Shri Khaju Lal Soni, JODHPUR V. ACIT, NAGAUR

ITSSA 15/JODH/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8262 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBHASH CHANDRA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Block assessment
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH JODHPUR. ( BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI N.K. SAINI ) ITSSA NO. 15/JU/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1990-91 TO 2000-01 PAN: BRMPS 3358 B SHRI KHAJU LAL SONI VS. THE ACIT KUCHAMAN CITY CIRCLE- NAGAUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMIT KOTHARI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA DATE OF HEARING : 19.07.2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.07.2012 ORDER DATED : 24/07/2012. PER R.K. GUPTA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(A), JODHPUR DATED 13-08-2008 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 20 00-01. 2.0 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUND NO. 1 TO 3. THEREFORE, THEY ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PR ESSED. 3.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH AND SEI ZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON 07- 12-1999 AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAF TER BLOCK ASSESSMENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91 TO 2000-01 WERE COMPLETED O N AN INCOME OF RS. 21.57,230/- BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN PART. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE AND T HE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE M ATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO PASS AFRESH ORDER AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 2 THEREAFTER, THE FRESH ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 28-12-2007. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) C HALLENGING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES. THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE LEGAL GROUNDS AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN PART. 3.2 AGAINST THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) , NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3.3 THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COPY OF TH E WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THEY WERE EXPLAINED ALSO ON EACH AND EVERY GROUND TAKEN BY TH E ASSESSEE ON MERIT. 3.4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO ANSWERE D. IT WAS ALSO ADDED BY THE LD. CIT DR THAT EACH AND EVERY ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE BY TH E AO ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIALS WHICH HAS BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND WHERE RELIEF WAS ALLOWABLE THE RELIEF HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND WHERE RELIEF WAS NOT ALLOWABLE THEN THOSE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED. 3.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDE RED THEM CAREFULLY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW, WE DECIDE THE GROUNDS ON MERIT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. 4.1 GROUND NO. 4 IS AGAINST SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.10 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 4.2 IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT OUT OF TOTA L CASH FOUND OF RS. 1,40,560/-, A CASH OF RS. 1.10 LACS WAS SEIZED. IT WAS FURTHER EX PLAINED THAT A SUM OF RS. 1.00 LAC WAS RECEIVED FROM ONE SHRI GOVIND SINGH ON ACCOUNT OF M AKING JEWELLERY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT A SUM OF RS. 30,000/- BELONGS TO THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE AND THIS AMOUNT IS 3 OUT OF RECEIPT OF HIS SON FROM STD BOOTH SERVICES. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.10 LACS. 4.3 IN FIRST ROUND, THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDIT ION. HOWEVER, IN RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO REPEATED THE ADDITION AGAIN AND THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMISSIONS FOUND THAT THE AO W AS CORRECT IN MAKING ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.10 LACS. 4.4 WE NOTED THAT NO COMMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN IN RES PECT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) WHO DELETED THIS ADDITION. WE FURTHER NOT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE SHRI GOVIND SINGH IN RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS. HOWEVER, AT THAT TIME, SHRI GOVIND SINGH HAD EXPIRED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT S HRI GOVIND SINGH WAS SERVING IN ARMY AND HIS TWO SONS WERE ALSO IN ARMY. WE THEREFORE, FEEL THAT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.10 LACS CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAME WAS NOT GIVEN BY SHRI GOVIND SINGH AND THERE WAS NO CAPACITY TO GIVE THIS AMOUNT. IN ORIGINAL PROCEEDIN GS, THE CONFIRMATION OF THE AMOUNT WAS FILED AND IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PREPARED THE BALANCE SHEET AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT BUT THEY HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BY OBSERVING THAT THIS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE SAME HAS BEEN PREPARED AF TER THE SEARCH. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IF THE BALANCE SHEET AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT HAD BEEN PREPARED AFTER THE SEARCH BUT THE SAME SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO AND AFTER APPRECIATI NG THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT WHAT ARE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR AND WHAT A RE THE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES THEN ONLY REMAINING AMOUNT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THAT THE SAME IS REASONABLE OR NOT. OUT RIGHTLY REJECTING THE BALANCE SHEET AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT IN OUR VIEW WAS NOT JUSTIFIED LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS R ECEIVED FROM SHRI GOVIND SINGH WHICH WAS NOT FOUND INCORRECT. THEREFORE, IN OUR CO NSIDERED VIEW, THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 1.00 LAC WAS NOT CORRECT AND WE DELETE THIS ADDITIO N. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT RS. 30,000/- BELONGS TO THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS RUNNING STD BOOTH. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AC CEPTED AS IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS NO STD BOOTH RUN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE STATEMENT OF THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RECORDED WHO HAD CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THE SAVINGS OF RS. 30,000/- OUT OF STD BOOTH SERVICES. THEREFORE, FOR THESE REASONS, IN OUR VIEW THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.10 LAS MADE OUT OF TOTAL CASH FOUND OF RS. 1.40 LACS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED . ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION. THUS GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. 5.1 THE GROUND NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CON FIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 4,37,737/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND FDRS IN THE NAME OF VARIOUS DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY OF THE ASSE SSEE. 5.2 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN FDRS AND SHARES IN THE NAME OF VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE F OUND. LIST OF SHARES AND FDRS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE ORDER OF THE AO AS WELL AS IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AT PAGES 13 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- FOUND FROM THE ROOM OF SHYAM SUNDER (SON OF THE A SSESSEE) INVESTMENT IN THE NAME OF DETAILS OF INVESTMENT EXPLANATION SIDDHARTH S/O SHYAM SUNDER FDR UCO BANK NO. 780731 DT. 4.5.99 FOR RS. 25000/- SHOWN IN B/S OF SHYAM SUNDER P.B. 93 KAJU LAL FDR UCO BANK 780733 DT. 4.5.99 FOR RS. 25000/- P.B. 62, B/S OF ASSESSEE. -DO- FDR UCO BANK 780732 DT. 4.5.99 FOR RS. 25000/- -DO- SHYAM SUNDER KVP 38BB910016 DT. 10.11.99 FOR RS. 5000/- P.B. 93 B/S OF SHYAM SUNDER SUMITRA DEVI W/O SHYAM SUNDER KVP 68CC023787 19.11.99 FOR RS. 10000/- OUT OF HER PERSONAL STRIDHAN. SHYAM SUNDER EQUITY SHARES RELIANCE 20 SHARES FOR WS P.B. 6- 5 RS.4500 10 WHERE BONUS SHARES. EXPLANATION OF INVESTMENT FOUND FROM THE ROOM OF KAJULAL INVESTMENT IN THE NAME OF DETAILS OF INVESTMENT EXPLANATION SMT ICHRAJ W/O KAJULAL FDR UCO BANK NO. 513340 DT. 16.6.1997 FOR RS.31610/- RENEWED OUT OF OLD FDR FROM 1992 P.B. 140A. SHE IS HAVING REGULAR RENTAL INCOME, OUT OF WHICH FDR MADE. SHYAM SUNDER FDR UCO BANK 513339 DT. 16.6.1997 FOR RS. 3800/- P.B. 93 (RS. 5211/-) SHOWN IN B/S. ICHRAJ DEVI FDR UCO BANK 513338 DT, 16.6.1997 FOR RS. 77928/- OLD FDR PM 10.5.93 FOR RS. 50000/- P.B. 141A MANJU VERMA FDR MONEY MULTIPLE 20.9.99 FOR RS. 10000/- DAUGHTER BANK A/C 139141 FROM 10.8.93. OUT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT. KALAWATI SONI DAUGHTER OF A TDR NO.937850 DT. 23.12.1995 FOR RS. 13000/- OUT OF HER OWN SAVING. -DO- TDR SBBJ 25633 DT 29-06-98 FOR RS. 44,000/- - DO - KALAWATI SONI & SHYAM DAUGHTER OF A STDR SBBJ 25721 FOR RS. 2000/- BELONGS TO DAUGHTER KALAWATI KAJULAL PROMISSORY NOTE 21-02-1979 FOR RS. 2,000/- SQUARED UP DEBOR A/C P.B. 164* THESE FDRS AND SHARES WERE FOUND IN THE ROOM OF SHR I SHYAM SUNDER, SON OF THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT / BALANCE SHEET EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF THESE FDRS IN THE HA NDS OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE FAMILY. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE B ALANCE SHEET / CASH FLOW STATEMENT AS 6 THE SAME WAS PREPARED AFTER SEARCH. IN HIS VIEW, TH E ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF FDRS AND SHARES PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS AND ACCORDINGLY HE MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 5.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THESE FDRS OR SHARES ARE IN THE NAME OF DIFFER ENT FAMILY MEMBERS AND ARE OF PETTY AMOUNTS. THE FDRS OF RS. 25,000/- WAS DATED 4-05-1999 IN THE NAME OF SIDDHARTH S/O SHRI SHYAM SUNDER, SON OF THE ASSE SSEE. IT IS EXPLAINED THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALAN CE SHEET OF SHRI SHYAM SUNDER AND SHRI SHYAM SUNDER HAS CONFIRM ED THAT THIS FDR PERTAINED TO HIS SOWN AND WAS OBTAINED OUT OF H IS PAST SAVINGS. IN OUR VIEW, THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED OF THIS AMOUNT AS THE SAME PERTAINED TO HIS GRAND SON AND NOT TO HIM. THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT HAS BEEN E XPLAINED BY HIS SON THAT HE WAS RUNNING A STD BOOTH AND OUT OF HIS PAST SAVINGS THIS FDR WAS OBTAINED IN THE NAME OF HIS SON. THERE FORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. ANOTHER FDRS OF RS. 25,000/- EACH DATED 04-05-1999 WERE FOUND IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED THE BALANCE SHEET WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSEE IS A SENIOR CITIZEN AND EARNING SINCE LONG. THEREFORE, IN OUR C ONSIDERED VIEW, THE DOUBTING ON FDRS OF RS. 50,000/- WHICH WAS MADE OUT OF SO 7 MANY YEARS PAST SAVINGS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDIN GLY, WE DELETE THIS ADDITION ALSO. KVPP OF RS. 5,000/- AND RS. 10,000/- DATED 10-11-19 99 AND 19-11-1999 WERE FOUND IN THE NAME OF SHRI SHYAM SUNDER AND HIS WIFE RESPECTIVELY. SHRI SHYAM SUNDER HAS SHOWN KVP IN HIS BALANCE SHEET AND THE COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED IN TH E PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 93. SUMITRA DEVI HAD PURCHASED THE KVP OUT OF HER PERSONAL STRIDHAN AND HER STATEMENT WAS RECORD AND THE SAME WAS ADMITTED BY HER. THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT IS PLACED AT PAGE 172 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THESE TWO ADDIT IONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCOR DINGLY, WE DELETE THESE TWO ADDITIONS. THE SECOND ADDITION OF RS. 4500/ ON ACCOUNT OF EQUI TY SHARES OF RELIANCE IN THE NAME OF SHRI SHYAM SUNDER . IT IS SEEN THAT OUT OF 20 SHARES 10 WERE ON ACCOUNT OF BONUS S HARES AND REMAINING 10 SHARES WERE PURCHASED BY HIS SON OUT O F HIS OWN SOURCE OF RS. 2250/-. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THIS ADDITION IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DELETED. THE NEXT FDR IS RS. 31,610/- PURCHASED ON 16-06-199 7 IN THE NAME OF SMT. ICHRAJ, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT I S SEEN THAT THIS FDRS WAS PURCHASED IN 1992 AND THEREAFTER ON ACCOUN T OF ACCRUAL OF INTEREST, THE FDRS WAS RENEWED YEAR AFTER YEAR A ND AS ON 16-06- 1997, THE SAME WAS ACCUMULATED AT RS. 31,610/-. IT IS STATED THAT 8 WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING REGULAR RENTAL INCOM E OUT OF WHICH THE FDR WAS OBTAINED. THE STATEMENT OF SMT. ICHRAJ, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RECORDED AND COPY OF THE SAME IS PLACED AT PAGE 166 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SHE HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITT ED THAT FDR WAS OBTAINED OUT OF HER PAST SAVINGS AND ITS RENTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME I S DELETED. THE NEXT ITEM IS OF RS. 3800/- DATED 16-06-1997 IN THE NAME OF SHRI SHYAM SUNDER. SHRI SHYAM SUNDER HAS SH OWN THIS FDRS IN HIS BALANCE SHEET. THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PLACED AT PAGE 93 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTI FIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THIS ADDITION ALSO. THE NEXT ITEM OF RS. 77,928/- DATED 16-06-1997 IN T HE NAME OF ICHRAJ DEVI AND THE FDR OF RS. 50,000/- WAS PURCHASED ON 10-05-1993 AND THE SAME WAS RENEWED YEAR AFTER YEAR CCUMULATING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 77,928/- AS ON 16-06-97 WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT IS EXPLAINED THAT ICHRAJ D EVI HAS INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME I.E. RENTAL INCOME AND OUT OF THAT RENTAL INCOME, THIS FDR HAS BEEN OBTAINED. THE STAT EMENT OF ICHRAJ DEVI WAS ALSO RECORDED AND SHE HAS ADMITTED TO HAVE MADE THE INVESTMENT FROM HER OWN SOURCES. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E IS NOT JUST JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THIS ADDITION ALS O. AS IF ANY 9 ADDITION CAN BE MADE THEN THAT CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ICHRAJ DEVI AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RENT AL INCOME EARNED BY ICHRAJ DEVI IS NOT THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE AND NO SUCH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS BENAMI OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY T HE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE, HOLD THAT ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE WIFE AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE. THE NEXT ITEM IS FDRS OF RS. 10,000/- DATED 20-09-1 999. IT IS EXPLAINED THAT THIS FDRS WAS PURCHASED OUT OF WI THDRAWAL FROM BANK ACCOUNT OF DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE . THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT IS PLACED AT PAGES 139 TO 141. THE STATEMENT OF MAN JU VERMA, DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RECORDED WHERE SH E ACCEPTED THAT THIS FDRS BELONGS TO HER. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDE RED VIEW, THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTI FIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THIS ADDITION. THE NEXT ITEM IS TDR OF RS. 13,000/- DATED 23-12-19 95 IN THE NAME OF KALAWATI SONI, DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE . IT IS EXPLAINED THAT KALAWATI SONI HAS PURCHASED THE TDR OUT OF HER PAST SAVINGS AND HER STATEMENT WAS RECORDED BY WHICH SHE CATEGOR ICALLY ADMITTED THE SHE HAS PURCHASED THE TDR FROM HER OWN SOURCES. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ARE TDRS OF RS. 5,000/- AND RS. 44,000/- IN ICHARAJ DEVI ACCOUNT. THESE TDRS WERE P URCHASED OUT 10 OF HER RENTAL INCOME. SHE HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTE D THAT THESE TDR WERE PURCHASED FROM HER OWN SOURCES. WE HAVE AL READY DELED THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TDRS PURCHAS ED IN THE NAME OF ICHARAJ DEVI. WE HAVE STATED THAT IF ANY AD DITION CAN BE MADE THAT CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ICHARAJ DEVI AS SHE HAS INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME. IF DEPARTMENT IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THAT SOURCE, THEN ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN HER HAND S AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THESE ADDITIONS A RE ALSO DELETED. THE NEXT ITEM IS TDR OF RS. 2,000/-PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF KALAWATI SONI AND SHYAM. THIS IS A PETTY AMOUNT WHICH BELONGS TO THE DAUGHTER AND SON OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFO RE, HOLD THAT THE ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME I S DELETED. THE REMAINING ITEM OF RS. 20,000/- IS ON ACCOUNT OF PROMISSORY NOTE DATED 1-02-1979. IT IS EXPLAINED TH AT THIS AMOUNT BELONGS TO SQUARE UP THE ACCOUNT OF DEBTOR. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THIS NATURE OF PROMISSOR Y NOTE. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, IN THIS GROUND, THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,000/-IS SUST AINED AND REMAINING IS DELETED. 6.1 THE NEXT GROUND RELATES TO SUSTENANCE OF ADDITI ON OF RS. 57,300/-. 6.2 THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE DE TAILS GIVEN AT PAGES 10 OF AOS ORDER. IN HIS VIEW, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, HE MADE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. 11 6.3 IT IS SEEN THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 8,000/- W AS MADE ON 15-06-1996 WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN AND THERE FORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,000/- IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDING LY THE SAME IS DELETED. AS REGARDS THE PURCHASE OF LAND FOR RS. 13,000/- AP PEARING AT ANNEXURE A-2 , PAGES 31-32, IT IS SAID THAT THIS IS THE SAME AS APPEARING AT ANNEXURE A-2 PAGES 8 TO 10 FOR WHICH S EPARATE ADDITION OF RS. 16,300/- WAS MADE AS INVESTMENT MAD E BY SHAYM SUNDER. IT IS STATED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS DULY RECO RDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCU MENTS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT SINCE A SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS. 16,300/- WAS MADE AS INVESTMENT BY SHRI SHYAM SUNDER, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF R S. 13,000/- WILL TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELE TE THIS ADDITION. AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20,000/- WHICH HAS BEE N EXPLAINED THAT A SALE AGREEMENT FOR A PLOT WAS ENTE RED INTO IN FAVOR OF SHRI SHYAM SUNDER. HOWEVER, THE SAME DID NOT MAT ERIALIZE DUE TO DEFECT IN THE TITLE AND SUCH NO INVESTMENT WAS M ADE IN THIS REGARD, SINCE THE AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED AND NO PL OT WAS PURCHASED. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF PLOT WHICH WAS NOT PURCHASED IS NOT JUS TIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THIS ADDITION. THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS. 16,300/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY SHRI SHAYM SUNDER WHICH HAS BEEN EXPLAINED 12 THAT SHRI SHAYM SUNDER IS FILING THE RETURN OF INCO ME AND THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IF THIS FACT IS CORRECT THEN NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE. HOWEVER, THE AO WILL VERIFY THIS FACT THAT ANY AMOU NT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF SHRI SHAYM SUNDER OR NOT. IF IT IS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET THEN NO ADDITION IS WARR ANTED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 7.1 THE NEXT GROUND RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,08,001/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN DEBTORS. 7.2 IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THE AO MADE THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 9,69,220/- FOR ADVANCES AND INTEREST THEREON ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEBT ORS. THE LD.CIT(A) IN FIRST GROUND RESTRICTED THIS ADDITION TO RS. 64,033/- AND ESTIMA TED THE INTEREST OF THIS AMOUNT AT RS.64,033/- AND IN THIS WAY THE ADDITION OF RS1,28, 066/- WAS SUSTAINED. HOWEVER, THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE AO WHO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,08,001/- IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AD DITION OF RS. 1,77,119/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST AT THE SAME FIGUR E OF RS. 5,40,882/- WAS TAKEN. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 7.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED IN THIS GROUN D IN PART. IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, A REMAND REPORT WAS ALSO SOU GHT FROM THE AO AND THE AO HAS ADMITTED THE SAME DEFECTS AND AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THOSE RECORDS, THE LD.CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 64,033/- ON ACCOUNT OF PRINCIPA L AMOUNT OF THE ADVANCES TO THE DEBTORS. 100% INTEREST WAS ADMITTED AND IN THIS WAY , THE ADDITION OF RS.1,28,066/- WAS SUSTAINED. HOWEVER, IN FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE 13 REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO IGNORED THOSE FINDINGS AND REPORT. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT VARIOU S PAPERS FOUND RECORDING THE SAME AMOUNT GIVEN TO THE DEBTORS SHOWING NAKKI WHICH MEANS SQUARE UP AND NAKKI ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, INT EREST HAS BEEN ESTIMATED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. SINCE NO PROPER ACCOUNT IS AVAILABLE AS TO INTEREST AND THAT HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO THE DEBTORS, WE THEREFORE, FEEL TH AT ADDITION OF RS. 1.50 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF PRINCIPLE AND ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IS SUSTAINE D WHICH WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY WE SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.50 LAC S OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 6,08,001/- 8.1 THE NEXT AMOUNT RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 29,818/- ON ACCOUNT OF MAYRA EXPENSES. 8.2 AS PER ANNEXURE A-1/37, RS. 29,818/- WAS RECORD ED AS MAYRA EXPENSES AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF GRAND DAUGHTER AND THE SAME WAS ADDE D U/S 69C OF THE ACT. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME. 8.3 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FEEL THAT THE ADDITION OUT OF THOSE TOTAL EXPENSES, IF A SUM OF RS. 10,000/- IS SUSTAINED THEN THAT WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. REGARDING REMAI NING AMOUNT OF RS. 19,818/-, WE HOLD THAT THE SAME WAS SPENT OUT OF THE PAST SAVINGS OF THE FAMILY. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 9.1 THE NEXT ITEM RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 21,151/- ON ACCOUNT OF DONATION TO SWARNKAR BHAWAN TRUST. 9.2 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AS PER AN NEXURE A-14/1, IT WAS NOTICED THAT A SUM OF RS. 21,151/- WAS GIVEN AS DONATION TO SWARN KAR BHAWAN TRUST ON 27-6-1996. THEREFORE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION U/S 69C OF THE ACT WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). 14 9.3 WE HAVE ALREADY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 .50 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF DEBTORS AND INTEREST THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION WILL TAKE CARE OF DONATION OF RS. 21,151/-. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE TH IS ADDITION. 10.1 THE NEXT GROUND RELATES TO SUSTAINING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 2,89 LACS FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. 10.2 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO MA DE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4.82 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS BY ESTIMATING THE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES AT RS. 7,000/- PER MONTH. 10.3 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION AT RS . 2.89 LACS BY RESTRICTING THE SAME TO RS. 3,000/- PER MONTH. 10.4 AFTER CONSIDERING THE `SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSIN G THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THIS ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED FO R THE REASON THAT WITHDRAWAL SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS ARE MORE THAN EST IMATED BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE CHART OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-81 TO 2 000-01 HAS BEEN SHOWN AT PAGE 14 IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND IT IS SEEN THAT EVER Y YEAR WITHDRAWAL SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS IS MORE THAN RS. 14,000/-. THE ASSESSEE IS LIVING IN A JOINT FAMILY AND NO ADVERSE MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH, SHOWING ANY EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES ON HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. WHAT EVER OTHER EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED THEY HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY ADDED I.E. MAYRA EXPENSES AND MARRIAGE EXPENSES ETC. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ADDITION MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE SAME. 11.1 THE GROUND NO. 11 AND 12 ARE ALTERNATE GROUNDS . WE HAVE ALREADY DISPOSED OFF THE GROUNDS ON MERITS. THEREFORE, THESE GROUND ARE INFR UCTUUS IN NATURE AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE DELETED . 15 12.1 THE GROUND 13 IS REGARDING CHARGING OF INTERES T WHICH MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. 13 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART 14. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 -07-2012. SD/- SD/- ( N.K. SAINI ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JODHPUR, *MISHRA COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. SHRI KHAJU LAL SONI, KUCHAMAN CITY 2. THE ACIT, CIRCLE- NAGAUR 3. THE LD.CIT(A) 2. THE LD CIT, . 3. THE D/R 4. GUARD FILE (ITSSA NO.15/JU/2008) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JODHPUR. 16