M/s Shri Laxmi Ginning Factory, Burhanpur V. The DCIT, Khandwa

ITSSA 18/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8646 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRIDULA BAJPAI
• Assessee Lawyers: S N AGRAWAL; PANKAJ MOGRA CAS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Depreciation; Loose papers; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 132

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NOS.18, 19 & 20/IND/2009 A.YS. - 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2003-04 M/S. SHRI LAXMI GINNING FACTORY, BURHANPUR PAN AAFFS 9828 M :: APPELLANT VS DCIT-KHANDWA :: RESPONDENT ITA NO.174/IND/2009 A.Y. - 2005-06 SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL, BURHANPUR PAN ADAPA 0132 C :: APPELLANT VS DCIT-KHANDWA :: RESPONDENT 2 ITA NO.124/IND/2009 A.Y. - 2005-06 LATE CHHAGANLALJI AGRAWAL TH. L/H NARENDRA AGRAWAL, BURHANPUR PAN ADAPA 0236 E :: APPELLANT VS DCIT-KHANDWA :: RESPONDENT ITA NO.75/IND/2009 A.Y. - 2005-06 ASHUTOSH AGRAWAL, PROP. M/S. ASHUTOSH ENTERPRISES, BURHANPUR PAN ADAPA 0136 G :: APPELLANT VS DCIT-KHANDWA :: RESPONDENT AND, IT(SS)A NOS.11 & 12/IND/2009 A.YS. - 2001-02 & 2002-03 NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, BURHANPUR PAN ADAPA 0131 B :: APPELLANT VS DCIT-KHANDWA :: RESPONDENT 3 APPELLANTS BY SHRI S.N. AGRAWAL AND SHRI PANKAJ MOGRA,CAS RESPONDENT BY SMT. MRIDULA BAJPAI, CIT/DR DATE OF HEARING 15.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23.01.2013 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS BUNCH OF EIGHT APPEALS, FILED BY THE DIFFERE NT ASSESSEES, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 2. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, WE HAVE HEARD S HRI S.N. AGRAWAL ALONG WITH SHRI PANKAJ MOGRA, LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. MRIDULA BAJPAI, LD. CIT/DR. FIRST , WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEALS OF M/S. SHRI LAXMI GINNING FACT ORY. FOR A.Y. 2000-01 [IT(SS)A NO.18/IND/2009], THE FIRST GROUND RAISED IS THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRED IN MAINTAINING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.2,46,921/- MADE ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS. TH E CRUX OF THE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ONLY GRO UND CONTESTED, DURING ARGUMENT, IS THAT THE ADDITION WA S MADE ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS FOUND AT THE PREMISES AND THE NATURE OF THE 4 ENTRIES IS THE OPENING CASH BALANCE FOR THIS YEAR. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE NO.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AN D PAGE NO.14 OF LPS (OF THE PAPER BOOK). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES MENTIONED ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE OF THE PAGE BY SUBMITTING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER B Y HIS OWN INTERPRETATION CONSIDERED THESE AMOUNTS AS UNACCOUN TED INVESTMENTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, MRS. MRIDULA BAJPAI , THE LD. CIT/DR, STRONGLY DEFENDED THE ADDITION BY SUBMITTIN G THAT THE ENTRIES ARE NOT THE ROUGH JOTTINGS, AS HAS BEEN CLA IMED, AND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVA ILABLE ON RECORD. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THESE ENTRIES WE RE NEVER EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE PAPERS ARE DUMP DOCUMENT S IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT THESE PAPERS A RE HAVING RELEVANCE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS KEEPING THESE DO CUMENTS IN ITS POSSESSION. 2.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF M/S. CHHAGANLAL KISHANLAL & CO. AND ITS SISTER CONCERN A LONG WITH SHRI RATILAL POONAMCHAND DALAL ON 20.12.2004, WHERE IN CERTAIN 5 DOCUMENTS, RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE, WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS/TRADE TRANSACTIONS WITH NAREND RA KUMAR AGRAWAL WERE FOUND FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI RATILAL POONAMCHAND DALAL, ONE OF THE PARTNERS IN THE ASSES SEE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE SE ENTRIES. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THESE ENTRIES REL ATE TO PETTY CASH BOOK, MAINTAINED FOR SUCH TRANSACTIONS AND ARE ACCO UNTED ONE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, AS PER THE REVENUE, NO SUCH PETTY CASH BOOKS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AMOUNT OF RS.2, 46,921/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AFFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WH ICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. SO FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BAS IS OF THE DUMP DOCUMENT IS CONCERNED, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WI TH THE SAME BECAUSE ON THE ONE HAND, THE ASSESSEE IS TRYIN G TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES ON THE BASIS OF THESE VERY DOCUMENTS AN D ON THE OTHER SIDE, CLAIMING THESE DOCUMENTS TO BE DUMP DOCUMENTS . WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSS ED THE NATURE OF THE OPENING ENTRY OF RS.2,46,921/- AT PAGE 2. WE HAVE 6 ANALYSED THE ENTRIES (PAGE 14 OF LPS) AND FOUND THA T AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PAPER, THESE ENTRIES ARE MENTIONED ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PAGE, WRITTEN AS OLD OUTSTANDING, AS ON 1.4.2010 OF RS.36,965/- AND ON THE RIGHT SIDE, AS ON 31.3.2000, THE FIGURE OF RS.2,46,921/- HAS BEEN MENTIONED. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER PRESUMED THE AMOUNT AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT. HOWE VER, ADMITTEDLY, THIS PAPER WAS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI RATILAL POONAMCHAND DALAL, ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF T HE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED COPIES OF THE RET URNS FOR A.YS. 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2003-04 CLAIMING THAT SUCH RETUR NS WERE FILED BEFORE CONDUCTING THE SEARCH, CONSEQUENTLY, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE AND DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW FOR WHICH THE ASSESSE E BE PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY BEFORE QUANTIFICATION. THIS GROUND IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE REMAINING GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL WERE NOT CONTESTED, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISMISS ED AS SUCH. THIS APPEAL IS, CONSEQUENTLY, PARTLY ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3. IN IT(SS)A NO.19/IND/2009, IDENTICAL GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED. TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.10,67,788/- (RS.3,10,9 44/-, RS.4,43,838/- AND RS.3,05,956/-) HAS BEEN MADE ON T HE BASIS OF 7 LOOSE PAPERS. THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH S IDES IS IDENTICAL TO IT(SS)A NO.18/IND/2009 (SUPRA). DURIN G HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AGAIN INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO.14 OF LPS CONTAINING TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS.3, 54,237/- AND OPENING BALANCE OF RS.36,965/- BY EXPLAINING THAT T HE AMOUNT OF RS.2,46,921/-, REFLECTED AS OPENING BALANCE ON THE DEBIT SIDE, HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E IN AY 2000-01 AND THE CREDIT OF WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWE D IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR I.E. 2001-02. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THA T THE PURCHASES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE MORE. OUR ATTENTION W AS ALSO INVITED TO PAGE 15 OF THE LPS (PAGE NO.3 OF PAPER B OOK). THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE BUSINESS HAS ALREADY BEEN CLOSED AND THE ENTRIES ARE INCORPO RATED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT/DR STRONGLY DEFENDED THE ADDITION BY SUPPORTING THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS (LPS 14 & 15). AS PER LPS 14, THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,10,944/- WAS CONSIDE RED AS RECEIPT AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,43,838/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE FOR PURCHASES (LPS 15) AND THE 8 AMOUNT OF RS.3,05,956/- WAS TREATED UNEXPLAINED CAS H CREDIT (LPS 15). THE STAND OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THESE RE CEIPTS ARE UNEXPLAINED AND WERE NOT GET VERIFIED BY THE ASSESS EE WITH REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE PURCHASES OF RS.88,76,770/-, CLAIMED TO BE RECORDED IN THE ACCOUNTS, ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. THUS, HE TREATED IT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASES AND 5% OF THE PURCHASES OF THE TURNOVER WERE ADDED. THE STAND OF THE ASSESS EE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES WORTH RS.90,99,039/-. THERE IS A FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE IMPUGNED ENT RIES WERE NOT EXPLAINED/RECONCILED WITH THE HELP OF REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS REP RODUCED HEREUNDER: 6.05 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD IN HIS ORDER THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET VERIFIED THE PUR CHASES OF RS.88,76,770/- RECORDED IN THIS TRADING ACCOUNT WIT H THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HENCE HE ESTIMATED TH E UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASES ON THE BASI S OF STOCK TURNOVER RATIO @5% ON THIS PURCHASES, RESULTI NG IN AN ADDITION OF RS.4,43,838/- ON THIS ACCOUNT. AS FAR A S GROSS PROFIT OF RS.88,873/- WORKED OUT AS PER THIS TRADIN G ACCOUNT, NO ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON THIS ACCOUNT SINCE THE SAME WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDER ATION ON PAPER NO.14. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE APP ELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN TAXIN G THIS AMOUNT OF RS.4,43,838/- IN ITS INCOME MORE SO WHEN PROFIT OF RS.88,873/- WAS ALREADY CALCULATED BY THE ASSESS EE HIMSELF IN THE SAID TRADING ACCOUNT AS PREPARED ON APGE NO.15 AND FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 6.06 THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED VIDE PARA 1.4. 9.4 OF ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT THE RUI PURCHASED WAS SHOWN OF RS.70,26,669/- AND THE SAID AMOUNT IS DULY RECOR DED IN 9 THE REGULAR BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF RUI PURC HASE ACCOUNT OF THE AY 2001-02 WAS ENCLOSED AND SUBMITTE D THAT IN THAT ACCOUNT AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,335/- WAS AD DED ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED AND IF THE SAME WAS EX CLUDED THE AMOUNT WILL BE TALLIED. 3.2 THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CONSOLIDA TED AMOUNT OF TOTAL PURCHASES IS IN EXCESS OF THE PURCHASES SHOWN IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT AS PREPARED ON PAGE 15 OF LPS. BEFO RE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLA IN THE ENTRIES MADE ON THESE SEIZED PAPERS BY SUBMITTING THAT ALL ENTRIES NOTED ON PAGE 14 & 15 OF LPS ARE ALREADY RECORDED IN REGU LAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THUS NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT THE ENTRIES NOTED IN THE NAME OF NK IS REPETITION O F THE ENTRIES AND IT AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE ADDITION. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND THE ASSERTION MADE BEFORE US, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE AGAIN GOT VER IFIED AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WHICH DUE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD BE PROVIDED SO THAT THE INTEREST OF THE REVEN UE AS WELL AS OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PROTECTED. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN TH E LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION MADE HEREINABOVE. THIS GROUND IS, THEREF ORE, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10 3.3 GROUND NO.2, THOUGH RAISED, BUT DURING HEARING, THE SAME WAS NOT CONTESTED, THEREFORE, DISMISSED AS NOT PRES SED. THIS APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. 4. IN IT(SS)A NO.20/IND/2009, IDENTICAL GROUND ON T HE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS HAS BEEN RAISED. ON THE REASONING CONT AINED (SUPRA), THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. GROUND NO.2 WAS NOT PRESSED, THEREFORE, DISMISSED AS NOT P RESSED. THIS APPEAL IS ALSO PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. 5. IN ITA NO.174/IND/2009, THE ONLY GROUND RAISED P ERTAINS TO MAINTENANCE OF PART DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE ADDITIO N OF RS.5,98,862/- (WRONGLY MENTIONED IN THE GROUND AS RS.10,68,018/-). THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENTS ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY ALLOWED CREDIT IN RESPECT OF JEWELLERY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE NAME OF HIS WIFE SMT. RASHMIDEVI AGRAWAL, WEIGHING 148.08 GMS. AND WRONGLY ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.18,02,011/- TO THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ENTIRE QUANTITY OF THE SILVER ARTI CLES WEIGHING 19.4 KG WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND SEPARATELY ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,68,571/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXC ESS CASH FOUND DURING SEARCH. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT /DR STRONGLY DEFENDED THE ADDITION BY SUBMITTING THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY 11 WAS PROVIDED DURING ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS FIRST APP ELLATE STAGE AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN ITS CLAIM. THERE FORE, THE ADDITION WAS ARGUED TO BE JUSTIFIED. IT WAS ALSO PL EADED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY GRANTED PART RELIEF TO THE A SSESSEE. 5.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSERTION MADE BY THE LD . RESPECTIVE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE SUMMARIZING HEREUN DER THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER: SL.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) 1 GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER PARA 2.2.1 OF SYNOPSIS 18,02,011 2 SILVER ARTICLES/UTENSILS 19.4 KG 1,76,436 3 UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND 3,69,571 TOTAL 23,48,018 LESS ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND IN HIS RETURN OF TOTAL INCOME 12,80,000 NET EFFECTIVE ADDITION MADE TO THE INCOME 10,68,018 THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE AFORESAID ADDITION BEFOR E THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 5.1.2009 PARTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED THE FOLLOWING RELIEF IN DIFFERENT HANDS: 12 SL.NO. NAME OF THE PERSONS QTY (GMS.) 1 THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF 100 2 FOR WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE 500 3 FOR ONE DAUGHTER AND TWO SONS @50 GMS EACH 150 4 JEWELLERY PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF SMT. SHALINI DEVI AGRAWAL 148 TOTAL 898 THE TOTAL RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ALSO SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: S.NO. PARTICULARS QTY AMOUNT (RS.) 1 GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND IN EXCESS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AS PER PARA 2.2.1 2880.72 GMS 18,02,011 LESS ADDITIONAL RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) 750 GMS 4,69,156 EXCESS GOLD JEWELLERY CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) 2130.72 GMS 13,32,855 2 SILVER ARTICLES/UTENSILS 19.4 KG 1,76,436 3 EXCESS CASH 3,69,436 TOTAL ASSETS FOUND (1+2+3) 18,78,862 LESS ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE 12,80,000 EFFECTIVE ADDITION REMAINED BEFORE THE BENCH 5,98,862 5.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT SO FAR AS THE 13 RELIEF GRANTED TO DIFFERENT PERSONS IN RESPECT OF G OLD IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY CONSIDERE D THE CBDT CIRCULAR AND GAVE RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. HOWEVER, IN CASE OF UNMARRIED DAUGHTER, THE RELIEF REQUIRES TO BE 250 GMS AND IN CASE OF SONS 100 GMS EACH. ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO REWORK OUT ACCORDINGLY. 5.3 SO FAR AS THE SILVER ARTICLES/UTENSILS, WE FIND THAT THE SILVER ARTICLES ARE 19.45 KG. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ABOUT 10 TO 15 KG ARTICLES WERE RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF THE MARRIAGE. HOWEVER, THIS CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY T HE ASSESSEE AT ANY STAGE, THEREFORE, ON THE ISSUE OF SILVER ART ICLES, THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED. 5.4 SO FAR AS THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED CASH OF RS.3 ,69,571/- IS CONCERNED, THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.2 LACS WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH WHEREAS THE STAND OF THE REVENUE IS THAT WHILE GRANTING THE RELIEF ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD JEWELLERY/SILVER ORNAMENTS/UTENSILS, THE BENEFIT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH HAS ALREADY BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, NO FURTHER RELIEF BE GIVEN. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD AND FOUND THAT THE BENEF IT, AS 14 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, HAS ALREADY BEEN GRANTED T O THE TOTAL BUSINESS OF THIS GROUP, THEREFORE, NO FURTHER RELIE F REQUIRES. ON THIS COUNT, THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED . THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS, THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. IN ITA NO.124/IND/2009 IN THE CASE OF LATE CHHAG ANLAL AGRAWAL (THROUGH L/H SHRI NARENDRA AGRAWAL), THE FI RST GROUND RAISED AGAINST MAINTAINING THE VALUE OF GOLD ORNAME NTS EXCEPT THE VALUE OF 1710 GMS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS OUT OF 4661 .33 GMS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENT ON 12.12.2004 BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE DULY EXPLAINED THE SAME. O UR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE REPLY TO QUESTION NOS. 3 TO 5 OF THE STATEMENT CLAIMING THAT THE REAL OWNER OF THE JEWELLERY AND S OURCE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS WAS EXPLAINED. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT T HE JEWELLERY OF THE MARRIED DAUGHTER WAS KEPT WITH THE PARENTS. THE LD. CIT/DR STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY SUBM ITTING THAT AFTER THE MARRIAGE, THE JEWELLERY IS NOT KEPT BY TH E PARENTS RATHER EXPECTED TO BE KEPT EITHER WITH HERSELF OR IN THE I N-LAWS HOUSE. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 1.4 OF THE IMPUGN ED ORDER. 6.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE 15 ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PORTION AND OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER: 1.4 THE ISSUE IS CONSIDERED IN VIEW OF THE FINDING MADE BY THE AO IN THE ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED OF THE APPELLANT DURING SEARCH ON 21.12.2004 AND 22.12.2004 HAS BEEN ENCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT ALONGWITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAME, IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT IN ITS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 21.12.04 NOWHERE SUBMITTED / STATED THAT THE JEWELLERY OF HI S TWO MARRIED DAUGHTERS AND TWO DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW WERE ALSO LYING WITH HIM. THE APPELLANT, HOWEVER, I N HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 22.12.04 TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND BY STATING THAT 1400 GM GOLD JEWELLERY HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN OF HIS WIFE AND BESIDES THAT THE JEWELLERY O F HIS DAUGHTERS SMT SUDHA AND SMT SUNITA AND DAUGHTERS-IN-LAW SHOBHA AND RASHMI ALSO INCLUDED IN THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. THE WEIGH T THEREOF WAS STATED TO BE 1660.71 GMS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE GOL D JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS EXPLAINED IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH, IS FACTUALLY NOT CORRECT IN AS FAR AS THAT NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 21.12.2004. FURTHER, NO JUSTIFICATION / REASON COUL D BE GIVEN THAT WHY THE JEWELLERY OF HIS MARRIED DAUGHTERS WERE LYING WITH HIM WITH THE HELP OF SOME INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE AO ALSO IN HIS ORDER. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL AND SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL OF THE A.Y. 2005-06 HAS ALSO BEEN REFERRED AND IT IS NOTED THAT GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 410 GM S HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL BUT THE JEWELLERY OF 399 GMS CLAIMED TO BE OF SMT SHOBHADEVI WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF HER HUSBAND SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE BENEFIT OF GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 410 G MS PERTAINED TO SMT. RASHMIDEVI AGRAWAL AND WAS CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF HER HUSBAND SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL IS HEREBY ALLOWED. 16 1.5 FURTHER, THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT THE GOLD JEWELLERY OF HIS WIFE SHOULD BE TAKEN AT 2506 GMS A ND NOT 1400 GMS AS HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE AO ON THE BAS IS OF THE SAME DECLARED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN OF SM T SULOCHANADEVI, WIFE OF THE APPELLANT. THIS PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT TENABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE GOLD JEWELLERY DECLARED BY SMT SULOCHANADEVI IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN. IT IS A LSO ENDORSED BY THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING SEARCH IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 22.12.04 BY CLAIMING THE JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1400 GMS BELONGED TO HIS WIFE WHICH HAS BEEN DECLARED IN HER WEALTH TAX RETURN ALSO. THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE VALUATION OF JEWELLERY WAS TAKEN ON HIGHER SIDE INSTEAD OF TAKIN G @RS.606 PER GM IS NOT TENABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT TH AT THE APPELLANT HIMSELF DECLARED THE VALUE OF GOLD JEWELLERY SHOWN IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN OF HIS WIF E. FURTHER, THE GOLD JEWELLERY WAS STUDDED WITH PRECIOUS AND SEMIPRECIOUS STONES AND THIS MIGHT BE THE REASON OF TAKING THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY DECLARE D IN THE CASE OF THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT IN THE WEA LTH TAX RETURN. IT IS DIFFICULT TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD BE VALUING THE ASSETS, INTERALIA, GOLD JEWELLERY ON HIGHER SIDE. IN VIEW OF THESE FAC TS, THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IS REJECTED AND THE GOLD JEWELLERY BELONGING TO THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT IS TAKEN AT 120 TOLAS., I.E., DECLARED IN THE WEALTH T AX RETURN. NORMALLY, A TOLA WEIGH 11.664 GMS AND IMPURITIES IN GOLD JEWELLERY IS TAKEN AT 15-20%. ACCORDINGLY, NET WEIGHT OF GOLD JEWELLERY DECLARED BY SMT SULOCHANADEVI WORKS OUT TO 1183 GMS SAY ABOUT 1200 GMS. NET WEIGHT OF GOLD JEWELLERY OF SMT SULOCHANADEVI IS AS SUCH TAKEN AT 1200 GMS. IN VIEW OF THE FACTUAL POSITION DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE RELIEF OF GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1200 GMS AND 410 GMS CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF SMT RASHMIDEVI BESIDES BENEFIT OF 100 GMS I S ALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT AND THE BALANCE IS TO BE TAKEN AS UNEXPLAINED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO WORK OUT THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY AS PER FINDING GIVEN ABOVE. 17 SILVER UTENSILS 1.6 AS FAR AS SILVER UTENSILS AND ORNAMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT THE SILVER JEWELLERY DECLARED BY SMT SULOCHANADEVI SHOULD BE TAKEN AT 25KG INSTEAD OF 15KG STATED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BALANCE SILVER UTENSILS AND ORNAMENTS WERE RECEIVED AS GIFTS FROM TIME TO TIME AND HENCE NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SILVER UTENSILS AND ORNAMENTS. 1.7 THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IS CONSIDERED. COPY O F THE WEALTH TAX RETURN OF SMT SULOCHANADEVI HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THIS REGARD ALSO AND SILVER ORNAMENTS AND UTENSILS HAS BEEN DECLARED 15 KG. FURTHER, NEIT HER ANYTHING BROUGHT ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF SILVER UTENSILS AND JEWELLERY IN GIFT FR OM TIME TO TIME NOR ANY SUCH EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH. THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IS, THEREFORE, NO T TENABLE. INSPITE OF THIS FACT, BENEFIT IN THIS ACCO UNT IS HEREBY ALLOWED UPTO THE EXTENT OF 3.526 KG OF SILVE R UTENSILS AND ORNAMENTS. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO WORK OUT THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SILVER UTENSILS A ND ORNAMENTS ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS AS SUCH PARTLY ALLOWED. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT DURING SEARCH PROCEED INGS, THE GOLD AND SILVER ARTICLES WEIGHING 4661.33 GMS AND 48.526 KG, RESPECTIVELY, WERE FOUND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADD ED THE AMOUNT OF RS.20,25,837/- AND RS.3,11,101/- TO THE INCOME A S UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD AND SILVER ARTICLES WHICH IS SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: 18 S.NO. DESCRIPTION OF ASSETS GOLD ORNAMENTS SILVER ARTICLES GMS VALUE (RS.) KGS VALUE (RS.) 1 GOLD ORNAMENTS 4661.33 28,94,740 48.526 4,50,286 LESS DECLARED IN HER W.T. RETURN 1400.00 8,68,903 15.000 1,39,185 ADDITION MADE 20,25,837 3,11,101 THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED 1400 GMS OF GOLD VALUING RS.8,68,903/- BUT DID NOT ACCEPT THE DECLARATION MA DE BY SMT. SULOCHNA DEVI AGRAWAL IN THE W.T. RETURN. ON APPEAL , THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.1.2009 ACCEPTED THE OWNERSHIP OF 1200 GMS GOLD ORNAMENTS BELONGING TO T HE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND 410 GMS BELONGING TO SMT. RASHMIDE VI AGRAWAL, WIFE OF THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE. 100 GMS FOR THE AS SESSEE IN RESPECT OF GOLD AND 15 KG FROM SILVER BELONGING TO SMT. SULOCHNA DEVI AGRAWAL AND 3.526 KG BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED. FOR THE REMAINING ARTICLES, THE ADDITION WAS MAINTAINED. THE WHOLE THRUST OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ON THE BASIS OF TE NDERING OF STATEMENT, IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED. WE AR E NOT AGREEING WITH THIS PROPOSITION BECAUSE THOUGH THE STATEMENT IS ALSO A PIECE OF STATEMENT BUT IS NOT THE CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE IS EXPEC TED TO PRODUCE 19 THE EVIDENCE OF ITS PURCHASE/SOURCE. SO FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE VALUATION OF THE JEWELLERY WA S ALSO TAKEN AT HIGHER SIDE INSTEAD @RS.606 PER GRAM IS ALSO WITHOU T ANY BASIS AS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF DECLARED THE VALUE OF THE G OLD JEWELLERY IN THE W.T. RETURN OF HIS WIFE AT THE SAME RATE. THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED 120 TOLAS OF GOLD JEWELLERY, DECLA RED IN THE W.T. RETURN ALONG WITH OTHER BENEFITS, THEREFORE, WE FIN D NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAW N IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 6.2 SO FAR AS THE SECOND GROUND MAINTAINING THE ADD ITION IN RESPECT OF SILVER UTENSILS/ARTICLES IS CONCERNED, I DENTICAL IS THE SITUATION FOR SILVER UTENSILS ALSO. MORE SPECIFICAL LY WHEN THE COPY OF W.T. RETURN OF SMT. SULOCHNA DEVI WAS EXAMINED B Y THE LD. CIT(A) AS IS EVIDENT FROM PARA 1.7 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THERE IS A FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT NOTHI NG WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM FOR RECEIPT O F GIFT ITEMS FROM TIME TO TIME EITHER DURING SEARCH OR BEFORE TH E AUTHORITIES. THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO OF N OT MUCH HELP BEING DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. THUS, THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED. 20 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, HAVING N O MERIT AND DISMISSED AS SUCH. 7. IN ITA NO.75/IND/2009, THE FIRST GROUND RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE PERTAINS TO MAINTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS .1,58,400/- TOWARDS EXCESS STOCK OF COTTON SEEDS AND DE-OILED C AKE. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,19,600/- TOWARDS DIFFERENCE IN THE QUANTITY OF DE-OILED CAKE WHEN TH E AMOUNT OF ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION COMES TO RS.1,17 ,600/-. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT NO PHYSICAL WEIGHMENT OF BAGS WAS DONE BY THE SEARCH PARTY AND ONLY BAGS WERE COUNTED. ON THE OTH ER HAND, THE LD. CIT/DR DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMP UGNED ORDER BY SUBMITTING THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,58,400/-. 7.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT DURING THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF CALCULATED THE WEI GHT BY ROUGHLY TAKING THE WEIGHT OF BAG AT 50 & 60 KGS FOR COTTON SEEDS AND DE- OILED CAKES, RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AL SO ADOPTED THE WEIGHT PER BAG AT 51 & 65 KGS, PER BAG, RESPECTIVEL Y. ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS LARGE QUANTITY OF BAGS IN THE STOCK AND P RACTICALLY, IT 21 WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO WEIGH EACH AND EVERY BAG. THERE IS A UNCONTROVERTED FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT A S PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, 78.785 QTLS OF OIL STO CK WAS REFLECTED BUT ON PHYSICAL VERIFICATION, IT WAS FOUND ONLY 77. 31 QTLS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADOPTION O F WEIGHT, FURTHER RELIEF @2% OF TOTAL STOCK IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE REMAINING ADDITION IS UPHELD. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7.2 THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO MAINTAINING THE ADD ITION OF RS.3,96,385/- TOWARDS PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY AND CLO TH ETC. AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF SISTER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND PAGE 9 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT/DR DEFENDED THE ADDITION BY ARGUING THAT SUBSTANTIAL R ELIEF HAS ALREADY BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 7.3 WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD AND CONSIDERED THE A SSERTION MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL. THE FACTS, IN B RIEF, ARE THAT A DIARY WAS FOUND IN THE BEDROOM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS SOME NOTINGS ON DIFFERENT PAGES MENTIONING CERTAIN EXPENDITURE. 22 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT UNACCOUN TED EXPENSES ARE NOTED IN THIS DIARY AND THUS, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,96,385/-. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERIN G THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, AFFIDAVIT OF SMT. SHAR DA GARG AND DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE CONCLUDED THAT THE DETAI LS AND SOURCE OF THE AMOUNTS ALONG WITH EVIDENCE WERE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD. THUS, HE MAINTAINED THE ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED EXP ENDITURE. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD AND ARE SATISFIED T HAT THE EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2 LACS HAS BEEN EXP LAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS.1 ,96,385/- IS AFFIRMED. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7.4 IN THE NEXT GROUNDS 3 & 4, MAINTAINING THE ADDI TION IN RESPECT OF VALUE OF 2285.71 GMS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS/J EWELLERY AND SILVER ARTICLES, RESPECTIVELY, HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RA ISED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT/DR DEFENDED THE ADDITION. 7.5 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.17,76,464/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED GOLD JEWELLERY AND RS.3,09,002/- ON ACCOUNT OF SILVER ARTICLES/ORNAMENTS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY REPR ODUCED THE 23 OBSERVATIONS AND THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER AT PAGE 12 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. OLD ACQUISITION O F GOLD/SILVER ORNAMENTS HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS THE VALUATION IS CONCERNED, NO PROOF AT ANY STAGE HAS B EEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE CONTRADICTING THE VALUATION OF THE IMPUGNED VALUABLE ARTICLES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORD ER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT HAS ALREADY GRANTED THE BENEFIT OF OLD ORNA MENTS. TOTAL GOLD ORNAMENTS AND JEWELLERY WEIGHING 3024.6 GMS WE RE FOUND, THE VALUATION OF WHICH WAS TAKEN AT RS.18,61,980/- AND THE VALUATION OF 33.52 KGS OF SILVER ARTICLES WAS TAKEN AT RS.3,09,002/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE SHELTER O F THE AFFIDAVIT FOR ITS VALUATION AND SOURCE OF THE ACQUISITION. HO WEVER, FACTUALLY THE SOURCE OF THE ACQUISITION HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINE D, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONC LUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR THESE GROUNDS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED. 7.6 THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO MAINTAINING ADDITIO N OF RS.1,30,000/- TOWARDS ALLEGED EXCESS CASH. THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT RS.1 LA C WAS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT/DR DEFENDED THE ADDITION. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVA L SUBMISSIONS, 24 WE FIND THAT CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.2,57,800/- WAS FO UND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE DURING SEARCH AGAINST WH ICH RS.1 LAC WAS OFFERED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME AND THUS, THE BALA NCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,57,800/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT WAS PAST SAVINGS OF MANY YEARS. DURING APPELLATE STAGE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT ALSO INVOLVED THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM IN-LAWS AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS BESIDES SAVINGS. THE LD. CIT(A) MAIN TAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,30,000/- AND GAVE RE LIEF OF RS.27,800/-. TO CUT SHORT THE MATTER AND TO REDUCE LITIGATION, FURTHER RELIEF OF 50% I.E. RS.65,000/- IS GRANTED, RESULTING INTO MAINTAINING THE REMAINING ADDITION. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7.7 THE LAST GROUND PERTAINS TO MAINTAINING ADDITIO N OF RS. 1,30,000 TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE CRUX OF AR GUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE BURHANPUR IS A S MALL TOWN, THEREFORE, THE LIFE IS NOT EXPENSIVE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT DR DEFENDED THE ADDITION. ON CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL SUBMISSION, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAMILY WITHDREW RS. 2,58, 000/- TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. WE NOTE THAT THE ADDITION HAS B EEN MAINTAINED PURELY ON ESTIMATE BASIS. SINCE SEARCH W AS 25 CONDUCTED ON THE GROUP, NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OR BR OUGHT ON RECORD EVIDENCING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAMILY EXPENDED MORE ON HOUSEHOLD NEEDS, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS SUSTAIN ED TO RS. 30,000/- ONLY. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. IN IT(SS)A NO.11/IND/2009, THOUGH THE ASSESSES H AS RAISED, THREE GROUNDS, BUT DURING HEARING, ONLY GROUND NO.2 WAS AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING ADDITION OF RS. 4 LACS OF THE BASIS OF VALUER REPORT TOWARDS INTERIOR WORK AND RENOVATION OF FLAT PURCHASED IN MUMBAI BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CRUX OF AR GUMENT IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED BY FURTHER SUBMITTIN G THAT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING SEARCH. O N THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT DR DEFENDED THE REMAINING ADDITIO N MAINTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ON CONSIDERATION OF R IVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT CERT AIN LOOSE PAPER NOS. 221 AND 222 OF LPS OF INVENTORY OF BOOKS AND DOCUMENTS WERE IMPOUNDED, DURING SURVEY, FROM THE P REMISES M/S ADITYA INDUSTRIES. AS PER VALUATION REPORT, THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE FLAT AS WORKED OUT AT RS.2,26,800/-, AFTER GIVI NG THE BENEFIT OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.4,53,600/- THE AMOUNT OF RS. 18, 14,400/- ALONGWITH RS.40,000/- ON INTERIOR WORK, TOTAL RS. 2 2,14,400/- 26 WAD ADDED. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) CONSIDERED TH E SUBMISSION AND REMAND REPORT AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4,00,000/-. THE RELEVANT PORTION AS CONTAINED I N PARA 2.06 (PAGE 6) OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:_ ON PERUSAL OF THE VALUATION REPORT IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT SPENT A SUM OF RS, 4,00,00 0/- ON THE INTERIOR WORK CARRIED OUT IN THE FLATS. THIS INVESTMENT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT, SIN CE THE APPELLANT DECLARED THE COST OF PURCHASE OF THES E TWO FLATS OF RS. 16,62,000/- ONLY. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4 LAKS SPENT BY THE APPELL ANT ON THE INTERIOR WORK CARRIED OUT IN THESE FLATS IS HELD AS UNEXPLAINED. SINCE THE FLATS WERE PURCHASED VIDE PURCHASE DEED DATED 10.4.2000, THE INTERIOR DECORATION WOULD ALSO BE CARRIED OUT IN THAT YEAR I .E THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A.Y 2001-2002 AND HENCE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ACCOUNT IS CONFIRMED UPTO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4 LAKHS ONLY. THE FLAT NO.403, BRIGVASI APARTMENT, MALAD, MUMBAI WAS PURCHASED ON 10.4.2000 AND FLAT NO.404 WAS ALSO PUR CHASED ON THE SAME DATE ON THE CLAIMED TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 16,62,000/- AND FOR TAKING LOAN FROM THE BANK, THE VALUATION WAS GOT DONE ON 06.11.2001 FOR RS. 22,14,400/-.THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE VALUATION ON THE BASIS OF VALUATIO N GOT DONE FROM THE VALUER FOR TAKING BANK LOAN WHICH RESULTED INTO ADDITION. NORMALLY THE VALUATION IS DONE TOWARDS HI GHER SIDE SO THAT THE LOAN TO A MAXIMUM LIMIT MAY BE TAKEN FROM THE BANK. 27 NEITHER ANY EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD EVIDENCI NG THAT ANY RENOVATION WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE NOR IT WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO MAINTAIN THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT GOT P REPARED FOR TAKING BANK LOAN. THE ADDITION IS DELETED. THIS GRO UND IS ALLOWED. THIS APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. IN IT(SS)A NO.12/IND/2009, THE ONLY GROUND AGITA TED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINS TO ADDITION OF RS, 7,46,613/- . THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS, FOUND AND CEASED, DURING SEARCH, ARE BASI CALLY PATTY CASH BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE CASHIER OF THE GROUP AN D DAY-TO- DAY ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE CASHIER ARE RECORDED IN T HE MANUAL LEDGER AND ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE MAIN CASH BOOK AS CASH IN HAND. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT LARGE NUMBER OF WORK ER IS WORKING IN THE GROUP, THEREFORE, PETTY BOOKS ARE MA INTAINED MENTIONING THE LEDGER MENTIONING THE INDIVIDUAL WOR KER. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT/DR DEFENDED THE ADDITIO N. THE ASSEESEE HAS ALSO FILED SPECIMEN COPIES OF LOOSE PA PERS RUNNING INTO 24 PAGES ALONGWITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED B EFORE THE LD. CIT (A). 28 9.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSERTION MADE BY THE LD . RESPECTIVE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILAB LE ON RECORD. KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JU STICE, WER ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS GROUND NEEDS FRESH ADJUDICATI ON BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO RECO NCILE HIS CLAIM FROM REGULAR BOOKS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE NATURE OF THESE ENTRIES FOR WHICH DU E OPPORTUNITY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 10. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE MATTER, IT IS PERTINENT TO BRING ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED SOME INCOM E DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND CREDIT FOR WHICH WAS CLAIM ED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO AGIT ATED FOR ALLOWING CREDIT OF SUCH DECLARATION BEFORE US. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AS TO WHETHE R THE ADDITIONAL INCOME SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HA S BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNS FILED IN PUR SUANCE WITH THE NOTICE U/S 153A/153C OF THE ACT. WE DIRECT ACCORDIN GLY. 29 THIS APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SE ONLY. FINALLY, ALL THESE APPEALS OF THIS GROUP ARE DISPOS ED OFF IN THE AFORESAID MANNER. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.1.2013. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER DATED: 23.1.2013 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE !VYS!