Shri Rajesh K. Shah,HUF, Baroda V. Shri ACIT., Cent.Circle-2, Baroda

ITSSA 177/AHD/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7762 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2006
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH SRAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Valuation report; Documents seized
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.177/AHD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD: 1/4/96 TO 11/3/03 RAJESH K SHAH-HUF, 8 TH FLOOR, NEPTURE TOWERS, PRODUCTIVITY ROAD, BARODA PAN NO.AAHHS4531H / V/S . ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BARODA / APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT IT(SS)A NO.179/AHD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD:1/4/96 TO 11/3/03 HITENDRA K SHAH-HUF, 8 TH FLOOR, NEPTURE TOWERS, PRODUCTIVITY ROAD, BARODA PAN NO.AAGPS0962G / V/S . ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BARODA / APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY SHRI J.P. SHAH, SR-AR /REVENUE BY SHRI S.K. GUPTA, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING 08-02-2012 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17-02-2012 $ $ $ $ / // / ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THESE TWO APPEALS OF TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARISE FROM TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, AHMEDA BAD DATED 31-03-2006 FOR THE IT(SS)A NO177 & 179./AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/96 TO 11/3/03 RAJESH & HITENDRA K SHAH-HUF V. ACIT CC -2 BRD PAGE 2 BLOCK PERIOD FROM 01-04-1996 TO 11-03-2003. THE ASS ESSEE, RAJESH K SHAH (HUF) IN IT(SS)A NO.177/AHD/2006 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- IT(SS)A NO.177/AHD/2006 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT TH AT THE AO HAD WRONGLY MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO DEFECTS WERE FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WITHOUT ANY COGENT FIND ING AND MATERIAL ON RECORD MADE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER AND MADE THE SAID VALUATION REPORT AS THE BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF T HE APPELLANT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT MAY BE SO HELD THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE DV O ITSELF WAS INVALID AND THEREFORE CONCLUSIONS REACHED ON THE BASIS OF THE F INDINGS OF THE DVO REQUIRE TO BE IGNORED. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT TH AT THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER HAS ERRED IN DETERMINING THE MARKET VALUE O F THE PROPERTY AT RS.1,22,63,471. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT TH AT MAJOR PORTION OF THE WORK WAS COMPETED BEFORE THE BLOCK PERIOD AND THEREFORE THE DVO AS WELL AS THE AO WERE NOT CORRECT IN MAKING ADDITION OF THE SAID SUM FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED CO GENT EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT TH AT THE DVO HAD CONSIDERED HIGHER RATES OF VALUATION FOR VARIOUS ITEMS OF CONS TRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING ADDITION U/S 69B/69C WITHOUT HAVI NG FOUND THAT THERE IS ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT/EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE APPE LLANT. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S. 158BFA(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE, HITENDRA K SHAH-HUF IN IT(SS)A NO.179 /AHD/2006 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- IT(SS)A NO. 179/AHD/2006 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT TH AT THE AO HAD WRONGLY MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 142(2A) OF THE IT(SS)A NO177 & 179./AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/96 TO 11/3/03 RAJESH & HITENDRA K SHAH-HUF V. ACIT CC -2 BRD PAGE 3 ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO DEFECTS WERE FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WITHOUT ANY COGENT FIND ING AND MATERIAL ON RECORD MADE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER AND MADE THE SAID VALUATION REPORT AS THE BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF T HE APPELLANT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT MAY BE SO HELD THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE DV O ITSELF WAS INVALID AND THEREFORE CONCLUSIONS REACHED ON THE BASIS OF THE F INDINGS OF THE DVO REQUIRE TO BE IGNORED. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT TH AT THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER HAS ERRED IN DETERMINING THE MARKET VALUE O F THE PROPERTY AT RS.1,22,63,471. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT TH AT MAJOR PORTION OF THE WORK WAS COMPETED BEFORE THE BLOCK PERIOD AND THEREFORE THE DVO AS WELL AS THE AO WERE NOT CORRECT IN MAKING ADDITION OF THE SAID SUM FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED CO GENT EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT TH AT THE DVO HAD CONSIDERED HIGHER RATES OF VALUATION FOR VARIOUS ITEMS OF CONS TRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING ADDITION U/S 69B/69C WITHOUT HAVI NG FOUND THAT THERE IS ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT/EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE APPE LLANT. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S. 158BFA(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. SINCE THE GROUNDS RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE BOTH THE APPEALS ARE BEING TAKEN UP BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIT ENDRA K SHAH, HUF HAD CONSTRUCTED AND DEVELOPED FARM HOUSE AT RS-54, VILL AGE RASULLABAD, AJWA ROAD, BARODA. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132(1) OF T HE ACT WAS ALSO CARRIED OUT AT THE FARM HOUSE PREMISES ON 11-03-2003 ALONG WITH SEARCH ACTION AT THE RESIDENCE AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE TIKI TAR GROUP. DURING THE CURSE OF SEARCH, VARIOUS LOOSE PAPERS AND REGISTERS RELATING TO PLANTATION, VEGETA TION, CONSTRUCTION, FARMING AND IT(SS)A NO177 & 179./AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/96 TO 11/3/03 RAJESH & HITENDRA K SHAH-HUF V. ACIT CC -2 BRD PAGE 4 LABOUR PAYMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED AS INVENTORIS ED DOCUMENTS AS ANNEXURE- A/1, A/2. THE BRIEF CONTENTS OF LOOSE PAPER FILES A RE AS UNDER:- ANNEXURE A/1 THIS ANNEXURE CONSISTS OF PAGES 1 TO 198, WHICH ARE MAINLY RELATED TO VARIOUS BILLS OF THE MATERIAL USED IN TH E CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF FARM, HOUSE SUCH AS BILLS FOR THE PURCHASE OF STEEL, CEMENT TILES, RUBBLES, A ND WORK RELATING TO SWIMMING POOL, VARIOUS LABOUR BILLS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT WORK ANNEXURE A/2 THIS ANNEXURE CONSISTS OF PAGES 1 TO 16, WHICH MAIN LY RELATED TO STOCK, RECEIPT CONSUMPTION OF VARIOUS IT EMS TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT OF FARM HOUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER REPORTED THAT IT WAS NOTICED DURING THE SEARCH THAT HUGE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN CONSTRUCTION AND D EVELOPMENT OF FARM HOUSE AS AGAINST SHOWN AT RS.28,00,321/- IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT, WHICH WAS APPARENTLY VERY MEAGER AMOUNT AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT FOUN D BY THE SEARCH PARTY FROM THE LAVISH AND THE VAST DEVELOPMENTS OF THE FARM HOUSE PREMISES ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ADMIT TED U/S. 132(4) AT THE RESIDENCE BY HIS STATEMENT, WHICH WAS RECORDED, ON 11-03-2003 ABOUT THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS.30 LAKH IN THE FARM HOUSE. CONSIDE RING THE ABOVE AND IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE ACTUAL COST OF INVESTMENT IN THE SAID FARM HOUSE A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (DVO IN SHORT) U/ S. 131 R.W.S. 132(4) BY THE DDIT (INV.) VIDE LETTER NO.BRD/DDIT/(INV) 131D/2002-03 D ATED 24-03-2003, AND AFTER AMENDMENT TO SECTION 132(2A) OF THE ACT. A FRESH VA LUATION REFERENCE TO THE DVO WAS MADE ON 18-10-2004 VIDE LETTER NO. BRD/ACIT/CC -2/TIKKI-VAL-2004-05. TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS AS LEGAL THE AO ALSO REFERRED T O THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT. THE VALUATION AUTHORITY HAS DETERMINED THE COST OF INVESTMENT IN THE FARM HOUSE AT RS.1,50,54,631/- WHICH IS INCLUSIVE OF INV ESTMENT OF RS.90,838/- INCURRED AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH, AS AGAINST THE INVESTMENT DISCLOSED OF RS.28,00,231/-. IN PARA-4, THE AO HAS DESCRIBED THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTI ON AND BROAD SPECIFICATIONS OF BUILDING, ACCORDING TO WHICH, OVERALL BUILDING IS P ROVIDED WITH GOOD ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND LOOKS LIKE A SMALL FORT. THE DVO HAD D ETERMINED THE YEAR-WISE COST OF CONSTRUCTION BASED ON THE YEAR-WISE STATEMENT OF EX PENDITURE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- SR. NO. PERIOD CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE STATED BY THE ASSESSEE (RS) ASSESSED COST CONSTRUCTION (RS) DIFFERENCE (RS) IT(SS)A NO177 & 179./AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/96 TO 11/3/03 RAJESH & HITENDRA K SHAH-HUF V. ACIT CC -2 BRD PAGE 5 1 1997-98 441546 2359445 1917899 2 1998-99 1284916 6866076 5581160 3 1999-00 930223 4970738 4040515 4 2000-01 143636 767533 623897 TOTAL 2800321` 14963792 12163471 THE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT WAS PROVIDED BY TH E AO TO THE ASSESSEE AND WAS ASKED TO SHOW-CAUSE WHY THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69B OF THE ACT. THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS EXPLANATION AND AFTER CONSIDERING IT, THE AO WORKED OUT UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE FARM HOUSE AT RS.1,22,63,471/- BASED ON THE DVO S REPORT, AFTER GIVING DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION. THE REL EVANT PARAGRAPHS OF THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ORDER IS REPR ODUCED BELOW:- THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED BY T HE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER IN HIS REPORT:- COST OF LAND FEES PAID TO GEB, NAGARPALIA & OTHER LOCAL BODIES F OR PLAN APPROVAL AND CONNECTION CHARGES ETC. THE EXPENDITURE DONE ON MOVABLE FURNITURE, AUDIO VI DEO SYSTEMS AND ALL OTHER MOVABLE ITEMS ETC. EXPENDITURE DONE ON TREE PLANTATION, IRRIGATION SYS TEM I.E. DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND BOREWELL ETC., PROVIDED FOR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND ALL OTHER MACHINERY ITEMS ETC. REGARDING LAND, THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE BEFORE THE BLOCK PERIOD BY HIS FATHER. IN SUPPORT O F HIS CLAIM ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED LAND DEEDS. EVEN DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE FARM HOUSE LAND IS ALSO SEIZED FROM RASULABAD FARM IN ANNEXURE A/1 PAG E NO.134 WHICH RELATES TO THE APPLICATION MADE BY SHRI RAJESH K SHAH DTD. 13/6/97 TO TALATI OF RASULABAD, TAL: VAGHODIA URGING HIM TO INCLUDE THE NAME OF FOUR FAMILY MEMBERS IN PLACE OF HIS LATE FATHER SHRI KANTILAL D SHAH WHO WAS THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE LAND OF FARM HOUSE AT. THEREFORE THE A SSESSEES CLAIM IS TENABLE. SIMILARLY THE GEB CONNECTION WAS ALSO TAKEN AT THE TIME OF HIS FATHER. REGARDING FURNITURE, FIXTURES AS NO MUCH INVENTORY WAS TAKEN BY THE DDIT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ACTION OR DURING THE POST SEARCH PERIOD, NOR THE DVO HAS TAKEN ANY INVENTORY OF FURNITURE & AUDIO-VISUAL SYS TEM, THEREFORE NO ADVERSE INFERENCE IS DRAWN OF THIS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON PLANTATION OF TREES & GARDENING, EVIDENCES OF PURCH ASE OF TREES ETC., IS FOUND AT PAGE 133 OF ANNEXURE A/1 SEIZED FROM RAULABAD FA RM, AN INVESTMENT OF RS.1,00,000/- IS ESTIMATED ON THIS POINT FOR THE BL OCK PERIOD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INVESTM ENT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS TAKEN AT RS.61,30,735/- BEING SHARE OF TOTAL UNAC COUNTED INVESTMENT OF IT(SS)A NO177 & 179./AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/96 TO 11/3/03 RAJESH & HITENDRA K SHAH-HUF V. ACIT CC -2 BRD PAGE 6 RS.1,22,63,471/-. ACCORDINGLY, TOTAL UNDISCLOSED IN COME FOR THE LOCK PERIOD IS COMPUTED AT RS.61,30,735. WITH REGARD TO SOURCE IN THE INVESTMENT, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SHRI RAJESH K SHAH-HUF IS A PARTNER IN M/S. TIKITAR INDU STRIES LTD. BHANDUP THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25,18,640/- IN THE F ARM-HOUSE IS TREATED EXPLAINED FROM THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF M/S. TIKITAR INDUSTR IES, BHANDUP, AS SUCH, SET OFF WAS NOT ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF OTHER HUF OF SHRI H ITENDRA K MOTA, WHOSE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED IN MAR.05. REGARDING BALAN CE INVESTMENT, AS THERE IS INTERPLAY AND INTERLACING OF FUNDS AMONG GROUP CONC ERN, AND THAT SHRI HITENDRA K MOTA AND SHRI RAJESH K SHAH ARE PARTNER OR PROPRIET OR IN ALMOST ALL GROUP CONCERNS AND IT IS CLOSELY HELD GROUP. THE UNEXPLAINED INCOM E OF OTHER CONCERNS ARE ALSO UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT IN FARM-HOUSE, HENCE, IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO HAS DETERMINED THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME AT RS.36,12,0 95/- FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 5. IN THE CASE OF RAJESH K SHAH, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER EXCLUDED RS.25,18,640/- BEING THE EXPLANATION FROM THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME F ROM M/S. TIKI TER INDUSTRIES AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.36,12,095/-, WHEREAS THE SAM E EXCLUSION WAS NOT MADE IN THE HANDS OF HITENDRA K SHAH-HUF. IN THE PRESENT CA SE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BASICALLY GOT THE VALUATION MADE FROM DVO FOR WORKI NG OUT THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE FARM-HOUSE WHICH HAS ACTUALLY BEE N WORKED OUT AT RS.1,22,63,471/- IN THE HANDS OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES I.E. RS.61,30,735/- IN EACH ASSESSEES CASE, WHICH WAS A SUBJECT-MATTER OF ADDI TION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT AND ACCORD INGLY A WORKING WAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS) VALUE OF PROPERTY AS PER GOVT. APPROVED VALUER 1,03,22,698 LESS: VALUE BEFORE BLOCK PERIOD 39,28,550 63,94,148 LESS: ADDITIONAL ITEMS AFTER BLOCK PERIOD 8 9,183 63,04,965 LESS: AMOUNT DEBITED IN BOOKS 28,00,321 35,04,644 IT(SS)A NO177 & 179./AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/96 TO 11/3/03 RAJESH & HITENDRA K SHAH-HUF V. ACIT CC -2 BRD PAGE 7 AMOUNT DISCLOSED U/S.132(4) 30,00,000 APART FROM THE SAID WORKING, THE ASSESSEE ALSO POIN TED OUT MANY DEFECTS IN THE REPORT OF THE DVO AND SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION FOR EACH DEFECT WHICH WAS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS THAT ASSESSMENT IN THE BLOCK CASE SHOULD BE RESTRIC TED TO THE MATERIALS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SUCH. THE DVO HAS CONSIDERED EXPENSES PRIOR TO 1997-98 AND HAS ADOPTED HIGHER RATE AS COMPARED TO PUBLIC WORKS DEP ARTMENT RATE. THE MARKET RATES ADOPTED ARE FOR THE PERIOD 1997-98 TO 2000-01. MORE OVER, THE GROUND FLOOR WAS COMPLETED BEFORE 1996 AND THEREFORE RATE CONSIDERED FOR THE 1997-98 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION. THE GROUND FLOOR WAS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE BLOCK PERIOD AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE A SUBJECT-M ATTER OF THE ADDITION. THE NOTICE OF TALATI RASULABAD PANCHAYAT DATED 10-11-1995 FOR ASS ESSMENT AND RECOVERY OF HOUSE TAX WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. 7. ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS ON RECORD AND REPORT OF DVO AND REGISTERED VALUER AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE CONSTRUCTION BEFORE THE BLOCK PERIOD EXCEPT THE NOTICE OF TALATI. KEEPING IN VIEW THE EXPLANATION S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY ANY OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW IN RIGHT SPIRIT AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS ON RECORD AND TO MEET BOT H THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO SUSTAIN AN ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKH EACH IN BOTH THE CASE AND WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THUS, GROUNDS NO.1 TO 5 OF THE ASSESSE E ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN EACH OF THE APPEAL. 8. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.6 WITH REGARD TO CHARGING O F INTEREST U/S. 158BFA(1) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT PROVIDED THE COPIES OF THOSE SEIZED ANNEXURE AND THEREFORE THE I NTEREST SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR APPEARS TO BE CONVINCING A ND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSING OFFICER IT(SS)A NO177 & 179./AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/96 TO 11/3/03 RAJESH & HITENDRA K SHAH-HUF V. ACIT CC -2 BRD PAGE 8 IS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THE INTEREST U/S.158BFA(1) F OR THE PERIOD WHEN THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR THE PHOTO-COPY OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS TILL THE DEPARTMENT SUPPLIED THE PHOTO-COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS. THUS, GROUND NO.6 OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE IN IT(SS)A NO.177/AHD/2006 AND IT(SS)A NO.179/AHD/2006 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. % $ !'# &'( 17 / 02 /201 2 ! , - . / THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 17/02/ 201 2. SD/- SD/- ( G.C.GUPTA ) ( B.P. JAIN ) (VICE PRESIDENT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) &'(- 17/02/2012 1 / DKP* $ $ $ $ 223 223 223 223 43' 43' 43' 43' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. ''27 8 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8- / CIT (A) 5. 3;. 2227, 27#, 1 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. .>? @% / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ $ , /TRUE COPY/ A/1 ' 27#, 1 /