED AND REMAINING JEWELLERY VALUED AT RS. 1,14,115/- WAS ADDED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALRE ADY SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 6 CRORES IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM AND THIS WAS A MEAGER AMOU NT ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY WHICH COULD BE RECEIVED ON THE OCCASION O F MARRIAGE CEREMONY OR BIRTHDAY OF SONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THAT BO TH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT 17 JUSTIFIED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE A SSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THIS ADDITION ALSO. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE YEARS ARE ALLOWED. 20. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 .10.2011. SD/- SD/- ( N.L. KALRA ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, D/ COPY FORWARDED TO :- SHRI DILIP MAHESHWARI, JAIPUR. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 887(3)/JP/2010) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.