Gulshan Kumar Vijjan, Jabalpur V. ACIT, Jabalpur

ITSSA 1/JAB/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1016 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHISHEK SHUKLA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Search and seizure; Document seized; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 40A(3); 132

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A, A.M. PAN NO. : ADIPG6385R I.T(SS).A.NOS. 01/JAB/2011 B.P.: 23.02.2001 SHRI GULSHAN KUMAR VIJJAN, DAIRY OWNER, 18, ADARSH NAGAR, JABALPUR. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(10, JABALPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUMIT NEMA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ABHISHEK SHUKLA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 18 .09 .2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 2 . 10 .2013 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DATED 1.2.2011 FOR THE BLOCK P ERIOD ENDING ON 23.2.2001 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 158BC/143(3)/254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE : - 2 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLATE ORDER ARE ILLEGAL, VOID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT J USTIFIED EITHER IN LAW OR ON FACTS IN UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FROM DAIRY BUSINESS AND ALSO ASSESSMENT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES SINCE THE SAID ASSESSMENT IS CONTRARY TO THE SCHEME OF TAXATION PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 158BB. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTI FIED EITHER IN LAW OR ON FACT IN NOT GIVING CREDIT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS CLAIMED AT RS. 5,09,000/- BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NO T JUSTIFIED EITHER IN LAW OR ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 1,58,229/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT TO BE THE SAVINGS AND GIFTS OF THE APPELLANT'S WIFE OF 10 YEARS. 5. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NO T JUSTIFIED EITHER IN LAW OR ON FACTS IN ACCEPTING THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 39,225/- DEPOSITED ON VARIOUS DATES WAS IN RESPECT OF THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT'S 3 MINOR DAUGHTER. 6. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NO T JUSTIFIED EITHER IN LAW OR ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN FROM APPELLANT'S BROTHER SURENDRA DODI. 7 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NO T JUSTIFIED EITHER IN LAW OR ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. L,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN FROM JASBIR SINGH ANAND. 8. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NO T JUSTIFIED EITHER IN LAW OR ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. 9. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED EITHER OR ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING OF INVESTMENTS IN PURCHASE OF HOUSE PROPERTY. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS IN DAIRY BUSINESS. THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS U /S 132 OF THE I.T. ACT WERE CONDUCTED ON 23.02.2001 AND 24.02.20 01. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PERTAININ G TO THE ASSESSEE, SHRI GULSHAN KUMAR VIJJAN, WERE FOUND BUT IT WAS FOUND THAT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE OWNED 52 MILK 4 BUFFALOS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCO ME ONLY FOR THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS VIZ. 1991-92, 1992-93 & 1993-94. NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT PERIO D. IN THE RETURNS FILED FOR THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSES SEE HAD SHOWN THAT HE WAS OWNER OF 50 BUFFALOS AND INCOME FROM DA IRY BUSINESS WAS SHOWN AT RS. 25,000/-, RS. 30,000/- AND RS. 30, 000/- FOR A.YS. 1991-92, 1992-93 & 1993-94 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 5,000/- IN EA CH ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC WAS COMPLETED ON TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 38,27, 349/- FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ENDING ON 23.02.2001. IN APPEAL, THE L D. CIT (A) VIDE HIS ORDER IN APPEAL NO. CIT (A)-II/JBP/JCIT-R- 2/JB P/3/03-04 DATED 08.11.2006 REDUCED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO RS. 29,96,245/-. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THE HON'BLE ITAT VIDE ORDER IN IT A NO. IT(SS) 05/JAB/2007 DATED 30.05.2008 SET ASIDE THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING SUCH MATERIAL AND THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT, 5 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED FRESH NOTICES U/S 143( 2). THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED WRITTEN REPLY ALONGWITH CASH FLO W STATEMENTS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC ON 31.12.2006 DETERMINING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD AT RS. 30,04,245/-, WHICH CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER :- A.Y. UNDISCLOSED INCOME 1991-92 INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY 100000 PURCHASE OF SCOOTERS 24000 HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES 30000 154000 LESS: INCOME FROM DIARY AS SHOWN (AS UPHELD BY CIT(A) 25000 UNDISCLOSED INCOME 129000 129000 1992-93 UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS 83378 HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 36000 119378 LESS : INCOME FROM DIARY BUSINESS AS SHOWN 30000 UNDISCLOSED INCOME 89378 89378 1993-94 UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS 36000 HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 42000 78000 LESS : INCOME FROM DIARY BUSINESS 30000 6 AS SHOWN UNDISCLOSED INCOME 48000 48000 1994-95 (I)UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN BANK SB A/C. NO. 6726 47000 (II)UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN BANK SB A/C. NO. 921 82000 (III)UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY 11,75,000 (IV)HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 48000 13,52,00 0 LESS: INCOME FROM DIARY BUSINESS 1,09,800 UNDISCLOSED INCOME 12,42,50 0 12,42,500 1995-96 TOTAL INVESTMENT & DEPOSITS 259000 HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 54000 313000 LESS: INCOME FROM DIARY BUSINESS 121670 LESS: INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE 24000 145670 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT 167330 ADD: INCOME FROM DIARY BUSINESS AS NO RETURN WAS FILED 121670 UNDISCLOSED INCOME 289000 289000 1996-97 TOTAL INVESTMENT & DEPOSIT 550591 7 HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 60000 610591 LESS: INCOME FROM DIARY BUSINESS 133835 LESS: INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE 50000 LESS: LOAN FROM BROTHER 200000 383835 UNEXPLAINED VESTMENT/ DEPOSITS 226756 ADD: INCOME FROM DIARY BUSINESS 133835 UNDISCLOSED INCOME 360591 360591 1997-98 UNDISCLOSED INCOME: INCOME FROM DIARY BUSINESS 146000 1998-99 UNDISCLOSED INCOME : INCOME FROM DIARY BUSINESS 158200 1999-00 UNDISCLOSED INCOME : INCOME FROM DIARY BUSINESS 170350 2000-01 INCOME FROM DIARY BUSINESS 182500 INCOME FROM INTEREST 5726 188226 188226 01.04.01 TO 23.02.02 INCOME FROM DIARY BUSINESS 155000 INCOME FROM INTEREST 28000 183000 183000 T OTAL 3004245 4. FOR WORKING OUT UNDISCLOSED INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM DIARY BUSINES S AND INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS IN EACH OF THE PREVIOU S YEARS FALLING WITHIN THE BLOCK PERIOD. HE HAS ALSO ESTIMATED DRAW INGS FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION INV ESTMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR. THE INVESTMENT WHICH WAS NOT COVERED BY 8 THE INCOME AVAILABLE AFTER MEETING HOUSEHOLD EXPENS ES WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, UND ISCLOSED INCOME OF EACH PREVIOUS YEAR WAS WORKED OUT AS THE INVESTMENT WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND INCOME FROM DIARY BU SINESS AND INTEREST INCOME IN THE YEAR WHERE NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, ADDITION OF RS. 5,09,000/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCO ME. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCOME DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD AT RS. 8,04,000/- WHEREAS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 2,95,000/- ONLY I.E. LESS BY RS. 5,09,000/ (RS. 8,04,000 - RS. 2,95,000). CONTENTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT IN A.YS. 1991-92, 199293 AND 1993- 94, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN IN REGULAR RETURNS AT RS. 5,000/- FOR EACH YEAR AND, THEREFORE, THE RETURNED INCOME H AS NECESSARILY TO BE TAKEN AS SUCH WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BB. SIMILARLY, IN A.Y. 199 4-95 ALSO, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS TAKEN AT RS. 5,000/- ON THE BASIS OF EARLIER YEARS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN A.Y. 1995-9 6 THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUIRED 9 HECTARES LAND (22.55 ACRES) AND, THE REFORE, FROM AY. 1995-96 TO AY. 2001-02 I.E. FOR SEVEN YEARS, AG RICULTURAL 9 INCOME @ RS. 4,977/- PER ACRE PER ANNUM CLAIMED AT RS. 1,12,000/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED WHICH AGGREGAT ES TO RS. 7,84,000/-. THUS, THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME AVA ILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMED AT RS. 8,04,000/- (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1991- 92 TO 1994-95; RS. 20,000 + FROM A.YS. 1995-96 TO 2001-02; RS. 7,84,000 ). 6. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND RECORDS PERUSED. FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THE APPELLA NT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE APPELLANT OWN ED ABOUT 22.55 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND RS. 5,000/- PE R ACRE PER ANNUM WOULD BE THE INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING O FFICER NOTICED THAT LAND OF ABOUT 4 ACRES WAS PURCHASED AT THE FAG END OF THE YEAR AND, MOREOVER, IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ADOPTED HIMSELF THE AGRICULTU RAL INCOME IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FURNISHED AT RS. 24,000/- O NLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE FIGU RE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 24,000/- FOR A Y. 1995-9 6. IN RESPECT OF SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM A.YS. 1996-97 T O 2000-01, 10 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL IN COME AT RS. 50,000/- PER ANNUM AND FOR THE BALANCE PERIOD UP TO 23.02.2001, HE ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 45,000/-. 8. IT APPEARS THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR T HE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR ESTIMATING T HE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT A LOWER FIGURES AS COMPARED TO INCOME OFF ERED BY ASSESSEE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE NATURE OF AGRICULTURA L LAND VIS--VIS CROPS PRODUCED THEREON, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO TAKE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 40,000/- IN THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 1995-96 AND RS. 70,000/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 6-97 TO 2000-01. FOR THE PERIOD ENDING UP TO 23.2.2001, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO TAKE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 60,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO REWORK OUT AGRICULTURAL INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 9. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED FOR NOT GIVING CREDI T FOR WIFES SAVING AND GIFT OF RS. 1,58,229/- AND MINOR DAUGHTERS GIFT OF RS. 39,225/-. 10. FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS AS THE AMOUNT WAS INVESTED OUT OF GIFTS AND EARNINGS OF THE WIFE OF T HE ASSESSEE :- 11 A.Y. DETAILS OF ASSETS FOUND DURING SEARCH EXPLANATION 1992-93 20378 IN P & S BANK OF WIFE AMOUNT OF WIFE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED HER SAVINGS AND AMOUNT ACCUMULATED OVER THE YEARS SINCE HER MARRIAGE IN 1980. AMOUNT IS VERY SMALL 8000 IN P & S BANK OF WIFE 50000 IN P & S BANK OF WIFE 5000 IN P & S BANK OF WIFE 1993-94 2000 WIFES BANK A/C. WIFES SMALL SAVING 1000 GOLD ORNAMENTS WIFE EARNINGS AND GIFTS 1996-94 38591 FDR IN WIFES NAME WIFE EARNINGS AND GIFTS 10000 KVP WIFE EARNINGS AND GIFTS 2001-02 18580 PURCHASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS WIFE EARNINGS AND GIFTS 4680 PURCHASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS WIFE EARNINGS AND GIFTS TOTAL 158229 1. 2. 11. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FOLLOWING DEPOSIT S WERE OUT OF SMALL GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE DAUGHTER OF THE APPELLANT AT VARIOUS OCCASIONS. A.Y. DETAILS OF ASSETS FOUND DURING SEARCH EXPLANAT ION 1993-94 20000 FDR OF MINOR DAUGHTER GIFT TO DAUGHTER ON LODHI BY RELATIVES AND 12 HENCE FDR MADE IN HER NAME. 1997-98 13499 FDR OF MINOR DAUGHTER OUT OF SMALL GIFTS RECEIVED BY DAUGHTER 2000-01 5726 INTEREST MEMO THIS IS ON FDR OF MINOR DAUGHTER TOTAL 39225 12. CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ABOVE DEPOSITS/INVESTMENT WERE OUT OF WIFES EARNING AND GIFT AS WELL AS OUT OF SMALL GIFTS RECEIVED BY DAUGHTER. IT WAS ALS O CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE OUT OF SAVINGS AND YEAR TO YEAR GIFTS RECEIVED FROM THE RELATIVES AND CLOSE FR IENDS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT ASSESSEES CON TENTION. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS. KEEPING IN V IEW HINDU TRADITION, SMALL GIFTS TO THE WIVES FROM HER INLAWS HOUSE CANNOT BE RULED-OUT. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT SMALL GIFTS IN THE HANDS OF WIFE AS UNDER :- 1992-93 RS. 25,000/- 1993-94 RS. 3,000/- 1996-97 RS. 25,000/- 13 14. WE FOUND THAT AMOUNT WAS NOT FOUND IN CASH AND SA ME WAS DEPOSITED BY WIFE IN FDR TAKEN BY HER OWN NAME AS WELL AS SMALL KVP. GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE ALSO FOUND IN THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GI VE PROPER REBATE OF JEWELLERY OWNED BY WIFE AS PER CBDT CIRCU LAR ACCORDING TO WHICH LADY CAN HOLD 500 GMS. OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. 15. WITH RESPECT TO EXPLANATION FURNISHED FOR THE GIFT RECEIVED BY DAUGHTER, WE FOUND THAT SAME WAS INVESTED IN FDR IN THE NAME OF DAUGHTER. THE AMOUNT WAS FOUND INVESTED APP EARS TO BE REASONABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION TO THE FOLLOWING EXTENT :- 1993-94 RS. 10,000/- 1997-98 RS. 10,000/- 16. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, AN ADDITION OF RS. 5726/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ACCRUED ON S UCH FDRS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CALCULATE INTE REST AS PER GIFT ACCEPTED BY US IN THE HANDS OF WIFE AND DAUGHTER, A ND RESTRICT THE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY. 17. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED FOR ADDITION OF RS. 2 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN FROM BROTHER SHRI SURENDRA DHODI. THE 14 ADDITION SO MADE HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT( A) AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 10.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED RECEIPT OF LOAN OF RS. 2,00,000/- BY WAY OF DRAFT FROM BROTHER, SHRI SURENDRA DHODI, MUMBAI. DURING THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT FILED THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM SHRI SURENDRA DHODI THAT HE HAD GIVEN AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/- ON 13.04.1993 ITSELF. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID CONFIRMATION LETTER THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE LETTER WAS PREPARED AND SIGNED IN THE YEAR 2009 AND NOT IN 1993. THE APPELLANT ALSO NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI SURENDRA DHODI. IT MAY ALS O BE NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IN HIS ORDER DATED 08.11.2006 IN APPEAL AGAINST ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, WHILE CONFIRMING THIS ADDITION, OBSERVED THAT THE D D OF RS. 2,00,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ON 21.06.1995 AND NO CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE 15 APPELLANT THAT OUT OF RS. 10,75,000/-, COST OF THE HOUSE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000/- WAS OUTSTANDING AND PAID SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE SELLER IN 1995, IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN BENEFIT OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI SURENDRA DODHI IN A.Y.2006-07 AS THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT ON 21.06.1995 AND, HENCE, NO BENEFIT CAN BE ALLOWED IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO A. Y.1994- 95. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, IN MY OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000/- INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF H. NO. 18, ADARSH NAGAR REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THEREFORE, NO RELIEF IS ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT ON THIS ACCOUNT. 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY GIVEN BENEFIT OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 2 LAKHS RECEIVED FROM SHRI SURE NDRA DHODI IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR NOT GIVING BENEFIT OF TH IS AMOUNT IN THE 16 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-1995. NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUI RED IN THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AS REPRODUCED HE REINABOVE, RESULTING INTO ADDITION OF RS. 2 LAKHS. 19. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED FOR CONFIRMING THE A DDITION OF RS. 1 LAKH IN RESPECT OF LOAN TAKEN BY SHRI JASB IR SINGH ANAND. 20. CONTENTION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS TH AT THE LOAN WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI JASBIR SINGH ANAND AND CONFIRMATION WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER. ACCORDINGLY, SOURCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1 LAKH IN VESTED IN THE HOUSE WAS STATED TO BE EXPLAINED . BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FOLL OWING OBSERVATIONS :- 11.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND FACTS OF THE CASE. DURING SET-ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS MENTIONED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT PURCHASE PRICE OF H.NO. 18 ADARSH NAGAR WAS ONLY OF RS.4,50,000/-. THIS AMOUNT WAS STATED TO BE ARRANGED AS LOAN OF RS.2,00,000/- FROM BROTHER, SHRI 17 SURENDRA DHODI AND THE BALANCE OF RS.2,00,000/- APPROX. BY SELLING GOLD ORNAMENTS. THUS, THE APPELLANT HAD NOT TAKEN ANY CONTENTION IN THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT A LOAN OF RS.1,00,000/- TAKEN FROM SHRI JASBIR SINGH ANAND WAS UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE. MOREOVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER, IT IS NOTICED THAT SHRI JASBIR SINGH ANAND STATED TO HAVE GIVEN LOAN IN CASH ON 05.06.1993 WHEREAS, HOUSE WAS STATED TO BE PURCHASED ON 15.03.1994. THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI JASBIR SINGH ANAND HAS NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, NO CREDIT FOR RS.1,00,000/CAN BE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT IN THE INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE. HENCE, THIS GROUN D IS REJECTED. 21. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT NOTHING COULD BE PRODUCED BEFORE U S SO AS TO PERSUADE US TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) 18 WITH REGARD TO CREDITWORTHINESS OF JASBIR SINGH. A CCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF CIT(A). 22. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED FOR ADDITION OF RS. 2 LAKHS STATED TO BE OUT OF SALE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. CONTENT ION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE THA T HE HAD SOLD GOLD ORNAMENTS WEIGHING 471 GMS. TO M/S RATAN JEWEL LERS, MAHANANDA, JABALPUR FOR RS. 2,00,000/- WHICH WAS IN VESTED IN THE PURCHASES OF HOUSE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OF FICER SHOULD HAVE TREATED THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000/- AS EXPLA INED OUT OF TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE. 23. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE REJECTING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HE WAS IN POSSESSION OF GOLD ORNAMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF SALE CLAIMED PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF ORNAMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH AND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT WAS DRAWN ON 23.12.2009 DEPOSING THAT HE HAD SOLD 19 471 GMS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS IN THE YEAR 1993-94 FOR RS.2,00,000/- IN CASH. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE PAYMENT OF CASH MORE THAN RS.20,000/- WAS PROHIBITED AS PER SECTION 40A(3) BY ANY DEALER FOR PURCHASES. THEREFORE, THE PRESENT AFFIDAVIT COULD NOT BE GIVEN ANY WEIGHT. ON CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE APPELLANT WAS A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT AND THE APPELLANT HAD NOT ADDUCED ANY OTHER COGENT INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY IN POSSESSION OF GOLD ORNAMENTS TO THAT EXTENT AND HAD SOLD THE SAME FOR RS.2,00,000/-. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 24. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY I NDEPENDENT COGENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY IN POS SESSION OF GOLD ORNAMENTS TO THAT EXTENT AND IT SOLD THE SAME FOR RS. 2 20 LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY, CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ING ADDITION OF RS. 2.00 LACS. 25. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D IN PART. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND OCTOBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 22 ND OCTOBER,2013. CPU* 111810