The ACIT, Central Circle-2, V. Shri DhirajBhai B. Patel,

ITSSA 182/AHD/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7897 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK JOHRI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Documents seized
• Section: 131; 69; 132

Judgement Text

, , . .. . . .. . , , , , ! !! ! . .. .'# !'# '# !'# '# !'# '# !'# , $ $ $ $ % % % % IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : B BENCH : AHMEDABAD BEFORE HONBLE SHRI D.K.TYAGI, J.M. & HONBLE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M.) ! !! ! . IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 # &' - BLOCK PERIOD 01/04/1990 TO 23/01/2001 A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BARODA VS- SHRI DH IRAJBHAI B. PATEL, BARODA (PAN : ) ( () /APPELLANT) ( *() /RESPONDENT ) () + , / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ALOK JOHRI, CIT,D.R. *() + , / RESPONDENT BY : NONE -#. + / $ / DATE OF HEARING : 02/11/2011 0'& + /$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/12/2011 1 1 1 1 / ORDER PER SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-IV, AHM EDABAD IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-IV/CC.2B/116/2002-03 DATED 31.03.2 004 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01/04/1990 TO 23/01/2001 PASSED UNDER SECTIO N 250 R.W.S. 158BC/158BG OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE REVENUE HAD ORIGINALLY RAISED SEVEN GROUNDS IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT HAS COME UP WITH A REVISE D GROUNDS VIDE ITS APPLICATION DATED 25.2.2011 CONSISTING OF EIGHT GRO UNDS, IN WHICH, GROUND NOS.7 AND 8 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE AND NO SPECIFIC ISSUES INVO LVED, THEY HAVE BECOME NON-CONSEQUENTIAL AND HENCE DISMISSED. IN THE REMAINING GROUNDS THE ISSUES RAISED ARE AS UNDER: IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 2 THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DI RECTING TO DELETE ADDITION OF: (1) RS.2,60,057 /- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY; (2) RS.57,908 /- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN FDRS; (3) RS.67,01,049 /- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS; (4) RS.15,00,000 /- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN FINANCING FOR VEHICLES; (5) RS.1,31,000 /- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN LAKSHMI HARDWA RE SHOP; & (6) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3 TO 4 LAKHS PER ANNUM WI THOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT MERE HOLDING OF AGRICULT URAL LAND WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCO ME. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCING FOR TW O WHEELERS AND ALSO CARRYING ON MONEY LENDING BUSINESS FOR THE LAST SEV ERAL YEARS. THERE WAS AN ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT IN THE RESIDENTIAL-CUM -BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21.1.2001 AND CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH HIS RETURN FOR THE BLOCK PE RIOD SPREAD OVER FROM 1.4.1990 TO 23.1.2001. HE HAD FURNISHED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.2.2002 ADMITTING A TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF R S.5,96,116/- WHICH WAS, HOWEVER, ASSESSED AT RS.99,05,140/- BY THE LD . AO FOR THE REASONS SET-OUT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS SUBJECT MATT ER OF APPEAL. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE ISSUES, AMO NG OTHERS, BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) FOR RELIEF. AFTER GIVING DUE WEIGH TAGE TO THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS, REMAND ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 29.12.2003, REMAND IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 3 REPORT OF THE LD. AO DT.26.3.2004 AND ALSO THE COM MENTS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID REPORT, THE LD. CIT (A) HAD R ECORDED HER FINDINGS IN HER IMPUGNED ORDER DELETING SOME OF THE ADDITIONS AND CONFIRMING CERTAIN ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. THIS APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON SEVER AL OCCASIONS, HOWEVER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE WAS NO REPRESENT ATION ON THE ASSESSEES SIDE EVEN IN ONE OF THE HEARINGS. THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 12.10.2011 FIXING THE HEARING ON 2.11.2011 WAS SERV ED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 31.10.2011 BY AFFIXING THE SAME AT THE CONSPICUO US PART OF THE ASSESSEES PREMISES [SOURCE: LETTER OF THE ITO, W - 5(4), BARODA DT. 31.10.2001]. ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF THE HEARING I .E., ON 2.11.2011, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FROM THE ASSESSEES SID E. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD. D R PRESENT WAS HEARD AND THE APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN UP FOR DISPOSAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD; 6. THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE CONCERNING THIS APPEAL ARE DEALT WITH IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS CHRONOLOGICALLY: I) DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,60,057/- MADE ON ACCOU NT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY: IT WAS THE STAND OF THE AO THAT : [PARA 8 OF CIT(A)S ORDER] DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH ACTION AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI DHEERAJ BHAIJIBHAI PAT EL (BHAGAT), TOTAL GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING NET 976.300 GRAMS, VALUED A T RS.34,17,057/- WAS FOUND. WHILE RECORDING HIS STAT EMENT ON OATH U/S 132(4) ON 23.1.2001, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF JEWELLERY ALONG PROOF. IN REPLY, HE STATED THAT AROUND 20 TOLA GOLD JEWELLERY WAS GIVEN BY THE PARENT OF HIS WIFE AND 20 TOLA JEWELLERY WAS GIVEN BY HIS FATHER AT THE TIME OF THEIR MARRIAGE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF I NVESTMENT IN THE GOLD JEWELLERY WITH DOCUMENTARY PROOF THEREOF. ALTHOUGH THE IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 4 ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH HIS REPLY BY 28.11 .2002, NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER WAS SUBMITTED ON THE GIVEN D ATE. ACCORDINGLY, ANOTHER LETTER WAS ISSUED ON 6.1.2003 ASKING HIM TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR ON 15.1.2003. IN RESPONSE TO LETTER DT. 6.1.2003, THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REPLY DATED 15.1. 2003 REPLIED THAT ORNAMENTS WERE OWNED BY HIS WIFE WITHOUT ANY SUPPOR TING EVIDENCE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTE R DT. 22.1.2003 STATED THAT THE ORNAMENTS WERE PURCHASED OUT OF AGR ICULTURAL INCOME AND A PORTION OF THE ORNAMENTS WAS OUT OF ST REEDHAN AND RECEIVED BY WAY OF GIFT ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. IT I S QUITE OBVIOUS TO MENTION HERE THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FURNI SHED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RE GARD TO ACQUISITION OF GOLD JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEES ARGU MENT THAT A PORTION OF THE JEWELLERY WAS ACQUIRED OUT OF AGRICU LTURAL INCOME IS NOT SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF THE ASSE SSEES DEPOSITION IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT WHEREIN HE HAS STATED THAT HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME PER YEAR IS RS.15000/- TO RS.20000/- WHICH HARDLY SUFFICIENT TO MEET HIS HOUS EHOLD EXPENSES WHICH IS RS.8000/- TO RS.10000/- P.M. THUS, THERE IS NO FORCE IN ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A PORTION OF THE JEWE LLERY WAS PURCHASED OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND, HENCE, TH E SAME IS REJECTED. IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE GOLD JEWELLERIES ARE GIVEN AS STREEDHAN COUPLED WITH THE SOCIAL CUSTOM PREVAILING IN THE PATEL COMMUNITY, GOLD JEWELLERY O F 20 TOLAS IS CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED AND REMAINING PORTION OF J EWELLERY IS TREATED AS ACQUIRED OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ACC ORDINGLY, A SUM OF RS.2,60,057/- (976.300 GM MINUS 233.280 GM [20 X 11.664] = 743.020 GM X RS.350 PER GRAM = R.2,60,057/-] IS TRE ATED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE GOLD JEWELLERY IS TAXED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD . IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT: [PARA 8.1 OF THE CITS ORDER] .AS PER RECORDED ST ATEMENT AROUND 20 + 20 = 40 TOLAS WAS GIVEN AT THE TIME OF MARRIAG E BY PARENTS OF BOTH SIDES. AND YET ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED 20 T OLAS ONLY. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO IGNORED THAT APPELLANT IS BA SICALLY AGRICULTURIST. HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MAINTAIN BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AND THEREFORE IT IS DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH OR PRODUCE EVIDENCE ABOUT PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY. IN P ATEL COMMUNITY 40 TO 50 TOLAS OF GOLD AS STREEDHAN IS VERY COMMO N. IN FACT, THERE IS NO REASON WHY ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED EVEN 40 TOLAS AS STREEDHAN AS PER RECORDED STATEMENT. NOW IT IS C USTOMARY IN HINDU FAMILY TO PURCHASE AT LEAST 1 OR 2 TOLAS OF G OLD ON HOLIDAYS IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 5 LIKE DHAN TERAS LABH PANCHAM OR PUSHYA NAKSHAT RA DAY SO ASSESSEE HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ABOUT RS.3 T O 4 LACS EVERY YEAR IN A SMALL VILLAGE, WILL DEFINITELY PURCHASE M INIMUM 2 TO 3 TOLAS OF GOLD EVERY YEAR. IT IS ALSO LIKELY THAT PARENTS OF ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE LEFT SOME ORNAMENTS AFTER DEATH. IN ANY CASE, TO POSSESS 976.300 GMS OF ORNAMENTS IS NOT THAT BIG QUANTITY F OR A FAMILY WITH THIS MUCH INCOME. AND THOUGH ASSESSEE CAN NOT PROD UCE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTARY PROOF THAT IT IS RELATING T O PERIOD PRIOR TO 1997 AT THE SAME TIME THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO SUGGEST THAT IT IS RELATING TO PERIOD AFTER 1.10.19 97. MOREOVER WHEN THE INCOME IS TAXED THERE IS NO QUESTION OF TAX AGA IN FOR UTILIZING THE INCOME OTHERWISE IT WILL AMOUNT TO DUPLICATION OF T AX ON SOME INCOME. ADDITION OF RS.2,60,037/- RELATING TO ORNA MENTS IS WRONGLY MADE THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS, THE L D. CIT (A) HAD OBSERVED THUS: 8.2. THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND REASONING OF THE APPELLANT IS DULY CONSIDERED AND I FIND FORCE IN TH E SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE CREDIT OF AT LEAST 60 TOLAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO BEING 40 TOLAS STREEDHAN AND 20 TOL AS ON ACCOUNT OF MINIMUM PURCHASES OF 2 TO 3 TOLAS ON DIFFERENT O CCASIONS DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE CREDIT OF 6 0 TOLAS IS VERY REASONABLE AND ACCORDINGLY THE EXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS WORKED OUT AT RS.96,420/- (976.300 699.840 GMS). HOWEVER, I N VIEW OF THE FACT THAT DURING 1.11.1999 TO 30.1.2001, THE APPELL ANT HAD DISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.5,96,116/-, THE PLE A OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAME MAY BE CONSIDERED AS ACQUIR ED OUT OF INTEREST INCOME HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. WHILE ALLOWING THE TELESCOPING OF RS.96,240/-, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE AD DITION OF RS.32,60,057/-. 6.1 WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANAT ION BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE FINDING OF THE LD . CIT (A) ON THIS POINT. AT A GLIMPSE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.5,96,116 /- AS PER RETURN U/S 158BC OF THE ACT WHICH, AS SUGGESTED BY THE LD. CIT (A), REQUIRES TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE ACQUIRED OUT O F THE SAID AMOUNT ADMITTED U/S 158BC OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE REA SONABLENESS OF THE IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 6 CIT (A), WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH HER FINDING ON THIS SCORE. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. II. DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.57,908/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN FDS: 7. THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS STATEMENT ON OATH, WAS REQU IRED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE AND SOURCE FOR THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AN D FDRS AMOUNTING TO RS.57,908/- UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIO N, HOWEVER, HE WAS UNABLE TO CITE ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. WHEN THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WAS AGAIN OFF ERED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR THE SAME, HE IN HIS LETTER DT. 15.1.2003 STATED THAT THE SHARES AND DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE A O TOOK A VIEW THAT THE THEORY OF CONCOCTED SOURCE OF AGRICULTURAL. INC OME WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE AND, ACCORDINGLY, TREATED THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INVEST MENT OF RS.57,908/-. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT: PARA 9.1 (A) RS.4000/- OF BANK OF INDIA FOR RS.1000/- EACH IS IN THE NAME OF SHRI DAYABHAI VANKER. SHRI DAHYABHAI HAD TAKEN FINANCE FROM THE APPELLANT AND, THEREFORE FD WAS KEPT WITH THE APPELLANT AS ADDITIONAL SECURI TY. ASSESSEE HAD NOT INVESTED ANY AMOUNT. (B) AS REGARDS OTHER DEPOSITS, EXCEPT RS.6000/- DE POSITED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE, ALL OTHER DEPOSITS WERE IN THE NA MES OF RELATIVES JOINTLY WITH ASSESSEE. EVEN IF WHOLE AMOUNT IS CONSIDERED AS DEPOSIT OF AP PELLANT, AMOUNT IS VERY SMALL AND THE SAME HAS BEEN TAKEN OU T OF INCOME EARNED WHICH IS TAXED. AND THERE CAN BE NO DUPLICAT ION OF TAX ON INCOME AS WELL AS ITS INVESTMENT. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A)S ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 9.2. THE SUBMISSION OF THE AND THE REASONING OF A O IS DULY CONSIDERED. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT OUT OF TOTAL FDS OF RS.57,908/-, FDS OF RS.4,000/- BELONGS TO SHRI D AHYABHAI IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 7 VANKER, THIS LEAVING THE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS.33, 908/- IN THE NAME OF RELATIVES JOINTLY WITH THE APPELLANT. IT I S SEEN THAT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS PRAYED THAT TH E INVESTMENT IN THESE FDS ARE ON 3.7.96 I.E., PRIOR TO THE COMME NCEMENT OF FINANCE BUSINESS THEREFORE, THE SAME HAS TO BE CONS IDERED AS OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND, HENCE, NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED. 9.3. I FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION THAT DUE TO SU BSTANTIAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ALSO ADDITIONAL INCOME DISC LOSED BY HIM IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME, WHICH IS RS.33,750/- UP-TO 31.3.96 (PL. REFER TO PA RA 16 OF THIS ORDER) THE PLEA HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THE SOURCE IS EXPLAINED. THE AO IS THUS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF R S.57,908/-. 7.1 WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION B EFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND ALSO HER REASONING IN DELETING THE ADDI TION. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE A SSESSEE HAD THE SUBSTANTIAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME YEAR AFTER YEAR AND ALSO DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME, TH E INVESTMENT OF RS.57,908 RS.4,000 STANDS EXPLAINED. THIS GROUND IS DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE. III. DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.67,01,049/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS: 8. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE LD. AO THAT DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH, INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS UNEARTHED INDICATED THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS, ACCORDING TO WHICH, THE DEBIT BALANCE OF EACH OF HIS CLIENTS AND THE OUT-STANDING LOANS AGAINST THE CLIENTS WORKED OUT TO RS.67,01,049/- WHICH WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. A CCORDINGLY, THE SAME WAS ADDED TO HIS INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT A FTER REJECTING THE LENGTHY EXPLANATION AND DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE AS SESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 8 8.1 THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE ASSESSEE HAD REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. AO. THE RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE EXTRACTED, FOR APPRECIATION OF FACTS, A S UNDER: 10.3AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT FIRST OF A LL THE APPELLANT HAS DISPUTED THE WORKING OF RS.67,01,049/ -. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL, THERE IS A DEFICIT OF RS.48.73 LACS IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT PREPARED B Y HIM. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THIS STATEMENT. ACCORDING TO HIM, IT IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. AT THIS JUNCTURE, HE JUSTIFIED THE DISC LOSURE OF RS.50 LACS IN THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEES CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS TO BE ACCEPTED A S CORRECT, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN REGARDING SOURCES OF CASH DEF ICIT LIKE AGRL INCOME, GIFTS ETC., RECEIVED FROM OUTSIDERS ARE ALS O NOT CORRECT AND ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY WORTHWHILE EVIDENCE, A S WLL EMERGE FROM THE SUCCEEDING PARAS OF THE ORDER. HE RE, IN ANY CASE, THE MINIMUM UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE RS.48.73 LACS IN ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF RS.5.96 LACS DECLARED IN THE RETURN WHICH IS INCIDE NTALLY QUITE CLOSE TO THE ADMITTED INCOME OF RS.50 LACS IN HIS S TATEMENT U/S 132(4) RECONCILED ON OTH ON 23.1.01 DISCUSSED AT TH E END OF THIS ORDER. HE HAS FOCUSED HIS EXPLANATION ONLY ON THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENTS/ASSETS/EXPENDITURE WHICH IS ALSO N OT SATISFACTORY IN VIE OF THE DETAILS DISCUSSION WHICH FOLLOWS. 10.4. CLOSE READING OF THE ABOVE SUGGEST THAT THE A O NO OBJECTION TO THE DEFICIT OF RS.48.73 LACS PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE TO COVER SUCH DEFICIT. HOWEVER, IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO E XPLAIN THE BASIS OF SUCH CASH FLOW STATEMENT. HE EXPLAINED TH AT THE AO HAS TAKEN ALL THE DEBIT ENTRIES, IGNORING THE CREDI T ENTRIES APPEARING IN INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS I.E., IN THE NAME ABDULBHAI PATHAN, THE AO HAS CONSIDERED DEBIT OF RS.1,42,062/ - WHEREAS IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL THERE ARE DEBITS OF RS.1,49, 835/- AND CREDITS OF RS.1,00,158/-. NUMBER OF SUCH ENTRIES W ERE POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT WHICH COULD EXPLAIN THE DIFFER ENCE BETWEEN THE WORKING OF APPELLANT AND THE AO. 10.5. NOW COMING TO THE SOURCE TO EXPLAIN THE DEF ICIT OF RS.48.73 LACS, THE APPELLANT HAS BROADLY GIVEN FOLL OWING SOURCES I.E., IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 9 (A) AGRICULTURAL INCOME (B) AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM NRE A/C OF PARESH D PATEL SON OF THE APPELLANT (RS.4,26,000/-) (C)GIFTS RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: (I) SHRI DILIP AMIN RS.14,25,000/- (II) APPABHAI M PATEL RS.5,00,000/- (D) AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SALE OF SCRAP MATERIAL OF OL D BUILDING RS.6.35 LACS. (E) RECOVEIES MADE FROM 12 DEBTORS (RS.11,02,430/-) (F) BOND OF BANK OF INDIA NRE A/C RS.50,000/- 10.6. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCES PLACES BY THE APPEL LANT ON RECORD, THEREFORE, THE CASE WAS REMANDED BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE AO. ON THE BASIS OF ALL THE EVIDENCES AND DETAILS A VAILABLE OR PLACED ON RECORD, ALL THE ABOVE SOURCES ARE BEING E XAMINED AS UNDER: (A) AGRICULTURAL INCOME : THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY ME IN DETAIL IN PARA 7, WHILE DECIDING THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPELLANT WERE FOUND TO BE CORRECT. ON THE BASIS O F SAME DISCUSSION, IT COULD BE EASILY INFERRED THAT DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING ATLEAST 30 TO 40 LACS NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE ASSETS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH, WERE EITHER ACQUIRED PRIOR TO BLOCK PERIOD OR FINANCE BY BANK I .E., THE HOUSE IN KABIR COMPLEX WAS ACQUIRED IN 1998 BY HIS SON AN D THE HOUSE IN ALIPUR BUILDING WAS ACQUIRED 20 YEARS AGO. THE CARE WAS FINANCED BY THE BANK. SINCE, DURING THE BLOCK PERI OD, NO MAJOR EXPENDITURE IN THE NATURE OF PERSONAL WAS NOTICED O R FOUND, IN VIEW OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES, IT HAS TO B E HELD THAT AT LEAST 20 LACS WAS INVESTED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE FINANCE BUSINESS. (B) AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SONS NRE A/C : IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT CONTEN DED THAT THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM HIS SON S NRE A/C SB 1192 WITH ANDHRA BANK, BARODA. 3.12.98 RS.20,000 22.1.98 2,73,000 2.2.2000 RS.65,000 9.2.2000 RS.68,000 THE AO DID NOT BELIEVE THE ABOVE STATEMENT FOR THE REASON THAT HE BELIEVED THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT GIVEN AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WHEREIN INTER ALIA HE HAD ADMITTED THAT HIS SON OR IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 10 DAUGHTER DO NOT HAVE ANY NRE A/C IN INDIA. THE AO DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO SEE THE COPY OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED BEF ORE HIM WHICH WAS EVIDENTLY A NRE A/C OF HIS SON WITH ANDHR A BANK, BARODA. IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE PLACED BY HIM ON RECORD WHI CH IS IN THE FORM OF COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF NRE ACCOUNT IN INDI A, GIVING SPECIFIC NUMBER AND PLACE, THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE IGN ORED THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS APPARENTLY GIV EN IN UNSETTLED FRAME OF MIND. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE EVIDENCE, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS DIRECT ED TO BE ACCEPTED AND THE DEFICIT TO THAT EXTENT HAS TO BE C ONSIDERED TO BE EXPLAINED. FOREIGN GIFTS : (C) WITH REGARD TO GIFTS RECEIVED DILIPHAI AMIN AN D APPABHAI IN THE REMAND REPORT DT. 25.3.04, THE AO REPORTED AS U NDER: THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT HE HAS RECEIVED GIFT FRO M NRIS AS UNDER: (I) GIFT RECEIVED FROM SHRI DILIPHABI AMIN OF USA RS.14,25,000/- (II)GIFT RECEIVED FROM SHRI APABHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL RS.5,00,000/- THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SHRI DI LIPHABI AMIN IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND HIS STATEMENT U/S 131 WAS RECORDED. HE HAD FURNISHED XEROX COPIES OF PASSPOR T AND US CITIZEN IDENTIFICATION DT. 11.9.01. HE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING MOTELS IN USA AND EARNS US $1,00,000 TO $ 1,50,000 BESIDES HAVING AGRICULTURAL LAND AS AT TARAPUR IN I NDIA. HE CONFIRMED TO HAVE A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ASS ESSEE NAMELY SHRI DHIRAIBHAI B PATEL SINCE LAST 15 YEARS AND ADM ITTED TO HAVE GIFTED RS.14,25,000 DURING THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 1994 TO JANUARY 1996 OUT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM NRE AND NRO ACC OUNTS OF ANDHRA BANK, BARODA BRANCH AND FURNISHED COPY OF PA SS BOOK SHOWING WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK A/C AT THE TIME OF STATEMENT. AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND DUE TO ILLNESS O F SHRI APABHAI, THE INSPECTOR OF THIS OFFICE WAS DEPUTED A T THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI APABHAI. HE STATED THAT HE STAYS AT UK SINCE 1970 AS A PROOF IDENTITY HE HAS FURNISHED XEROX COP Y OF BRITISH PASSPORT. HE ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT RS,5,0 0,000/- WAS GIFTED TO SHRI DHIRAJBHAI ON VARIOUS DATES FROM WIT HDRAWAL FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT. IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 11 IN BOTH THE ABOVE CASES, THOUGH THERE HAS BEEN NO D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCES REGARDING GIFT EITHER BY SHRI DILIPBHAI A MIN OR SHRI APABHAI PATEL, IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS, CAPACITY AN D THEIR CONFIRMATION EXISTS. THE CIT (A) MAY KINDLY, THERE FORE, DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE AO HAS NOT D OUBTED THE IDENTITY AND THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED D ONOR, HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT IN ABSENCE OF GIFT DEED ETC., HE HA S DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF GIFT. HOWEVER, IT IS WELL SETTLED PO SITION OF LAW THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND C REDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR, THE STATEMENT HAS TO BE BELIEVED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS FULFILLED THE PRE-REQ UISITE CONDITION BY PRODUCING THE PERSON ALONG WITH THE EVIDENCE OF HIS SOURCE, THE STATEMENT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, THE A O IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IN VIE W OF THIS SOURCE, THE APPELLANT IS ABLE TO PROVE SOURCE OF ANOTHER RS .20 LAKHS OF CASH DEFICIT. . RECOVERIES MADE FROM DEBTORS : C) THE NEXT MAJOR SOURCE IS RECOVERIES FROM THE DEB TORS AMOUNTING TO RS.11,02,430/- THE APPELLANT GAVE A L IST OF 12 PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RECOVERIES HAVE BEEN CLAIMED TO BE MADE BUT THE SAME COULD NOT BE ENTERED IN THE SEIZE D DIARY. 10.7 IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO SUBMITTED AS UNDE R: EXAMINATION OF PARTIES WHO HAVE REPAID LOAN BUT NO ENTRY IN DIARY THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE FOL LOWING PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE APPEARING IN THE SEIZED DIARY HAVE IN FACT WRITTEN BACK THE AMOUNT OF LOANS ADVANCED TO THEM. 1. KAUSHIKUMAR D PATEL 58500 2.BHAVARBHAI D MARVAD I 51,000/- 3.KHAILASHBHAI D. BHATT 4.KANTIBHAI R BA RIA 51,000/- ALIAS RAVA 258000 5.KHATRI M SULA IMANBHAI 1,95,000/- 6.RASIKBHAI C BARIA 49500 7.LALABHAI H KHATR I 92,800/- 8.KADUJIBHAI D BARIDA 92,800 9.CHHAGANBHAI GHKMAB HAI 51,000/- 10.SULEMANBHAIMANSURI62,000 11.SHASHIKN V PA TEL 1,06,600/- 12.PIYUSHBHAI TAKORLAL 50,000 OUT OF THE ABOVE PERSONS, (1) KANTIBHAI R BARIA AND SULEMAN MANUSRI DECEASED; (2) CHHAGANBHAI GHEMABHAI AND MUS TAK AHMED SULEMANBHAI COPIES OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED; (3) SHASHIKAN V PATEL STAYING ABROAD; AND (4) RASIKBHAI C BARIA AND PIYUSH THAKORLAL -NA. IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 12 THE FOLLOWING PERSONS WERE AVAILABLE AND THEIR IDEN TITY WAS VERIFIED. IN THEIR SELF CONFIRMATORY STATEMENTS, T HEY STATED AS FOLLOWS: (I) SHRI KAUSHIKKUMAR DINSHABHAI PATEL RS.58,500/ -: SHRI K.D.PATEL AGED 36 YEARS HAS STATED HE HOLDS 20 VIGH AS OF LAND. HIS AZNNUAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS RS.100000/- TO R S.125000/- AND OUT OF SALE OF WATER THE INCOME IS APPROXIMATEL Y RS.15000 AND RS.20000/-. REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF LAND HE HAS FURNISHED 7/12. HE STATED THAT FOR PURCHASE OF SEEDS, FERTIL IZERS AND FOR OTHER MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES HE USED TO BORROW MONE Y FROM SHRI DHIRAJBHAI WHO IS HIS NEAREST RELATIVES. HE S TATED THAT HE HAS REPAID THE LOAN AND FURNISH AS COPY OF EXTRACT FROM CASH BOOK MAINTAINED BY HIM AS PROOF OF REPAYMENT. ( II) SHRI BHAVARLAL DEVILAL MARVADI ALIAS KEROSENEWA LA RS.51,000/- SHRI BHAVARLAL AGED 35 YEARS STATED THAT HE IS DOIN G BUSINESS OF SELLING KEROSENE ON RETAIL BASIS AS A HAWKER. HE A DMITTED TO HAVE TAKEN LOAN AND STATED TO HAVE REPAID THE SAME WITH INTEREST. HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY PROOF OF DOCUMENT EITHER FOR ACCEPTANCE OF LOAN AND REPAYMENT OF THE SAME. (III) SHRI KAILASHBHAI DHANBHAI BHATT ALIAS RAVAL RS.2,58 ,000/- SHRI KAILASHBHAI AGED 40 YEARS HAS STATED THAT HE I S DOING THE BUSINESS OF EXIDE BATTERY HAVING TURNOVER OF RS.5 T O 7 LACS PER ANNUM AS A PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION HE HAS SUBMITT ED XEROX COPIES OF ELECTION COMMISSION IDENTITY CARD. HE ST ATED THAT SHRI DHIRAJBHAI IS HIS FRIEND AND WHENEVER THE FUND WAS REQUIRED FOR MARRIAGE OR BUSINESS PURPOSE HE USED TO LOAN FROM S HRI DHIRAJBHAI. FURTHER, HE STATED THAT DUE TO CANCELL ATION OF MARRIAGE CEREMONY RS.200000 WAS RETURNED BACK WITHI N 15 DAYS. XEROX COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 30.12.2000 OF RS .200000/- ISSUED BY SHRI DHIRBHAI IS SUBMITTED FOR VERIFICATI ON. FURTHER, HE ALSO STATED THAT HE HAS RETURNED RS.58000/- ON 5.1. 2001 TO SHRI DHIRJBHAI. XEROX COPY OF RECEIPT IS ALSO SUBMITTED AS A PROOF OF REPAYMENT. (IV) SHRI KADUJIBHAI DHULABHAI BARDIA RS.92,800/- SHRI KADUJI IS AN AGRICULTURIST HAVING ANNUAL INCOM E FROM AGRI. RS. 2 LACS TO RS.3 LACS PER ANNUM. HE ALSO STATED THAT HIS ANNUAL INCOME FROM SALE OF MILK IS APPROXIMATELY RS .1 LAC. HE SIMPLY STATED THAT WHENEVER THE FUND WAS REQUIRED T O PURCHASE FERTILIZERS, SEEDS AND MEDICINES FOR AGRI PRODUCTS HE USED TO TAKE LOAN FROM SHRI DHIRAJBHAI AND ON SALE OF AGRO PRODU CTS HE USED IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 13 TO RETURN THE SAME WITH INTEREST TO SHRI DHIRAJBHAI . FURTHER HE STATED THAT AS ON TODAY HE HAS NOT T O PAY ANYTHING TO SHRI DHIRAJIBHAI. 3) ENTRIES OF RS.64913/- AND RS.160000/- THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT RS.64913/- CREDITED ON 22.1.00 IN NRE A/C NO.7531 WITH BANK OF INDIA IS CONVERSION OF $ 1400 RECEIVED FROM ABROAD. XEROX COPY OF PASS BOOK IS S UBMITTED AS A PROOF OF RECEIPT OF MONEY. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT RS.160000 IS REALIZATION OF BOND OF BANK OF INDIA A ND CREDITED IN THE BANK OF INDIA, DOLAKIA BRANCH ON 21.9.00 RS.400 00/- AND RS.40000/- AND NEXT ENTRY IS DATED 16.10.00 RS.8000 0/- WAS RECORDED IN THE BANK STATEMENT. XEROX COPY OF THE PASS BOOK IS FURNISHED AS A PROOF OF RECEIPT OF AMOUNT. 10.8. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT OUT OF 12 PERSONS 5 APPEARED AND SUBMITTED THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND HAV E CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE REPAID THE LOAN THEREFORE THE EXTENT OF RS.6,01,630/- INVOLVING 6 PERSONS HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED. 10.9. OUT OF REMAINING 7 PERSONS, TWO PERSONS HAVE EXPIRED, THEREFORE, THEIR CONFIRMATIONS HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED AS THE APPELLANT CAN NOT PRODUCE THEM NOW. IF THE AO HAD TAKEN CARE TO EXAMINE THESE PERSONS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , POSSIBLY SOME ADVERSE EFFECT COULD HAVE BEEN DRAWN. HOWEVE R, IN THE PRESENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EXPLANATION OF TH E APPELLANT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED ON THE BASIS OF CONFIRMATION, INVOLV ING RS.1,02,000/. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO OTHER 5 PERSONS, IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT MERE FILING CONFIRMATION DOES NOT DISCHARGE THE ONU S LIES ON HIM. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLA NT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,98,800/-. 10.8. (SIC) 10.10. HOWEVER, IF WE SEE THE OVERALL POSITION, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRAT IVELY PROVE THE FOLLOWING SOURCES: 1 AGRICULTURAL INCOME RS.30 TO 40 LACS 2 NRE A/C OF SON RS.4,26,000 3 GIFTS RS.20 LACS 4 RECOVERIES MADE RS.7 LACS 5 BONDS REALIZATION RS.1.6 LACS 6 WITHDRAWAL FROM NRE A/C NO.7531 RS.50,000 IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 14 10.11 SO, ALL THE ABOVE AMOUNTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEFICIT OF RS.48.73 LACS. IT IS EVEN SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE ADDITION OF RS.67.01 LACS WHICH IS INCLUSIVE OF INTEREST INC OME. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, ADDITION OF RS.67.01 LACS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE AO IS THUS DIR ECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.67.01 LACS. 8.2 WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN DELETING THE WHOPPING ADDITION OF RS.67.01 LAKHS . THE LD. CIT (A) HAD, IN FACT, ANALYZED THE ISSUE UNDER DISTINCTIVE HEADS SUCH AS (I) AGRICULTURAL INCOME; (II) AMOUNTS WITHDRAWAL FROM NRE A/C OF THE ASSESSEES SON; (III) GIFTS RECEIVED FROM NRIS; (IV) RECOVERIES MADE FROM THE DEBTORS; AND (V) BOND OF BANK OF INDIA NRE A/C, BESIDES, POINTING OU T THAT THE LD. AO HAD FAILED TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCES PLACED BY THE ASSES SEE ON RECORD DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH CULMINAT ED IN REMANDING BACK THE ISSUE TO THE AO FOR EXAMINATION AND FURNIS H HIS COMMENTS. AFTER SCRUPULOUSLY EXAMINING THE ISSUE WITH REFEREN CE TO THE AOS REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT (A) ARRIVED AT A CONCLUS ION IN A WELL THOUGHT- OUT MANNER THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.67.01 LAKHS MADE U/S 69 OF THE ACT AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. SINCE NO REBUTTAL HAS BEEN FORTH-C OMING FROM THE REVENUE SIDE WITH ANY DISCREET DOCUMENTARY PROOF, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) REQUIRES TO BE SUSTAINED. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. IV. DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.15 LAKHS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN FINANCING FOR VEHICLES: 9. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE AO THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN E ACH OF THE ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED MATERIALS TO ASCERTAIN THE UNEXPLAINED SOURCE IN THE BUSINESS OF MOTORCYCLE FINANCE, IF ANY. ACCORD ING TO THE AO, SINCE IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 15 THERE WAS NO PROPER RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE, HE CULLED OUT THE INFORMATION FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECO RDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT WHEREIN HE PURPORTED TO HAVE ADMITTED THAT HE HAD FINANCED ONLY FOR 25 MOTOR CYCLES AND THE INVESTMENTS COME TO RS. 3.5 LAKHS TO RS.5 LAKHS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS. TO ASCERTAIN THE VE RACITY OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, THE AO, PERHAPS, CROSS-VERIFIED WITH THE STA TEMENT OF THE PARTNER OF YOGI AUTOMOBILES WHO APPEARED TO HAVE CONFESSED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FINANCED FOR 75 VEHICLES, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH , THE AO HAD WORKED OUT THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.15 LAKHS. 9.1 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED THAT: [PARA 11.1 OF CIT(A)S ORDER] VEHICLE FINANCE RS.1500000/-: IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER RS.15 LACS HAS BEEN ADDED OVER AND ABOVE RS.67.02 (SIC) 67.1 L ACS ON THE GROUND THAT TOTAL VEHICLE FINANCED AS PER STATEMENT OF YOGI AUTO MOBILES IS 75 VEHICLES AS AGAINST 25 VEHICLES STAT ED BY ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) IN PARA 7(5) OF A O. AS EXPLAINED BY US ASSESSEE WAS UNDER MENTAL STRESS DUE TO SUDDEN PROBLEM OF WIFE AND, THEREFORE, REPLY GIVEN BY ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS FULLY CORRECT. THAT APART, THE WHOLE DIARY SEIZED ON THE BASIS OF WHICH RS.67.01 LACS HAS BEEN WORKED OUT IN ASSESSMENT INCLUDES 90% RELATING TO VEHICLE LOAN S ONLY. ADDITION OF FURTHER RS.15 LACS IS NOTHING BUT DUPLI CATION OF THE LOANS COVERED UNDER RS.67.01 LACS. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN CASE OF FOLLOWING 5 PERSONS VEHICLE LOSNS GIVEN COU LD NOT BE EXPLAINED (PARA 7). 1) SHRI UDESING RATHWA } THEY ARE ALREADY INCLU DED IN LIST OF 2) SHRI DILIPSINH SINORE } DI ARIES AS PER ANNEXURE - I 3) SHRI PRAVIN BARIA ALIAS PAPPU BARIA } 4) SHRI BARKATALI KHATRI : HE HAS SOLD MOT ORBIKE TO ASSESSEE FOR RS.33351/- 5) YOGI AUTOMOBILES : AS EXPLAINED I N PARA 2(A) ABOVE IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 16 9.2 CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS OBSERVED THAT: 11.2. AS CAN BE SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT CONTENDED T HAT IT IS AS DUPLICATION OF ADDITION, AS ALL THE DETAILS OF VEHI CLE FINANCE HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE DIARY SEIZED ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS WORKED OUT DEFICIT OF RS.48.73 LACS. 11.3. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO IDENTIFY SUCH ENTRIES. HE POINTED OUT SUCH ENTRIES WHERE VEHICLE NO., WAS ALSO NOTED DOWN IN THE DIARY (LIST ENCLOSE D HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE A). SINCE, ALL THESE ENTRIES ARE IDENTI FIABLE FROM THE SEIZED DIARY, ENTRIES OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN TA KEN CARE OF IN THE WORKING OF RS.48.73 (LACS), THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 LACS HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS DUPLICATION OF ADDITION. THE AO I S THUS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.15 LACS. 9.3 WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE CONTENTIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE PUT FORTH BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ALSO THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) CITED SUPRA. THE LD. DR PRESENT WAS HEARD. SI NCE NO FRESH MATERIALS HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO DISPUTE THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT (A), THE FINDING OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS SUSTAIN ED ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. V . DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1.31 LAKHS MADE ON ACCOU NT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN LAKSHMI HARDWARE S HOP: 10. THE LD. AO HAD ADDED A SUM OF RS.1.31 LAKHS AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN LAKSHMI HARDWARE SHOP FOR THE FOLLOWI NG REASONS: 8. PAGE NO.25 OF THE SEIZED LOOSE PAPER FILE (ANNE XURE A8) IS A SALE DEED CONCLUDED IN 1991 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AN D SHRI RAMESHKUMAR SUTHAR FOR TAKING OVER LAXMI HARDWARE S HOP IN ALIPURA, BODELI FOR RS.1,31,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WA S CONFRONTED TO THE SOURCE OF THIS INVESTMENT IN HIS STATEMENT R ECORDED U/S 132(4) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH VIDE Q.NO.4 WHER EIN HE HAS STATED THAT THIS INVESTMENT IS MADE OUT OF AGRICULT URAL INCOME. HOWEVER, AS HELD ABOVE IN THIS ORDER, THERE WAS NO SURPLUS FUND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AFTER MEETING HIS HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES FOR MAKING ANY SORT OF INVESTMENT. IN THE ASSESSMENT IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 17 PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ASKED IN THE SH OW-CAUSE NOTICE ON THIS ISSUE, BUT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFF ERED ANY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE SAID INVESTMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WITH DOCUMENTARY PR OOF, A SUM OF RS.1,31,000/- IS TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AND TAXED ACCORDINGLY . 10.1 THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RECORDED THE REASONS FOR D ELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1.31 LAKHS AS UNDER: 13.1. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT H AS REITERATED HIS SUBMISSION. I FIND MYSELF IN CONFORMITY WITH TH E VIEWS OF THE APPELLANT THAT SINCE IN 1991, HE WAS HAVING NO OTHE R SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE SAME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,31,000/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED . 10.2 CONSIDERING THE REASONING OF THE LD. CIT (A) A ND ALSO THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR ANY I NTERFERENCE AT THIS STAGE. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. VI. AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 3 4 LAKHS PER YE AR: 11. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, APPEARS TO HAVE ADMITTED THAT HIS AGRICULTURAL INCO ME WAS RS.15,000/- TO RS.20,000/- PER YEAR AND THAT THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED IN NARMADA PROJECT 15 YEARS BACK FOR WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED RS.3 LAKHS AS COMPENSATION. THIS FACT HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS MORE AGRICULTURAL LANDS WHICH WAS APPARENT FROM 7/12 SEI ZED DURING SEARCH. IT APPEARS THAT ON POST SEARCH OPERATION, I.E., ON 25. 1.2001, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT, THE CONTENTS OF WHICH, AMON G OTHERS, THAT ON ACCOUNT OF SEARCH AND CONSTANT INQUIRY BY OFFICERS, MY WIFE WAS MENT ALLY UPSET AND HAD ATTACK OF HYSTERIA DURING THE SEARCH IN PRESENCE OF IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 18 OFFICERS. TO PROVE FURTHER THAT HE WAS MENTALLY DISTURBED, HE REITERATED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE SEQUENCE OF WHICH, ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: [PARA 5.2. OF CIT(A)S ORDER] TO PROVE FURTHER THA T APPELLANT WAS (NOT) MENTALLY DISTURBED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH HE D REW MY ATTENTION TO THE FACT THOUGH THE APPELLANT WAS HAVI NG 25 ACRE LAND FOR AGRICULTURE, DOCUMENT I.E., 7/12 OF WHICH HAVE ALSO BEEN SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHEREIN THE PRODUCTION OF VARIOUS CROPS ARE REFLECTING THE APPELLANT HAD STATED THAT HE IS HAVING ONLY 3 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THIS STATEMENT IS DEFINITELY CONTRARY TO THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH. THIS FACT ITSELF SUGGESTS THAT THE DECLARATION WAS MADE IN A VERY DISTURBED STATE OF MIND. 5.3. THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IS DULY CONSID ERED. APPARENTLY, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT DURING THE SEARCH HE WAS MENTALLY NOT STABLE DUE TO ILLNESS OF HIS WIFE WHICH IS FURTHER PROVED BY THE FACT THAT THOUGH HE IS HAVING 25 ACRE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON WHICH VARIOUS CROPS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE P RODUCED AND THE TALATI HAS ESTIMATED 3 TO 4 LACS NET AGRICU LTURAL INCOME ON SUCH LAND. BUT, HE HAD FORGOTTEN TO DISCLOSE THE S AME FACT TO THE DEPARTMENT AND HAD STATED THAT HIS AGRICULTURAL LAN D IS ONLY 3 ACRE AND INCOME IS ONLY RS.15,000/- PER ANNUM. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT, HE STATED THAT THE ANNUAL INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF FINANCE IS RS.1,50,000/- WHEREAS WHILE FILING THE RETURN, HE H AS DECLARED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.4,41,893/- IN ONE YEAR I.E., FROM 1.4.2000 TO 31.3.2001. ALL THESE FACTS SUGGEST THAT WHILE G IVING STATEMENT U/S 132(4) TO THE AO THE APPELLANT WAS MENTALLY DIS TURBED 11.1 REVERTING BACK TO THE MAIN ISSUE, THE ASSESSE E CLAIMED THAT HE WAS HAVING 25 ACRES OF LAND WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE 7/12 SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH AND TO PROVE THAT HE WAS HAVING 3 TO 4 LACS AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THESE LANDS, HE PRODUCED CERTIFICATE OF TALATI. 11.2 THE LD. CIT (A) HAS MENTIONED IN HER IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: 7.1.THE ABOVE DETAILS WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO. TH E AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT DT. 25.3.04, THE AO HAS CONFIRMED THA T ON THE BASIS OF ANNEXURE A-2, THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE THE IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 19 OWNER OF THE FOLLOWING AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH IS O VER AND ABOVE THE LAND ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN NARMADA PROJ ECT : PLACE SURVEY NO. AREA PAGE NO. OF ANNEX.A2 ZANKHERPURA TA.SANKHEDA 36 1-82-11 AS PER AS SUBMISSION DHANKNAKIA TA. JAMBUGHODA AHMARYA TA. SAMKHEDA 60/P 7 3-03-51 3-05-54 11 12 DHANKNAKIA TA. JAMBHUGHODA - DO - 3 10 0-10-12 0-10-12 27 13 7.2. THOUGH THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE EXISTENCE OF 25 ACRES OF LAND BUT HAS NOT COMMENTED UPON THE EXTENT OF AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN EARNED BY THE APPELLANT DURIN G THE BLOCK PERIOD . 7.3. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO H AS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN DETAILS ON PAGES 7 TO 10. THE OBSERVATION AND CONCLUSION OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD ARE REPRODUCED BELOW 7.4 IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT BAS ICALLY REITERATED HIS SUBMISSION WHICH READS AS UNDER: AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING : WE ENCLOSE HEREWITH COPIES OF 7/12 OR 8A RELATING TO LAND HELD BY ASSESSEE. THESE COPIES AR E TAKEN FROM SEIZED RECORD. S.NO AREA VILLAGE DATE FORM 36 1-82-11 ZANKHARPURA 13/7/91 8A 44 1-62-89 ZANKHARPURA 13/7/91 7 3-05-54 ALIKHARVA 28/2/90 7/12 10 0-10-12 DHANAKIA 29/2/91 6 3 0-10-12 DHANAKIA 60P 0-03-51 DHANAKIA 05/2/97 7/12 ______ 9-74-29 ALL THESE LANDS WERE AGRICULTURAL LAND. THIS WAS HE LD BY ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER 1985 WHICH MEANS OVER AND ABOVE LAND ACQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT FOR NARMADA PROJECT IN 1985 ASSESSEE HAD BEEN HOLDING ABOVE LANDS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPO SE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECORD SEIZED. IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 20 AGRICULTURAL INCOME : IN ABSENCE OF REGULAR BOOKS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ESTIMATED ON THE B ASIS OF OTHER EVIDENCES WHICH CAN BE CALCULATED AS UNDER: (A) LAND USED FOR AGRICULTURE IS 9-74-29 WHICH IS A LMOST 25 ACRE OF LAND CONSIDERING MINIMUM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF AB OVE RS.25000/- PER ACRE. TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME WOU LD BE RS.625000/- AND CONSIDERING 25% COST OF AGRICULTURE NET INCOME CAN BE NOT LESS THAN RS.4.50 LACS EVERY YEAR . (B) NATURE OF CROP AS COULD BE VERIFIED FROM 7/12 I S COTTON, TUVER, JUVAR ETC., (C) TOTAL QUANTITY PRODUCED EVERY YEAR ON AVERAGE: CROP NAME QUANTITY RATE IN RS. ESTIMATED INCOME COTTON 200 QUINTAL 2000 PER QUINTAL RS.4,00,000 JUVAR 1250 KGS. 8 PER KG. 10,000 TUVER 10 QUINTAL 1600 PER QUINTAL 16,000 GRASS 25,000 TO TAL INCOME RS.4,51,000 THIS IS JUST TO ESTABLISH THAT: (A) ASSESSEE IS BASICALLY AGRICULTURIST (B) HE IS STILL HOLDING SUFFICIENT AGRICULTURAL LAN D AS PER DETAILS GIVEN ABOVE. (C) INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE IS NOT LESS THAN RS.3 T O 4 LACS EVERY YEAR. (D) IT IS TOTALLY INCORRECT ON THE PART OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO RELY ON STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE THAT HE HOLDS ONLY 3 ACRES OF LAND AND HIS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE IS RS.15000/- PER YEAR ONLY. 7.5 IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE FOLLOWING C ONTENTIONS WERE RAISED: AGRICULTURAL LAND : AS EXPLAINED EARLIER, ALL AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY ASSESSEE ARE ANCESTRAL LAND AND THE EVIDEN CE RELATING TO THE SAME IS ALREADY LYING IN THE SEIZED PAPERS. WE ENCLOSED HEREWITH THE COPIES OF FORM 6 WHICH WE COULD FIND FROM SEIZED RECORD. WE ALSO ENCLOSE HEREWITH THE FRESH CERTIFICATE TAKE N FROM TALATI/SARPANCH OF KHADIVAV AND ALIKHERVA VILLAGES CONFIRMING THAT IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 21 (1) LAND IS ANCESTRAL AND TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME O F ASSESSEE AS HEIR (2) LAND WAS USED FOR AGRICULTURE AND VARIOUS CROPS WAS TAKEN BY ASSESSEE. FATHER OF ASSESSEE EXPIRED WHEN AGE OF ASSESSEE WAS ONLY 15 YEARS. SINCE THEN HE IS TAKING CARE OF THE FAMILY. ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING HIS MOTHER, BROTHER AND A SISTER OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AGRICULTURAL INCOME : RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS CASE WE HAVE STASTED THAT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132 (4), IT IS WRONGLY STASTED THAT INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE IS RS. 15,000/- ONLY. FROM THE TOTAL AREA OF LAND ITSELF ONE CAN ESTIMATE THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE FAMILY EVEN BEFORE 30 40 YEARS MUST BE AROUND RS.1 OR 2 LACS AND IN THE PERIOD FRO M 1980 ONWARDS IT MUST BE AROUND RS.2 TO 3 LACS EVERY YEAR . AND THIS INCOME WAS SPENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF FAMILY AND ACQU ISITION OF ASSETS ETC., 7.6. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT ALL THE EV IDENCES RELATED TO HOLDING OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND INCOME THEREON WERE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE EXISTENCE OF SEIZED RECORDS AND HAD ADOPTED THE SHO RTEST ROUTE FOR MAKING ADDITIONS I.E., STATEMENT OF THE APPELLA NT. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE AO, AFTER VERIFICATION OF S EIZED MATERIAL AND SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS CONFIRMED THAT AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL, THE APPELLANT IS HAVING 25 ACRES O F AGRICULTURAL LAND. FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE CERTIFICATE OF TALATI AND GRAM SEVAK WERE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE AO . SINCE HE HAS NOT COMMENTED UPON ADVERSELY ON THESE CERTIFICA TES, IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE CONTENTS OF CERTIFICATE ARE COR RECT. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE CERTIFICATE OF TALATI ALIKHERA (PAG E 68 OF PAPER BOOK) HAS BEEN PERUSED BY ME AND NOTICED THAT WITH REGARD TO SURVEY NO.36 AND 44, IT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY HIM T HAT ON THESE LANDS, CROP OF HYBRID COTTON SEEDS, COTTON AND BANA NA WERE PRODUCED AND THE ANNUAL INCOME IS ESTIMATED AT RS.5 ,70,000/-. SIMILARLY, THE TALATI OF DHANAKIA HAS CONFIRMED THE ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.3 LACS. IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 22 7.7. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS DI SCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS TO BE HELD THAT THE APPELLANT MUST BE HAVING NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF APPROXIMATELY RS.3 TO 4 LACS PER ANNUM . 11.3 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS FORCEFULLY ARGUED BY THE LD. D R THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN HOLDI NG THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.3 TO 4 LACS PER ANNUM WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT MERE HOLDING OF AGRICULTURE LAND IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCO ME AND DESPITE AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN, THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUB STANTIATE HIS CLAIM FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDING OR DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS WITH SUPPORTING PROOF AND EVIDENCE. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE LD. D R DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO [SOURCE: P 481 OF THE PB DR] AND THE PRELIMI NARY STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132 OF THE ACT [P 488 AND 490 OF PB DR ] AND IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY E RRED IN ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE HAVING NET AG RICULTURAL INCOME OF AROUND RS.3 4 LAKHS PER ANNUM WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D R, DOESNT COMMAND ANY MERIT. 11.4 WE HAVE CAUTIOUSLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION S OF THE ASSESSEE, PERUSED THE REASONING OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND ALSO T HE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE LD. D R AS WELL AS THE VOLUMINOUS PAPER BOOK S FURNISHED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 11.5 AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO RECALL THE AS SERTION OF THE LD. AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT ADDRESSED TO THE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN OWNING AND UNDER AGRICULTURAL CULTIVATION OF 9 -74-29 WHICH WAS EQUIVALENT TO 25 ACRES OF FERTILE LAND THOUGH THE ASSESSEE STATED IN HIS STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT THAT HIS AGRICULTUR AL LAND HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN NARMADA PROJECT EVIDE NCES SHOW THAT HE IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 23 HAD AGRICULTURAL LAND AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AS M ENTIONED AT PAGE NO. 481 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL PAPER BOOK. ANOTHER SALIENT FEATURE IS THAT THE SAID LANDS ARE SITUATED ON OR NEARER TO THE RIVER-B ED WITH FACILITY OF PLENTIFUL WATER FOR IRRIGATION UNINTERRUPTEDLY. TH IS AMPLY DISPELS THE REVENUES APPREHENSION THAT MERE HOLDING OF AGRICUL TURE LAND WOULD NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCO ME. AS RIGHTLY HIGHLIGHTED BY THE LD. CIT (A), THE CERTIFICATES OF TALATI AND GRAM SEVAK WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. SINC E THE AO HAD NOT COMMENTED UPON ADVERSELY ON THOSE CERTIFICATES, THE AUTHENTICITY OR OTHERWISE OF SUCH CERTIFICATES CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO SCANNER. IF THE REVENUE DOUBTED THE VERY BONA-FIDE OF SUCH CERTIFIC ATES APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ORIGINATED FROM THE LOWER LEVEL AUTHORITIES OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT, WHAT PREVENTED IT TO CROSS VERIFY THE VERACITY OF SUCH CERTIFICATES AT THAT RELEVANT TIME ITSELF IS A QUESTION AND ANSWER TO IT LIES AT ITS DOORSTEP. 11.6 IN AN OVERALL CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ISSUE AS DELIBERATED UPON IN THE FORE-GOING PARAGRA PHS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS, IN FACT, TAKEN ALL THE ASPECTS INTO CONSIDERATION AND ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION WHICH REQ UIRES NO INTERVENTION OF THIS BENCH AT THIS STAGE. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDI NGLY. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. 2 1 + 0'& 3#!' 29 / 12 /2011 ' 4 + . 5 SD/- SD/- (D.K.TYAGI) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED : 29/12/2011 IT(SS)A NO. 182/AHD./2004 24 1 1 1 1 + ++ + */ */*/ */6 6 6 6 76&/' 76&/' 76&/' 76&/' - 1. () 2. *() 3. !! / -8 4. -8 - - 5. 69 */# , , 5 6. :2 1 , ; / !< , 5 TALUKDAR/ SR. P.S .