ACIT, Trichy V. Smt. S.Jayalakshmi Ammal & Others, Pudukkottai

ITSSA 154/CHNY/2002

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0803 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 12 year(s) 9 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2002
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Question of law; Valuation report; Block assessment
• Section: 131; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . !' , # $ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.(SS)A.NO.146/MDS/2002 BLOCK A.YRS 1990-91 TO 2000-01 SMT. S. JAYALAKSHMI AMMAL & OTHERS REP. BY SHRI S. NATARAJAN L/H OF N. SOMASUNDARAM T.S.NO.4656/2 EAST SIXTH STREET PUDUKKOTTAI 622 001 VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I TIRUCHIRAPALLI [PAN 3003-S ] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.(SS)A.NO.154/MDS/2002 BLOCK A.YRS 1990-91 TO 2000-01 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I TIRUCHIRAPALLI VS. SMT. S. JAYALAKSHMI AMMAL & OTHERS REP. BY SHRI S. NATARAJAN L/H OF N. SOMASUNDARAM T.S.NO.4656/2 EAST SIXTH STREET PUDUKKOTTAI 622 001 ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.D. GOPAL, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PATHLAVETH PEERYA, CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 13 - 05 - 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 - 0 6 - 2015 IT(SS)A NOS. 146 & 154/02 :- 2 -: / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX (APPEALS) (CENTRAL)-II, CHENNAI, DATED 5.7.2002 AND PERTAINS TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS 1990-91 TO 2000-01. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN BOTH THE APPEALS, WE HEARD THE M TOGETHER AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. SHRI V.D.GOPAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 31 LAKHS TOWARDS ON- MONEY PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE CIT(A) MADE ANOTHER ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, EVEN FOR MAKING THIS ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS, NO MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND AGAINST THE ASSES SEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNS EL, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS. IT(SS)A NOS. 146 & 154/02 :- 3 -: 3. REFERRING TO THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL, THE LD. COU NSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 83,700/- TOWARDS IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY AT 4656, EAST S IXTH STREET, PUDUKKOTTAI, ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION REPORT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, EVEN FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY, NO M ATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, SEIZED MATERIAL ALONE CAN BE A BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION. THE VALUATION REPO RT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A SEIZED MATERIAL DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH OPERATION. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI PATHLAVETH PEERYA, LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 29.12.1999. INCRIMINA TING MATERIALS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN DISCLOSING NIL UNDISCLOSED INCOME CONSEQUENT TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153BC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A PROPERTY IN T.S.NO.3096, 3097 AND 3098, NELLUMANDI STREET, PUDUKOTTAI, FOR A TOTAL SALE CON SIDERATION OF ` 31 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED DURING THE CO URSE OF EXAMINATION U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT ON 29.12.1999 T HAT THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS ` 31 LAKHS. REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT SAID TO BE IT(SS)A NOS. 146 & 154/02 :- 4 -: RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT WAS IN FACT RECORDED ON 3.1.2000. THERE WAS NO REF ERENCE ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY FOR PURCHASING THE IMMOVABLE PR OPERTY. REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT SAID TO BE RECORDED FROM ONE SHRI G. BABU ON 29.12.1999 U/S 131 OF THE ACT, THE LD. DR POIN TED OUT THAT SHRI BABU ACCEPTED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED A TOTAL CONSIDER ATION OF ` 31 LAKHS FOR SALE OF THE PROPERTY. IN VIEW OF THIS ADMISSIO N, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LD. DR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 86,000/- BEING THE VALUE OF 215GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE EXCESS STOCK DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE EXC ESS STOCK OF 215 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WAS NEARLY 2% OF THE TOTAL ST OCK AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE IGNORED AT A LL. REFERRING TO THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED 410 GMS OF JEWELLERY WHICH WAS SAID TO B E RECEIVED FOR REPAIR, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DEL ETED 215 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE EXCESS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. IT(SS)A NOS. 146 & 154/02 :- 5 -: 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FIRST GROUND IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORD ER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. THE CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 31 LAKHS FOUND THAT THE POWER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS CO- TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PRO CEEDED TO MAKE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 5 LAKHS TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE CIT(A) AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE STAMP DU TY, REGISTRATION FEE ETC PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE EXTENT OF CONST RUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, ESTIMATED THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AT ` 4,85,236/-. HOWEVER, HE ROUNDED OFF THE SAME TO ` 5 LAKHS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THERE WAS NO MATER IAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. EVEN THOUGH THE AS SESSING OFFICER CLAIMS THAT A STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FROM THE ASSE SSEE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT ON 29.12.199 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE REVENUE COULD NOT FILE COPY OF THE SAID STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, THE LD. DR PRODUCED A COPY OF T HE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE ON 3.1.2000. THE PREAM BLE PORTION OF THE STATEMENT SHOWS AS IF THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHE THER THE SEARCH INITIATED ON 29.12.1999 CONTINUED TILL 31.2.2000. THERE IS NO REFERENCE IT(SS)A NOS. 146 & 154/02 :- 6 -: IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOUT CONTINUATION OF THE S EARCH TILL 31.1.2000. THE COPY OF PANCHNAMA RECORDED DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION IS ALSO NOT FILED BEFORE THIS TRIB UNAL BY EITHER PARTY. THE ANNEXURE 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT N O MATERIAL WAS SEIZED OTHER THAN 1102.468 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AN D 39 KG OF SILVER FROM THE ASSESSEE. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT NO MATERIAL WAS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. 7. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE COPY OF STATEMENT SAI D TO BE RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE ON 3.1.2000. THERE WAS NO QUESTION ASKED WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY FOR PURCHA SE OF THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE D IFFERENCES IN THE STOCK OF JEWELLERY. IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE ASSESS ING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE PAYM ENT OF ON-MONEY TRANSACTION IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 29.12.1999 . THE LD. DR HAS ALSO PRODUCED A COPY OF THE STATEMENT SAID TO BE RE CORDED FROM SHRI G. BABU ON 29.12.1999. THE PREAMBLE PORTION OF THI S STATEMENT SHOWS AS IF THE SAME WAS RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT. I N RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.2 WITH REGARD TO NATURE OF TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY SHRI G. BABU WITH THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, HE EXPLAINED TH AT SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF TWO DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, SMT. SHANTHI, W/O SHRI YOGANATHAM AND SMT VASANTHI, W/O SHRI NATARAJAN. THE COST OF THE LAND AS DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED WAS IT(SS)A NOS. 146 & 154/02 :- 7 -: ` 2,67,000/- TO SMT VASANTHI. HOWEVER, THE COST OF THE LAND SOLD TO SMT SHANTHI WAS ` 21,01,000/-. THE SAID SHRI G. BABU HAS ALSO ADMITTED THAT HE RECEIVED ` 31 LAKHS TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATION IN THREE INSTALLMENTS. APART FROM THE STATEMENT OF SH RI G. BABU, NO MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ANY ON-MONEY FOR PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. UNDER NO RMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL WOULD HAVE REMANDED TH E MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FIND OUT WHETH ER ANY OTHER STATEMENT IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHICH WAS SAID TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.12.1999. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, SEA RCH ITSELF TOOK PLACE ON 29.12.1999 AND THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN 2002. THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNA L FOR THE LAST 13 YEARS, THEREFORE, REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THIS STAGE MAY NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE. T HEREFORE, THERE IS NO OPTION TO THIS TRIBUNAL EXCEPT TO DECIDE THE AP PEAL ON MERITS. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 158BB(1) OF THE ACT. SEC. 158BB(1) OF THE ACT PROV IDES FOR METHOD OF COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK P ERIOD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL COMPUTE THE UNDISCLOSED INC OME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OR OTHER DOCUM ENTS, MATERIALS OR INFORMATION AS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND RELATABLE TO IT(SS)A NOS. 146 & 154/02 :- 8 -: SUCH EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPE RATION. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, NO SUCH MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IN ANNEXURE 1 TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OTHER THAN STOCK OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND SILVER. THE STATEMENT SAID TO BE RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT FROM THE ASSESSEE ON 3.1.2000 DOES NOT THROW ANY LIGHT WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF ON-MO NEY FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. ONLY SHRI G. BABU ADMITS DUR ING THE COURSE OF HIS EXAMINATION U/S 131 OF THE ACT THAT HE RECEIVE D ` 31 LAKHS TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATION. THIS INFORMATION FURNI SHED BY SHRI G. BABU DOES NOT RELATE TO ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE EVIDENCE OF SHRI G. BABU COU LD BE RELIED UPON PROVIDED THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN POSSESSION OF ANY EVIDENCE WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPER ATION, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE STATEMENT REC ORDED FROM SHRI G. BABU ON 29.12.1999 CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THI S TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELE TED THE ADDITION OF ` 31 LAKHS. 9. THOUGH THE POWER OF THE CIT(A) IS CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD, THE CIT(A) CANNOT TRAVEL BEYO ND THE EVIDENCE IT(SS)A NOS. 146 & 154/02 :- 9 -: FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE CI T(A), BY REFERRING TO PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY, REGISTRATION CHARGES ETC. ESTIMATED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT ` 5 LAKHS. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE POWER OF THE CIT(A) WHICH IS CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO MAKE ANY ADDITION TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS. 10. NOW COMING TO THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 83,700/-, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL, NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2,99,700/-. THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ONLY AT ` 2,16,000/- THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE OF ` 83,700/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE FACT REMAINS THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE VALUATION REPORT WAS OBTAINE D AFTER THE SEARCH. IN FACT, NO MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE WITH REGARD TO T HE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITIO N WITH REGARD TO THE SO CALLED IMPROVEMENT TO THE PROPERTY. ACCORD INGLY, THE ORDER OF IT(SS)A NOS. 146 & 154/02 :- 10 -: THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION MADE TO TH E EXTENT OF ` 5 LAKHS TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND ANOTHER ADDITION OF ` 83,700/- TOWARDS IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY ARE D ELETED. 11. NOW COMING TO THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE FIRST GROUN D IS WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ` 31 LAKHS BY THE CIT(A). 12. WHILE DISCUSSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN THE EARL IER PART OF THIS ORDER, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO M ATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE SO CALLED STAT EMENT SAID TO BE RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT DOES NOT DISCLOSE ANYTHING ABOUT PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY. THEREFORE, THI S TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 13. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD BENC H OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN KANTILAL C SHAH VS ACIT [2011] 13 3 ITD 57 RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE AHMEDABAD BE NCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, A SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, CASH JEW ELLERY, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED . ON THE VERY SAME DATE, THE ASSESSEE WAS EXAMINED U/S 132(4) O F THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF ` 6.20 LAKHS. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE IT(SS)A NOS. 146 & 154/02 :- 11 -: ASSESSEE WAS EXAMINED ONLY ON 3.1.2000 AND THERE WA S NO REFERENCE ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY WITH REGARD TO PURCHA SE OF PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEES SON SHRI S. NATARAJAN WAS EXAMINED ON 29.12.1999 U/S 132 OF THE ACT. SHRI S. NATARAJAN IN RESPECT OF QUESTION NO.11 EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ` 31 LAKHS WAS PAID TO SHRI G. BABU IN THREE INSTALLMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF PROPE RTY. SHRI S. NATARAJAN CLAIMED THAT THIS PAYMENT WAS MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS FATHER. THE REVENUE COULD NOT CLARIFY THESE DETAIL S FROM THE ASSESSEE DURING HIS EXAMINATION ON 3.1.2000. THEREFORE, THE STATEMENT SAID TO BE RECORDED FROM SHRI S. NATARAJAN IS A DOUBTFUL ON E. IF IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES SON ADMITTED THE PAYMENT OF ` 31 LAKHS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, THEN THE SAME MIGHT HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED FROM THE ASSESSEE DURING HIS EXAMINATION ON 3.1.2000. THE REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS NOT TAKEN ANY PAIN TO CLARIFY THE SAM E FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH CLARIFICATION FROM THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE STATEMENT SAID TO BE RECORDED FROM SHRI S. NATARAJAN CANNOT BE OF ANY AS SISTANCE TO THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THE DECISION OF THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN KANTILAL C SHAH (SUPRA) MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 14. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRASANCHAND SURANA VS ACIT,[2001] 76 IT(SS)A NOS. 146 & 154/02 :- 12 -: ITD 423. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION, BESIDES CASH, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIAL INDICATING THE ASSE SSEES BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING WAS FOUND. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES A LSO FOUND CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE AD MITTED INVESTMENT IN THE CO-OWNERS NAME TO THE EXTENT OF ` 9.50 LAKHS. DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION U/S 132(4), THE ASSESSEE AD MITTED TOTAL INVESTMENT OF ` 12.50 LAKHS OUT OF WHICH ` 9.50 LAKHS WAS DISCLOSED IN BOOKS OF THE CO-OWNERS NAME. THE BALANCE ` 3.50 LAKHS WAS OFFERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENU E AUTHORITIES OBTAINED THE VALUATION REPORT WHICH INDICATED THE C OST OF CONSTRUCTION AT ` 21,63,727/-. AFTER GIVING 10% DEDUCTION FOR SUPER VISION, THE COST WAS ADOPTED AT ` 19.48 LAKHS. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND COST DETERMINED AFTE R CONSIDERING THE VALUATION REPORT WAS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 3.50 LAKHS. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, NO INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL WAS FOUND EXCEPT CERTAIN GOLD JEWELLERY AN D SILVER. STATEMENT WAS NOT RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEES SON U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. T HE VENDOR OF THE PROPERTY WAS EXAMINED U/S 131 OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION IT(SS)A NOS. 146 & 154/02 :- 13 -: THAT THE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THIS TR IBUNAL ALSO MAY NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE REVENUE. 15. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'B LE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HIRA SIN GH & CO. VS CIT [1998] 230 ITR 791. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HP HIGH COURT, THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ADMITTED A KATCHA BILL TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,12,275/-. ON THE BASIS OF THE ADMISSION, THE TR IBUNAL UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE HIGH C OURT FOUND THAT IT IS A QUESTION OF FACT AND NO QUESTION OF LAW IN INVOLV ED. ACCORDINGLY, THE REFERENCE MADE TO THE HIGH COURT WAS REJECTED. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE STATEMENT REC ORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BA SIS OF KATCHA BILL FOUND BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IN THE CASE BEFO RE US, NO SUCH BILL WAS OBTAINED. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE C ONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HP HIGH COURT MAY NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE REVENUE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY M ATERIAL, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT( A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF ` 31 LAKHS. 16. NOW COMING TO THE ADDITION OF ` 86,000/- TOWARDS GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 215 GMS, THE CIT(A) FOUN D THAT THE EXCESS IT(SS)A NOS. 146 & 154/02 :- 14 -: STOCK OF GOLD JEWELLERY WAS TO THE EXTENT OF 1.924 KG. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE A SSESSEE FOUND THAT THE CORRECT STOCK AS PER THE REGISTER IS 11054 GMS. INSPITE OF THE RECONCILIATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO ASSESS THE VALUE OF THE DIFFERENCE OF 215 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY TREATING IT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THIS TRIBUNAL I S OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE DIFFE RENCE BY FILING THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, THERE IS NO NEED FOR MAKI NG ANY FURTHER ADDITION. MOREOVER, THE ADDITION DELETED WAS ONLY T O THE EXTENT OF ` 86,000/-. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH OF JUNE, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / CHENNAI '# / DATED: 30 TH JUNE, 2015 RD #$%&'(' / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. )* / CIT(A) 5. '+ ,%%-. / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. ) / CIT 6. , /01 / GF