Kewal Garg, Yamunanagar V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 945/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4544 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Search and seizure; Cost of acquisition; Agreed addition
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.943 TO 949/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001 TO 2007-08 KEWAL GARG, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 104-105, MADHU COLONY, CENTRAL CIRCLE II YAMUNA NAGAR. AAYKAR BHAWAN, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAOPG2720K ITA NOS.950 TO 956/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001 TO 2007-08 PARVEEN GARG, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 104-105, MADHU COLONY, CENTRAL CIRCLE II YAMUNA NAGAR. AAYKAR BHAWAN, CHANDIGARH. PAN: ACDPK9867G ITA NOS.957 TO 963/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001 TO 2007-08 NARESH GARG, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 104-105, MADHU COLONY, CENTRAL CIRCLE II YAMUNA NAGAR. AAYKAR BHAWAN, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAOPG2722M ITA NO.940/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 NEELKAMAL GARG, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 104-105, MADHU COLONY, CENTRAL CIRCLE II YAMUNA NAGAR. AAYKAR BHAWAN, CHANDIGARH. PAN: ALBPK5610L ITA NO.941/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 NEENA GARG, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 104-105, MADHU COLONY, CENTRAL CIRCLE II YAMUNA NAGAR. AAYKAR BHAWAN, CHANDIGARH. 2 PAN: ABWPG5915H ITA NO.942/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 KEWAL GARG, (HUF) VS. THE D.C.I.T., 104-105, MADHU COLONY, CENTRAL CIRCLE II YAMUNA NAGAR. AAYKAR BHAWAN, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAFHK9319H ITA NOS.964 TO 969/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001 TO 2007-08 SHASHI GARG, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 104-105, MADHU COLONY, CENTRAL CIRCLE II YAMUNA NAGAR. AAYKAR BHAWAN, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAOPG2719M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ROHIT GOEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 28.11.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.12.2013 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), GURGAON DATED 18.7.2013. MANY COMM ON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, SO THESE WERE HEARD TOGE THER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 2 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS: 1. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FAC TS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 2. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACT S IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.70,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. 3 GROUND NO. 1 - AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSE E AND LATER ON SOME POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES WERE ALSO CONDUCTED. IT WAS NOTED BY 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A HIGH STANDARD OF LIVING. THE FAMILY WAS MAINTAINING FLEET OF LUX URY CARS AND WAS IN POSSESSION OF LUXURY ELECTRONIC GOODS. THE ASSE SSEE HAD SHOWN WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 60,000 DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE LOW. THEREFORE, A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 20,000 HAS BEEN MADE TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 4 ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS MAINLY SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RESIDING ALONG WITH HIS BROTHERS S /SHRI SHASHI GARG, NARESH GARG AND PARVEEN GARG ALONG WITH THEIR FAMILIES IN A JOINT FAMILY. THEY WERE HAVING A COMMON LIVING ROO M AND DRAWING ROOM AND BECAUSE OF WHICH HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WERE L OW. SHRI PARVEEN GARG HAD TWO CHILDREN WHO WERE STUDYING IN A 3 RD AND 4 TH CLASS IN SPRING FIELD SCHOOL, YAMUNANAGAR. SIMILAR LY SHRI KEWAL GARG HAD TWO CHILDREN WHO WERE STUDYING IN 1 ST AND 3 RD STANDARD IN SPRING FIELD SCHOOL, YAMUNANAGAR. SHRI SHASHI GARG HAD ONE SON AGED ABOUT TWO YEARS AND WAS NOT STUDYING. SHRI NA RESH GARG HAD ALSO TWO CHILDREN OUT OF WHICH ONLY ONE SON WAS STU DYING IN GREEN FILED SCHOOL. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD NOTICED THAT WITHDRAWAL PUT TOGETHER WAS RS. 1,68,1 20/- WHICH WAS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE ACTUALLY WITHDRAWAL WAS RS. 1,9 4,120/- FOR WHICH THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED. IT WAS FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE FAMILY WAS ALSO OWNING 12 ACRES OF AGRICUL TURAL LAND ON WHICH FOODGRAINS AND VEGETABLES WERE BEING GROWN WH ICH MEANS MOST OF THE FAMILY NEEDS FOR FOODGRAINS AND VEGETAB LES ARE BEING MET FROM THIS LAND. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT FAMILY WAS HAVING CARS WHICH CONSIST OF TATA INDIGO OR SOME OTHER CAR WHIC H CAN NOT BE CALLED LUXURY CARS AND THE SAME WERE OWNED BY VARIO US FIRMS. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIVING IN A JOINT FAMILY ALONG WITH HIS BROTHERS HAVING COMMON KITCHEN WHICH WOULD LEAD TO A VERY LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTE R EXAMINING THE SUBMISSIONS OBSERVED THAT ADDITIONAL WITHDRAWALS WH ICH WERE CLAIMED BEFORE HIM PERTAIN TO ELECTRICITY EXPENSES AND PAYMENT OF HOUSE TAXES. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WITHDRAWALS S HOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS FAMILY WERE VERY LOW AND AD DITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY HE DID NOT ALLOW ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 4 5 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITER ATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE FURTHER EMPHASIZED THAT SO CALLED LUXURY CARS CONSIST OF TATA INDIGO CAR AND SOME OTHER CARS WHICH WERE OWNED BY VARIOUS FIRMS. HE A LSO CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIVING IN A JOINT FAMILY ALON G WITH HIS BROTHERS HAVING COMMON KITCHEN WHICH WOULD LEAD TO VERY LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEES FAMILY IS ALSO OWNING 12 ACRES OF LAND WHICH MEET THE FOOD GRAINS AND VEGETABLE REQUIREMENT OF THE FAMILY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ANY CASE NO SUCH ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHD RAWALS CAN BE MADE IN ASSESSMENT U/S 153A AND IN THIS REGARD HE S TRONGLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF CHANDIGARH BENCH IN CASE OF JAGD ISH DUGGAL VS. ACIT, 24 DTR 174 (COPY OF THE ORDER FILED IN THE PA PER BOOK). 6 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE STR ONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY AND FIND THAT THIS IS A CASE OF SEARCH AND NO INCRIMINATING MATER IAL HAVE BEEN FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF WI THDRAWAL HAS BEEN MADE IN A VERY CASUAL MANNER WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. FOR EXAMPLE IT HAS BEEN ALLEGED THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS HAVING LUXURY CARS BUT EVEN THE BRAND OF CARS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER O R IN THE APPELLATE ORDER WHEREAS IT WAS MAINTAINED BEFORE US THAT THE BEST CAR WAS OF TATA INDIGO WHICH IS NOT A LUXURY CAR AN D THE CARS WERE OWNED BY VARIOUS FIRMS WHERE THE ASSESSEE AND HIS B ROTHERS WERE PARTNERS. SIMILARLY IT HAS BEEN ALLEGED IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE IS ALSO A MEMBER OF KITTY PARTY BUT NO FURTHER DETAILS HAVE BEEN GIVEN. IN OUR OPINION, T HE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON ADHOC BASIS WHICH IS NOT POSSI BLE. IN ANY CASE NO SUCH ADDITION IS POSSIBLE IN ASSESSMENT FRA MED U/S 153A. THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF JAG DISH DUGGAL VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HAS TAKEN THE SIMILAR VIEW. THE R ELEVANT PORTION OF PARA 7 OF THAT ORDER READS AS UNDER: IN TERMS OF SECTION 153A UNDER WHICH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT HAVE BEEN MADE, THE MANDATE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CA SES WHERE SEARCH HAS TAKEN PLACE. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE, SEARCH OPERATION TOOK PLACE ON 15 TH OCT 2003. IN ANY CASE WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE CLAIM OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES MADE BY THE ASSESSE E IS TO BE 5 REJECTED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BRING OUT COGE NT MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE. IN THIS CASE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ARE QUITE GENERAL IN NATURE. IN FACT, THE FIRST REASON RELATING TO THE HOUSEHOLD ARTICLES POINTED OUT, DOES NOT TURN MUCH ON THE SUBJECT BECAUSE SUCH ARTICLES ARE A NORMAL OCCURRENCE IN UR BAN HOUSEHOLD. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE FIND NO JUSTIFIC ATION IN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND DELETE T HE SAME. 8 GROUND NO. 2 - AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED T HAT FROM THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN PUNJAB PLYWOOD I NDUSTRIES (PPI) THAT A SUM OF RS. 30,000 HAS BEEN INVESTED IN CASH ON 25.4.2000. SIMILARLY ANOTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 40,000 HAS BEEN IN VESTED IN CASH ON 20.9.2000. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY PROOF IN SUPPORT OF INVESTMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 70,000 FOR UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT T O THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9 ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS STATED THA T A SUM OF RS. 30,000 WHICH WAS INVESTED ON 25.4.2000 IN PPI C AME OUT OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH PUNJAB TIMBER COMPANY (PTC) BY WAY OF WITHDRAWAL ON 30.3.2000. SIMILARLY INVES TMENT OF RS. 40,000 WAS MADE ON 20.9.2000 IN PPI WAS OUT OF A WI THDRAWAL OF RS. 40,000 FROM PTC ON 20.9.2000. COPIES OF THE AC COUNTS OF PPI AND PTC WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 10 THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIE NT BALANCE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, HE WONDERED WHY THESE COPIES OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WHEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN STARTED ON 11.8.20 08 AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AFTER A PERIOD OF ABOUT FO UR MONTHS ON 29.12.2008. IN VIEW OF THIS OBSERVATION, HE CONFIR MED THE ADDITION, 11 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITE RATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE FURTHER REFERRED TO PAGE 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS A COPY OF THE PTC ACCOUNT WHERE A SUM OF RS. 40,000 WAS WITHDRAWN ON 20.9.2000 WHIC H HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN PPI ON THE SAME DATE. SIMILARLY A SU M OF RS. 30,000 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM PTC ON 30.3.2000 AND COPY O F ACCOUNT FROM1.4.1999 TO 30.3.2000 IS PLACED AT PAGE 12 OF T HE PAPER BOOK. THIS AMOUNT IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN PPI ON 25.4.2000, 6 THEREFORE, SOURCES ARE CLEARLY AVAILABLE AND ADDIT ION MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED. 12 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE S UBMITTED THAT AS FAR AS A SUM OF RS. 30,000 IS CONCERNED WHICH IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN ON 30.3.2000 IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A SUM WAS AVAILABLE FOR DEPOSIT ON 25.4.2000. 13 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. WHEN THE AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM PTC ON 30.3.2000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN PPI THEN WHY THE SUM WAS NOT DEPOSITED ON THE SAME DATE. NO EXPLANATION CAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LD. CIT(A) OR BEFORE US. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS SUM OF RS. 40,000 WITHDRAWN FROM PPI ON 20.9.2000 IS CONCERNED, THE SAME HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN ON THE SAME DATE FROM PTC AND THEREFORE, SOURCES TO THIS EXTEN T HAS BEEN EXPLAINED. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF ADDITION OF RS. 40,000 BECAUSE THE SO URCES HAS BEEN PROVED AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 40,000 TOWARD S INVESTMENT IN PPI. AS FAR AS ADDITION OF RS. 30,000 IS CONCERNED WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 14 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 IS PARTLY AL LOWED. ITA NO. 944/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 15 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.30,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 2. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACT S IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.25,375/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY FOR PURCHASE OF 1/4 TH SHARE IN LAND AT 75-76 MADHU COLONY, YAMUNANAGAR AS UNEXPLAINED. 16 GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 30,000 T OWARDS LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWIN G OUR ORDER IN ITA 7 NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDE D VIDE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 17 GROUND NO. 2 - AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES W E FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED 1/4 TH SHARE OF LAND AT 75-76, MADHU COLONY, YAMUNANAGAR. THE COST OF LAND IS RS. 6,51, 500/-. FURTHER STAMP DUTY OF RS. 1,01,000/- WAS PAID. THUS TOTAL COST WAS RS. 7,52,500/- AND THEREFORE, ASSESSEES SHARE WAS RS. 1,88,125/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCES ONL Y TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,62,750/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID N OT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR BALANCE OF THE PURCHASE COST, SUM OF RS. 25,375/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 18 ON APPEAL, IT WAS MAINLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSE SSEE NEVER PAID THE STAMP DUTY WHICH WAS PAID BY THE SELLER AN D IN THIS CONNECTION COPY OF THE SALE DEED WAS FILED BEFORE H IM. 19 THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE SUBMISSIONS D ECIDED THE ISSUE VIDE PR. 7 WHICH IS AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN LAND OF RS.6,51,500/- PLUS STAMP DUTY OF RS.1,01,000/-. THE SHARE OF ASSESSEE IS L/4 LH WHICH IS RS.1,88,125/- OF WHICH US. 1,62,750/- HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS EXPLAINED. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS THE BALANCE OF RS. 2 5,375/- WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT. ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WITH M/S PUNJAB PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES WHEREIN A SUM OF RS.1,63,326/- O N 09.11.2001 IS REFLECTED AS WITHDRAWN AND AS PER NARRATION THE SAME IS MENTIONED TO CHEQU E NO 14768 HOUSE. THIS NARRATION DOES NOT EXPLAIN THAT THE CHEQUE IS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY AND THE SUM DOES NOT ADD UP ANY WAY. FURTHER COPY OF PURCHASE DEED HAS NOT BEEN FIL ED THOUGH CLAIMED IN THE SUBMISSIONS. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, 1 AM INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. ASSESSEE FAILS IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 20 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFER RED TO PG 11 TO 15 WHICH IS A COPY OF THE SALE DEED AND PARTICULARL Y REFERRED TO PAGE 15 WHICH CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE STAMP DUTY WAS PAID BY THE SELLER. 21 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 22 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY A ND FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE. COPY OF THE SALE DEED CLEARLY MENTION AT PAGE 5 THAT STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION FEE HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE SELLER. ADM ITTEDLY PURCHASE 8 PRICE HAS BEEN SEPARATELY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISPUTE IS ONLY REGARDING SHARE OF THE STAMP DUTY. SINCE THE STAMP DUTY HAS BEEN PAID BY THE SELLER THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) AND DELETE THIS ADDITION. 23 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 944/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 945/CHD/2013 KEWAL GARG ASSESSEES APPE AL 24 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.35,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 2. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACT S IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.30,687/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY FOR PURCHASE OF 1/4 TH SHARE OF H NO.90B, MODEL TOWN, YAMUNANAGAR AS UNEXPLAINED. 3 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS 27,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED RENT FROM H NO. 75/76, MADHU COLONY, YAMUNANAGAR. 25 GROUND NO. 1 - THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE IS SUE ADJUDICATED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL A S THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFOR E, FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HA S BEEN DECIDED VIDE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 26 GROUND NO. 2 - AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED 1/4 TH SHARE OF H NO. 90B, MODEL TOWN, YAMUNANAGAR FOR RS. 10,50,000/- AND STAMP DUTY PAID WAS RS. 1,52,750/-. THUS TOTAL COST WAS RS. 12,12,750/- SH ARE OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD COME TO RS. 3,03,187/-. THE ASSESSE E HAS EXPLAINED SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT TO HE EXTENT OF RS. 2,72,000/- ONLY. SINCE NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN FOR THE BALANC E SOURCE OF RS. 30,687/- THEREFORE, SAME WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. 27 ON APPEAL SINCE NO SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE THE ISS UE WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 9 28 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFER RED TO PAGE 11-21 WHICH IS A COPY OF THE SALE DEED AND INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 21 WHICH SHOWS THAT THE STAMP DUTY WAS PAID BY THE SELLER, THEREFORE, NO FURTHER COST WAS INCURRED BY THE ASS ESSEE. 29 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 30 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT SALE DEED MAKES IT CLEAR THAT STAMP DUTY CHARGES WERE PAID BY THE SELLER THEREFORE, NO COST WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR STAMP DUTY, THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND DELETE THIS ADDITION. 31 GROUND NO. 3 - AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF PROPERTY NO. 75 & WHY DEEMED RENT SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED TO TAX. ACCORDINGLY A SUM OF RS. 27 ,000 WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AS DEEMED RENT. 32 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS MAINLY SUBMITTED TH AT RENT WAS DEFINITELY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT BY MISTAKE THE SAME WAS NOT SHOWN, THEREFORE, ONLY REQUEST WAS MADE THAT 3 0% REBATE IN RESPECT OF RENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 33 THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SINCE ADDITION OF R S. 27,000 WAS AGREED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED R ENT THEREFORE, NO RELIEF WAS POSSIBLE. 34 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITE RATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 35 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RE LIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 36 AFTER EXAMINING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND T HAT IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RENT THEREF ORE, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY HAS TO BE CHARGED BUT AT THE SA ME TIME ONCE THE INCOME IS CHARGED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY THEN CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECT HAS TO BE GIVEN. THEREFO RE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BA CK TO THE FILE OF 10 ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO ALLOW 30% REL IEF OUT OF RENTAL INCOME AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 37 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 945/CHD/2013 IS PARTLY AL LOWED. ITA NO. 946/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 38 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUND: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 39 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATE D IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 943 /CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 94 3/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VIDE PARA NO. 7 , WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 40 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 946/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 947/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 41 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUND: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 42 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATE D IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 943 /CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 94 3/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VIDE PARA NO. 7 , WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 43 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 947/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 948/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 44 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUND: 11 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 45 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATE D IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 943 /CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 94 3/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VIDE PARA NO. 7 , WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 46 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 948/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 949/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 47 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- ON ACCOU NT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 2 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACT S IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,44,312/- OUT OF JEWELLERY SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF ASSESSEE AND TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 3 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS80,044/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH. 48 GROUND NO. 1 - THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE IS SUE ADJUDICATED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL A S THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE ARE SAME, THEREFORE , FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HA S BEEN DECIDED VIDE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 49 GROUND NO. 2 - AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES W E FIND THAT DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 3,44, 312/- WAS FOUND. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. IN RESPONSE IT WAS STATED VIDE LETTER DATED 28.11.2008 AS UNDER: 'DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NORMAL JEWELLERY WAS F OUND AND THE SAME WAS EXPLAINED TO THE SEARCH PARTY, HENCE AFTER THEI R SATISFACTIONS IT WAS NOT SEIZED. HOWEVER SINCE THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC DETAIL S WITH THE DEPARTMENT WE WILL SUBMIT FAMILY WISE DETAIL OF JEWELLERY AT A SHORT D ATE' 12 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WI TH THIS EXPLANATION AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 344,,312/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 50 ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS MAINLY SUBMITTED THAT JEWELLERY FOUND DURING SEARCH WAS ONLY 319.400 GMS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED ON THE O CCASION OF MARRIAGE AND OTHER OCCASIONS FROM PARENTS AND RELAT IVES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE WHO GOT MARRIED IN 1992. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER CBDT INSTRUCTIONS NO. 286/63/ 93-IT (INV) II DATED 11.5.1994, THE BOARD HAS DIRECTED THAT VARIOU S OFFICERS SHOULD NOT SEIZE JEWELLERY UPTO 500GMS IN CASE OF A MARRIED LADY, 250GMS IN CASE OF A UNMARRIED DAUGHTER AND 100GM FR OM A MARRIED MALE. SINCE TOTAL JEWELLERY WAS LESS THAN 500GMS T HE SAME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED. IN THIS CONNECTION REL IANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: SMT. BOMMANA SWARNA REKHA VS. ACIT, 94 TTJ 885 (VISHAKHA-TRIB) DCIT VS. SMT. JAYITA BOSE. 3 SOT SMT.SULOCHANA DEVI JAISWAL VS. DCIT, 90 TTJ 974 (JA B) HARAKCHAND JAIN VS. ACIT, 61 TTJ 223 (MUM) CIT VS. M.S. AGGARWAL (HUF) 11 DTR 169 (MP) RAJENDRA C. SHAH VS. JCIT (MUM) (MAG) 158 TAXMA 17 0 DCIT VS. GORDHANDAS LACHMANDAS, 16 DTR 26 (MUM) ACIT VS. PARBATI GANGULY, 44 TTJ 108 (CAL) 51 THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISS IONS BECAUSE FAMILYWISE BREAK UP OF THE JEWELLERY WAS NOT FURNIS HED. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT INSTRUCTIONS OF THE BOARD WERE WITH R EFERENCE TO SEIZURE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE RELIED FOR EXPLAININ G THE SOURCE OF JEWELLERY. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE GOT MARRIED IN 1992 AND SOME JEWELLERY MIGHT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS GIFT ON THE OCCASION OF THE MARRIAGE HE ACCEPTED TH E JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2 LAKHS AND HE MADE AN ADDITION F OR THE BALANCE OF RS. 1,44,312/-. 52 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE MAINL Y REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE FUR THER 13 EMPHASIZED THAT JEWELLERY ONLY WEIGHING 319.400 GMS WAS FOUND WHICH IS LESS THAN 500GMS EVEN FOR MARRIED LADY OF THE HOUSE. JEWELLERY UP TO 500GMS IN CASE OF A MARRIED LADY, 2 50GMS IN CASE OF UNMARRIED DAUGHTER AND 100GM IN CASE OF A UNMARR IED MALE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY VARIOUS TRIBUNAL DECISIONS IN VIEW OF THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTIONS NO. 286/ 63/93-IT (INV) II DATED 11.5.1994. IN THIS CONNECTION HE RELIED ON T HE DECISION OF CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SMT. NE ENA SYAL VS. ACIT, 70 ITD 62 (CHD). 53 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE S TRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT REASONABLE RELIEF HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN BY THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY. 54 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY A ND FIND THAT MOST OF THE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED JE WELLERY TO THE EXTENT MENTIONED IN THE CBDT INSTRUCTIONS NO. 286/6 3/93-IT (INV) II DATED 11.5.1994 AS REASONABLE AND EXPLAINED. THE RE ASON IS SIMPLE THAT IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE IN INDIA THAT JEWELLER Y IS GIVEN ON THE OCCASION OF THE MARRIAGE BY THE PARENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. FOR SUCH GIFTS NO PLAUSIBLE EVIDENCE CAN BE THERE. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE GOT MARRIED IN 1992 AND MIGHT HAVE RECEIVE D JEWELLERY ON THE OCCASION OF MARRIAGE AND OTHER OCCASIONS. HEAD NOTE IN CASE OF SMT. NEENA SYAL VS. ACIT (SUPRA) READS AS UNDER: SECTION 69A, READ WITH SECTION 158BA, OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961 UNEXPLAINED MONEY, JEWELLERY, ETC. WHETHER ASSESS ING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO REBUT EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE BEFORE IN VOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A AND DEEMING VALUE OF JEWELLERY FOUND DU RING SEARCH AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE. HELD, YES WHETHER CBDT INSTR UCTION NO.288/63/93-IT (INV.)II, DATED 11-5-1994, CONTAINI NG GUIDELINES FOR SEIZURE OF JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS IN COURSE OF SEA RCH AND PERMITTING RETENTION OF CERTAIN AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY BY MEMBERS OF FAMILY ARE ALSO RELEVANT WITH REFERENCE TO DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 69A HELD, YES. IN OUR OPINION, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION AS WE LL AS INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT JEWELLERY WEIGHING 319.400GMS CANNOT BE CALLED UNEXPLAINED. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DELETE THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 1,44,312/-. 55 GROUND NO. 3 - AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT DURING SEARCH CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,73,920/- WAS FOUND IN THE P REMISES OF THE 14 ASSESSEE. FROM THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE AND HIS B ROTHER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 122,393/- BELONG S TO THE FIRM PPI. FURTHER CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,31,352/- WAS THERE AS PER THE BOOKS OF AGGARWAL WOOD INDUSTRIES (AWI). THE ASSES SING OFFICER REDUCED THESE TWO ITEMS FROM TOTAL CASH AND DETERMI NED THAT BALANCE CASH OF RS. 3,20,176/- WAS UNACCOUNTED CASH AND THEREFORE, 1/4 TH OF THE SAME AMOUNTING TO RS. 80,044/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 56 ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS MAINLY SU BMITTED THAT CASH IN CASE OF PPI WAS TAKEN AT RS. 1,22,393/- AS PER THE BOOKS BUT ACTUAL CASH WAS RS. 1,43,193/- BECAUSE CERTAIN SALE BILLS AMOUNTING TO RS. 20,800/- WERE NOT ENTERED IN THE B OOKS (COPY OF SUCH BILLS WAS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM). IN THIS REGAR D REFERENCE WAS ALSO MADE TO ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 5 BY SHRI SUBHA SH DHINGRA, ACCOUNTANT OF PPI WHICH IS AS UNDER: QUESTION - AS PER CASH BOOK YOU ARE HAVING CASH BA LANCE OF RS. 1,22,393/- BUT NO CASH IS FOUND TODAY DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE FACTORY PREMISES, PLEASE EXPLAIN. ANSWER THIS CASE MUST BE WITH SHRI KEWAL GARG AND SHRI NARSH GARG. I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE CAE BALANCE. I T IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE SALE OF RS. 20,800/- WAS MADE IN CA SE WHICH IS YET TO BE ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SIMILARLY IN CASE OF AWI ALSO SALES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 80,200/- WERE NOT ENTERED. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT CASH IN CASE OF NARESH GARG (HUF), PARVEEN GARG (HUF) WAS NOT CONSI DERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THESE ENTITIES WERE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PLYING OF TRUCKS. IF ALL THESE THINGS WERE CONS IDERED, THE WHOLE CASH WILL STAND EXPLAINED. 57 THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISS IONS AND DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 7. 2 WHICH IS AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED ASSESSEE SUBMISSION AND IMPUGNED ORDER. TO SUPPORT HIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW FURNISHED COPIES OF CASH BOOK OF M/S PUNJAB PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES; AGGARWAL WOOD INDUSTRIES, COPIES OF STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF THE A SSESSEE AND HIS BROTHERS AND RECONCILIATION AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4] OF THE SHRI SUBHASH DHINGRA ACCOUNTANT OF M/S PUNJAB PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES. THE STATEMENT OF THE ACCOUNTANT HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO, BUT THE ADMITTED FACT (Q. NO 10) IS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT UPTO DATE VIZ. SALES ARE ENTERED UPTO 2/3/2007: REGISTER OF FINISHED GOO DS(RG-L) TILL 12.3.2007 WHEN THE DATE OF SEARCH IS 20.3.2007. THUS THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE COPY OF CASH BOOK AND STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS CANNOT BE GIVEN CREDENCE TO. IT IS ALSO NOT UNDERSTOOD WHY THESE D OCUMENTS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. I FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS CONSIDERED THE S TATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHERS WHILE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT OUT OF RS.5,73,920/-, AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,53,744/- BEING CASH OF THE 15 CONCERNED FIRMS WAS EXPLAINED. HE ADDED BACK THE B ALANCE WHICH HE BIFURCATED EQUALLY WITH THE OTHER BROTHERS FOR MAKING THE ADDITIONS. CONSIDERI NG THE MATERIAL BEFORE ME, 1 HAVE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE ADDITION O F RS. 80.044/- IS CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 58 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITE RATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE ALSO RE FERRED TO PG 27 OF PAPER BOOK WHICH IS A COPY OF THE CASH BALANCE O F VARIOUS ENTITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT TOTAL OF CASH AVAILABLE AS PER THIS DETAIL WAS RS. 6,48,732/- WHICH IS MORE THAN ACTUAL CASH F OUND DURING SEARCH. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF ACCOU NTANT, SUBHASH DHINGRA WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 32 TO 34. HE INVIT ED OUR ATTENTION TO ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 5. SOME CASH MAY BELONG TO THE LADIES WHICH IS GENERALLY KEPT AS PIN MONEY. 59 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ST RONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 60 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT DETAILS OF CASH FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER PG 27 OF PAPER BOOK READS AS UNDER: S NO NAME OF IDENTITY AMOUNT IN RUPEES 1 2 3 4 5 PUNJAB PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES AGGARWAL WOOD INDUSTRIES PUNJAB TIMBER TRADING CO. PARVEEN GARG (HUF) NARESH GARG (HUF) 143193.00 149552.00 91987.00 130000.00 134000.00 TOTAL 648732.00 IN ADDITION TO ABOVE, SOME CASH MAY BE AVAILABLE WI TH THE LADIES OF THE HOUSE. SINCE SOURCES OF MORE CASH THAN ACTUALLY FOUND WERE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN REBUT TED BY THE REVENUE, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING AN ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH. 61 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 949/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 950/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 62 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUND: 16 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 63 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATE D IN CASE OF ASSESSEES BROTHER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN I TA NO. 943/CHD/2013, SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTEN TIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR OR DER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 64 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 950/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 951/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 65 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 2 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.25,050/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY FOR PURCHASE OF 1/4 TH SHARE IN LAND AT 75-76, MADHU COLONY, YAMUNANAGAR AS UNEXPLAINED. 66 GROUND NO. 1 - THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE IS SUE ADJUDICATED IN CASE OF ASSESSEES BROTHER FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS A S WELL AS THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE ARE SAME, THEREFORE , FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HA S BEEN DECIDED VIDE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 67 GROUND NO. 2 - AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES W E FIND THAT THE ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN ASSESSEES BROTH ERS CASE IN ITA NO. 944/CHD/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. FACTS AND CONTENTIONS IN RESPECT OF THIS ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 IN THAT YEAR. THEREFORE, F OLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 944/CHD/2013 WHEREIN WE HAVE DECIDED THI S ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF AGAINST VIDE PARA 22, WE DECIDE THIS ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 68 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 951/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 952/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 17 69 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 2 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.38,187/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY FOR PURCHAE OF 1/4 TH SHARE IN LAND AT H NO. 90B, MODEL TOWN, YAMUNANAGAR AS UNEXPLAINED. 3 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.27,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED RENT FROM H NO. 75/76, MADHU COLONY, YAMUNANAGAR. 70 GROUND NO. 1 - THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE IS SUE ADJUDICATED IN CASE OF ASSESSEES BROTHER FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS A S WELL AS THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFOR E, FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HA S BEEN DECIDED VIDE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 71 GROUND NO. 2 - AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES W E FIND THAT THE FACTS REGARDING THIS ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL TO ASSESSE ES BROTHER, KEWAL GARG IN ITA NO. 945/CHD/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003-04. FACTS AND CONTENTIONS IN RESPECT OF THIS ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND CONTENTIONS IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 2 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 945/CHD/2013, THEREFORE, F OLLOWING THAT ORDER WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PR. 30, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE. 72. GROUND NO. 3 - AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT THE FACTS IN THIS ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE F ACTS OF ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE, KEWAL GARG IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04. FACTS AND CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES REMAIN SAME, THEREF ORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN CASE OF KEWAL GARG FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 945/CHD/2013 WHEREIN TYIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RE MITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA NO. 36, W E REMIT THIS CASE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH SAME DIRECTIO NS. 73. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 952/CHD/2013 IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ITA NO. 953/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 18 74 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUND: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 75 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATE D IN CASE OF ASSESSEES BROTHER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN I TA NO. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTE NTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORD ER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 76 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 953/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 954/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 77 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUND: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 78 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATE D IN CASE OF ASSESSEES BROTHER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN I TA NO. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTE NTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORD ER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 79 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 954/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 955/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 80 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUND: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 81 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATE D IN CASE OF ASSESSEES BROTHER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN I TA NO. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTE NTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORD ER IN ITA NO. 19 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 82 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 955/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 956/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 83 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 2 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACT S IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,19,098/- OUT OF JEWELLERY SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF ASSESSEE AND TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 3 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 80,044/- ON ACCOU NT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH. 82 GROUND NO. 1 - THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE IS SUE ADJUDICATED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL A S THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE ARE SAME, THEREFORE , FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HA S BEEN DECIDED VIDE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 83 GROUND NO. 2 - AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES W E FIND THAT IN THIS CASE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN CASE OF KEWAL GARG FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT I N THIS CASE JEWELLERY FOUND WAS 567.300GMS. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 519,098/- WHICH WAS REDUCED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) TO RS. 219098/-. THE FACTS AND CONTENTIONS IN THIS CA SE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF GROUND NO. 2 IN CASE OF KEWAL GARG FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 949/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PR NO. 54, PARTICULARLY THE JEWELLERY STILL REMAIN BELOW THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE CBDT, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 84 GROUND NO. 3 - FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN CASE OF KEWAL GARG FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08. THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IDENTICAL TO GR OUND NO. 3 IN ITA NO. 949/CHD/2013. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORDER I N ITA NO. 20 949/CHD/2013 IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 3 WHEREIN THI S ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VIDE PR NO. 60 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE. WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 85 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 956/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 957/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 86 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUND: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 87 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATE D IN ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA N O. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTE NTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORD ER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 88 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 957/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 958/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 89 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUND: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 2 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.25,375/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY FOR PURCHASE OF 1/4 TH SHARE IN LAND AT 75-76, MADHU COLONY, YAMUNANAGAR AS UNEXPLAINED. 90 GROUND NO. 1 - THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATED IN ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS A S WELL AS THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE ARE SAME, THEREFORE , FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HA S BEEN DECIDED VIDE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 91 GROUND NO. 2 - THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE IS SUE ADJUDICATED IN ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 03-04 IN ITA NO. 944/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS CONT ENTIONS OF BOTH 21 THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORD ER IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 2 IN ITA NO. 944/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS I SSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VIDE PARA 22 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 92 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 958/CHD/2013 IS PARTLY AL LOWED. ITA NO. 959/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 93 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUND: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 2 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.27,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED RENT FROM H NO. 75-76, MADHU COLONY, YAMUNANAGAR. 94 GROUND NO. 1 - THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATED IN ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS A S WELL AS THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE ARE SAME, THEREFORE , FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HA S BEEN DECIDED VIDE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 95 GROUND NO. 2 - THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE IS SUE ADJUDICATED IN ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE SHRI KEWAL GARG IN RES PECT OF GROUND NO. 3 IN ITA NO. 945/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFORE , FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 945/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HA S BEEN DECIDED VIDE PARA 36 AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO THE FIL E OF ASSESSING OFFICER. FOLLOWING THE SAME WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. 96 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 959/CHD/2013 IS PARTLY AL LOWED. ITA NO. 960/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 97 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 22 98 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATE D IN ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA N O. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTE NTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR OR DER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 99 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 960/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 961/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 100. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUND: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 101. THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICA TED IN ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA N O. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTE NTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR OR DER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 102. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 961/CHD/2013 IS ALLOW ED. ITA NO. 962/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 103. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUND: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 104 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICAT ED IN ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA N O. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTE NTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORD ER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 105 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 962/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 963/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 23 106 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUND: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 2 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,14,662/- OUT OF JEWE LLERY SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF ASSESSEE AND TREATING THE SAM E AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 3 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS 80,044/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH. 107 GROUND NO. 1 - THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL A S THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE ARE SAME, THEREFORE , FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HA S BEEN DECIDED VIDE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 108 GROUND NO. 2 - THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE I SSUE IN GROUND NO. 2 IN ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE SHRI KEWAL GARG IN ITA NO. 949/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS CONTENTI ONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 949/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA 54. FOLLOWING THE SAME WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE. 109 GROUND NO. 3 - THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE I SSUE IN CASE OF ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE IN GROUND NOL. 3 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2007-08. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS CONTENTIONS O F BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 944/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VIDE PARA 60. FOLLOWING THE SAME WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . 110 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 963/CHD/2013 IS ALLOW ED. ITA NO. 940/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 111 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 1. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FAC TS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN. 24 2. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACT S IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.6,400/- RECEIVED AS IN COME TAX REFUND FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. 112 GROUND NO. 1 & 2 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTI ES WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS N OTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A FRESH LOAN OF RS. 50 ,000 TO PPI ON 12.6.2001 AND RS. 6400 TO AWI ON 25.5.2001. SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT PRODUCED, THERE FORE, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO SOURCE FO R GIVING THIS LOAN AND THEREFORE, THESE ADVANCES WER E ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 113 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS MAINLY SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN RS. 50,000 AS INTEREST FREE LOAN FROM PARVEEN GARG THROUGH CHEQUE NO. 371559 ON 12.6.2001 AND THIS MONEY WAS INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTH ER IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT PARVEEN GARG HAS WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS. 70,000 FROM HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT WITH AWI AND A SUM OF RS. 50,000 WAS GIVEN OUT OF THIS AMOUNT. AS FAR AS SUM OF RS. 6400/- IS CONCERNED, THE SAME WAS GIVEN OUT OF SB ACCOUNT NO. 1420999 IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (PNB) W HICH HAS COME OUT OF INCOME TAX RETURNS. 114 THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THERE WAS SOME CONTRADICTIONS BECAUSE IT WAS STATED THAT PARVEEN G ARG HAS WITHDRAWN THE SUM ON 13.6.2001 FROM HIS FIRM THEN H OW HE COULD GIVEN THE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE ON 12.6.2001 . IN THIS BACKGROUND THE CONTENTIONS WERE REJECTED AND A DDITION WAS CONFIRMED. 115 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CONFIRMATION OF PARVEEN GARG WAS ALSO FILED. ON ENQUIRY BY THE BENCH HE ADMITTED TH AT THE BANK STATEMENT COULD NOT BE OBTAINED BECAUSE THE BA NK HAS CHANGED THE SOFTWARE AND IN THIS REGARD HE REFE RRED TO A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BANK (COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PG 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK). HE SUBMITTED THAT CHEQUE WAS ISSUED ON 13.6.2001 BY THE AWI TO PARVEEN GARG AND HE 25 ISSUED A CHEQUE ONE DAY EARLIER BECAUSE HE KNEW THA T THE MONEY WAS GOING TO COME IN HIS ACCOUNT ON THE NEXT DAY. 116 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 117 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. NO DOUBT THE BANK HAS ISSUED A CERTIFICA TE THAT BANK HAS CHANGED ITS SOFTWARE TO FINACLE SYSTEM FRO M 16.2.2004 AND THEREFORE, EARLIER STATEMENT COULD N OT BE ISSUED BUT STILL IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND H OW THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO GIVE LOAN TO PPI ON 12.6.2001 WHEN SHE HERSELF HAS OBTAINED LOAN ON 13.6.2001. SIMILA RLY NO EVIDENCE IS THERE IN RESPECT OF A SUM OF RS. 6400/ - EITHER IN THE FIRM ON BANK STATEMENT OR INTIMATION SHOWING REFUND OF INCOME TAX. THEREFORE, WE FIND NOTHING WRONG W ITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE SAME. 118 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 940/CHD/2013 IS DISMISSE D. ITA NO. 941/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 119 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUND: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN FROM SHRI PARVEEN GARG THROUG H ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. 120 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DUR ING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A LOAN OF RS. 2,50,000/- TO PPI. SINCE NO EX PLANATION WAS GIVEN FOR THE SAME THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. 121 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LOAN WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHE QUE NO. 593063 ON 20.9.2001 VIDE CHEQUE DRAWN ON PNB. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN TURN HAS TAKEN THIS MONEY AS LOAN FROM PARVEEN GARG WHO HAPPENS TO BE 26 THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI KEWAL GARGS BROTH ER. PARVEEN GARG HAD IN TURN WITHDRAWN THIS MONEY FROM HIS ACCOUNT WITH AWI. 122 THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THIS ISSUE VIDE PARA 5 W HICH IS AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER. A LOAN OF RS. 2,50,000 IS STATED G IVEN TO ONE OF CONCERN OF THE FAMILY M/S PPI. NO BANK ACCOUNT WAS FURNISHED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS A HOME MAKER HAVING NO BUSINESS/PROFESS IONAL ACTIVITY AND PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITION IN THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IN APPEAL IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT INTE REST FREE LOAN WAS GIVEN BY SHRI PARVEEN GARG WHO WITHDREW RS . 3,00,000 FROM AWI WHERE HE IS A PARTNER, ON 20.9.20 01 AND OUT OF IT GAVE RS. 2,50,000 TO ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE D ARTED 20.9.2001 WHO IN TURN VIDE CHEQUE DATED 20.9.2001 I NVESTED RS. 2,50,000/- IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM PPI. IN OTHER WORDS, A PARTNER OF AWI WITHDRAWS FROM HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT TO HAVE RS. 2,50,000 RE-ROUTED THROUGH A LA DY MEMBER OF THE FAMILY TO ANOTHER FAMILY FIRM. THE E XPLANATION IS TOO FARFETCHED. IT IS MERELY A PLOY. NO CREDEN CE CAN BE GIVEN. I AM AFRAID THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, I HAVE NO REASON TO INTERFER E WITH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 123 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REIT ERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND REFERRED TO VARIOUS DOCUMENTS IN THE PAPER BOOK. 124 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 125 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT PERUSAL OF ACCOUNT OF PARVEEN GARG IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF AWI SHOWS THAT HE HAS WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS. 3 L AKHS ON 20.9.2001 WHICH IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN HIS ACCOUNT WITH PNB FOR WHICH STATEMENT IS NOT AVAILAB LE BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE OF SOFTWARE, THEREFORE, ONLY ASSUMPTION IS THAT MONEY MUST HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN B Y HIM FROM HIS ACCOUNT WITH AWI AND CAME TO SMT. NEENA GA RG I.E. THE ASSESSEE. THIS FACT CAN NOT BE CONFIRMED IN THE ABSENCE OF BANK STATEMENT BUT AT THE SAME TIME EVEN REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO S HOW THAT THIS MONEY HAS BEEN USED SOMEWHERE ELSE. SINC E THE SOURCE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) AND DELETE THIS ADDITION. 27 126 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 941/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED . ITA NO. 964/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 127 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUND: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 128 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICAT ED IN ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA N O. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTE NTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR OR DER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 129 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 964/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 965/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 130 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 2 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACT S IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.25,375/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY FOR PURCHAE OF 1/4 TH SHARE IN LAND AT 75-76, MADHU COLONY, YAMUNANAGAR AS UNEXPLAINED. 131 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICAT ED IN ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA N O. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTE NTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR OR DER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 132 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATE D IN ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA N O. 944/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS CONTENTI ONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORDER I N RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 2 IN ITA NO. 944/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS I SSUE HAS BEEN 28 DECIDED VIDE PARA 22 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 133 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 965/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 966/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 134 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUND: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 2 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACT S IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.27,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED RENT FROM H NO. 75/76, MADHU COLONY, YAMUNANAGAR. 135 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICAT ED IN ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA N O. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTE NTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR OR DER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 136 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATE D IN ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE SHRI KEWAL GARG IN RESPECT OF GROUN D NO. 3 IN ITA NO. 945/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS CONT ENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORD ER IN ITA NO. 945/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA 36 AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER. FOLLOWING THE SAME WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. 137 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 966/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 967/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 138 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUND: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 2 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACT S IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,03,500/- ON ACCOU NT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT MOUJA TEJLI, YAMUNANAGAR. 29 139 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICAT ED IN ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA N O. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTE NTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORD ER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 140 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DUR ING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS I NVESTED A SUM OF RS. 1,03,500/- IN PURCHASE OF LAND AT MAUJA TEJL I, YAMUNANAGAR WHICH INCLUDED STAMP DUTY. SINCE THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND ALSO SOURCES WERE NOT EXPLA INED, THEREFORE, THIS AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 141 ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT THIS MONEY WAS TAKEN FROM S/SHRI PARVEEN GARG, NARESH GA RG AND KEWAL GARG WHO HAS RECEIVED RENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 7,000 EACH FROM 1.1.2003. THIS AMOUNT WOULD COME TO RS. 99,00 0 TILL THE PURCHASE OF LAND ON 20.2.2004. 142 THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE VIDE PARA 7 WH ICH READS AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF ETH ASSESSEE AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IS NOT IN DISPUTE. ONLY THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WHICH ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN. THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY MAINTAINED THAT NO SUCH EXPENSES WERE REFLECTED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT NOR THE BANK STATEMENT. THEREF ORE, THE EXPLANATION NOW THAT THE SOURCE WAS FROM THE RENT RECEIVED BY T HE OTHER BROTHERS OF RS. 27,000 WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED AS AGREED ADDITION AND CONFIRMED IN APPEAL AS DEEMED RENT IN THE HANDS OF THE BROTHERS, IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THIS IS MERELY A SELF SERVING EXPLANATION AND HAS N OT MERIT. THERE WAS NO REASON WHY THE SAME EXPLANATION COULD NOT HAVE B EEN PUT FORTH TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS CONSIDERING THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION AS UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE OF P ROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE IS UPHELD. THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS GR OUND. 143 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REIT ERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 144 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A). 145 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND NO FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. FIRSTLY THE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. SECONDLY RENT WAS NOT OFFERED VOLUNTARILY AND IT WA S ASSESSED BY 30 THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS DEEMED RENT WHICH MEANS T HE AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT BE LET OUT AND THERE IS NO ACTUAL RECEIPT OF RENT. IN ANY CASE NO DETAILS FROM WHOM RENT HAS BE EN RECEIVED HAVE BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE S OURCE OF THIS PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED. ACCORDIN GLY WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE SAME. 146 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 967/CHD/2013 IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ITA NO. 968/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL 147 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWIN G GROUND: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 40,000 ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS . 148 THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATED I N ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA N O. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE CONTE NTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORD ER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 149 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 968/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 969/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED . 150 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 40,000 ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS . THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 80,044/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH. 151 GROUND NO. 1 - THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ADJUDICATED IN ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 01-02 IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE C ONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OU R ORDER IN ITA NO. 943/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA NO. 7, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 152 GROUND NO. 2 -` THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE IN CASE OF ASSESSEES BROTHERS CASE IN GROUND NO. 3 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS CONTENTI ONS OF BOTH THE 31 PARTIES ARE SAME, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 944/CHD/2013 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VI DE PARA 60. FOLLOWING THE SAME WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE. 153 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 969/CHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 942/CHD/2013 ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED . 154 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 50,000 ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS . THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INV ESTMENT WITH M/S AKHSHEY TIMBER TRADERS. 155 GROUND NO. 1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 50,000/- IN AWI FOR WHI CH NO SOURCE WAS GIVEN AND THEREFORE, THE SUM WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 156 ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS MAINLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN INTEREST FROM LOAN FROM PARV EEN GARG ON 20.9.2001 VIDE CHEQUE NO. 371562 AND IN THIS CONNEC TION CONFIRMATION OF PARVEEN GARG WAS ALSO FILED. 157 THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND NO FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION S AND DISMISSED THIS ISSUE VIDE PARA 6 WHICH IS AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT IS THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CASE THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT HAD NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF APPEAL HAS EXPLAINED THAT OF THE RS. 75,000/- THE AMOUNT OF RS. 50,000/- WAS INTEREST FREE LOAN T AKEN FROM PARVEEN GARG. CONFIRMATION LETTER ALONG WITH COPY OF CAPI TAL ACCOUNT WAS FILED. AS REGARDS RS. 25,000/- THE SAME WAS STATED TO BE A WITHDRAWAL FROM ANOTHER FAMILY CONCERN. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT CLEAR A S TO WHY THE CONFIRMATION, THE COPIES OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUN TS WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE INA BILITY TO FURNISH COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS THE ASSESSEE HASGIVEN LEL TTERS DATED 22.6.2013 BOTH FROM PNB MAIN BRANCH, YAMUNANAGAR ST ATING THAT RECORDS WERE MAINTAIN ONLY FOR 10 YEARS AT BRANCH L EVEL SO THE REQUIRED STATEMENTS COULD NOT BE PROVIDED. 158 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REIT ERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO REF ERRED TO THE CONFIRMATION BY PARVEEN GARG AND COPY OF ACCOUNT OF PARVEEN GARG WAS FILED. 32 159 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 160 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT THE STATEMENT OF SAVING BANK ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSES SEE DOES NOT REFLECT THE ENTRY OF RS. 50,000/- AND THEREFORE, I T IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED LOAN FROM PA RVEEN GARG. THEREFORE, WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE SAME. 161 GROUND NO. 2 -` AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 25,000/- TO ST ART THE BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF AKHSHEY TIMBER TRADERS (ATT ). AS THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WAS NOT EXPLAINED, THIS AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 162 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT INV ESTMENT OF RS. 25,000/- WAS MADE BY WITHDRAWING A SUM OF RS. 20,00 0/- FROM HIS DEPOSIT ACCOUNT WITH KEWAL GARG (HUF) BY CHEQUE NO. 381902 ON 27.3.2002. THESE FUNDS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE SAVIN G BANK ACCOUNT WITH PNB FROM WHERE THE AMOUNT WAS INTRODUCED IN TH E NEW BUSINESS KNOWN AS ATT. 163 THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMIS SIONS AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 164 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REIT ERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO REF ERRED TO BANK ACCOUNT (COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT FILED). 165 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY. FIRST OF ALL IT IS VERY SURPRISING HOW THE BANK STATEMENT WAS OBTAI NED IN THIS CASE WHEN IN ALL OTHER CASES, IT WAS STATED THAT BANK ST ATEMENT IS NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN SOFTWARE. SECO NDLY THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION FROM KEWAL GARG (HUF) TO SHOW THAT THE MONEY HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THAT ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, WE A RE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF TH E ASSESSEE AND CONFIRM THIS ADDITION. 166 IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 942/CHD/2013 IS DISMISSE D. 33 167 IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OFF A S UNDER: SL NO ITA NO RESULT 1 943/CHD/2013 PARTLY ALLOWED 2 944/CHD/2013 ALLOWED 3 945/CHD/2013 PARTLY ALLOWED 4 TO 9 946/CHD/2013 TO 951/CHD/2013 ALLOWED 10 952/CHD/2013 PARTLY ALLOWED 11 TO 15 953/CHD/2013 TO 957/CHD/2013 ALLOWED 16 & 17 958/CHD/2013 & 959/CHD/2013 PARTLY ALLOWED 18 TO 21 960/CHD/2013 TO 963/CHD/2013 ALLOWED 22 940/CHD/2013 DISMISSED 23 TO 26 941/CHD/2013 TO 966/CHD/2013 ALLOWED 27 967/CHD/2013 PARTLY ALLOWED 28 & 29 968/CHD/2013 & 969/CHD/2013 ALLOWED 30 942/CHD/2013 DISMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/12/2013. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 31 ST DECEMBER 2013 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR.