The DCIT, Inv. Circle -1, Rajasthan V. Shri Phoolchand Soni, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 206/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0279 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHASH BAINS SHRI G C PIPARA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Block assessment

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD , !' # $ $ $ $ %, # BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT SL. NO(S) IT(SS)A NO(S) BLOCK PERIOD (A.Y.) APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 206/AHD/2013 1987-88 TO 1997-98 DY.CIT INV. CIRCLE-1 JODHPUR SHRI PHOOLCHAND SONI G-2, JETHABAI PARK NARAIN NAGAR ROAD PALDI, AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO.P- 732 2. 207/AHD/2013 -DO- -DO- SHRI PUKHRAJ SONI PAN/GIR NO.P- 733 -ADDRESS SAME- 3. 208/AHD/2013 -DO- SHRI POOLCHAND SONI, AHD DY.CIT INV.CIRCLE-1 JODHPUR REVENUE BY : SHRI SUBHASH BAINS CIT-DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.C. PIPARA, A.R. & ' ' / / / / DATE OF HEARING 09/09/2014 )*+ ' ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19/09/2014 !, / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : IT(SS)A NOS.206 & 208/AHD/2013 THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENU E ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER O F INCOME IT(SS)A NOS.206&208/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. SHRI PHOOLCHAND SONI AND IT(SS)A NO.207/AHD/2013 - DCIT VS. SHRI PUKHRAJ SONI BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 - 2 - TAX(APPEALS)-JODHPUR (CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 31/01/2000 PERTAINING TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.206/AHD/2013. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN :- I) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1405341/- MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED PAPERS ANNEXURE A-1, ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF SILVER, JOB CHARGES AND U NDISCLOSED PROFIT EARNED, BY ACCEPTING THE UNSUBSTANTIATED AND INAUTHENTIC CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PAPERS CONTAINED IN ANNE XURE A-1 RELATED TO M/S.MAHASHAKTI JEWELLERS AND ADDITION HA D ALREADY BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THESE PAPERS IN THE CASE OF M/S.MAHASHAKTI JEWELLERS. II) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10000 ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT, EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS: III) ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.218000/- OUT OF ADDITI ON OF RS.346392/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM JOB WORK , WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FULL FACTS OF THE CASE PARTICULARLY THE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSE E FOR WHICH THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY SEPARATE ADDITION; IV) HOLDING THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DETER MINING/ESTIMATING UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSE S, WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S.158BC(C) OF THE ACT, ALTHOUGH SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAD BEEN DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. IT(SS)A NOS.206&208/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. SHRI PHOOLCHAND SONI AND IT(SS)A NO.207/AHD/2013 - DCIT VS. SHRI PUKHRAJ SONI BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 - 3 - THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEN D OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD FOR DISPOSAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT A SEARCH ACTION U /S.132(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. SEARCH ACTIO N WAS ALSO CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF M/S.MAHASHAKTI JEWELLERS. THE ASSESSME NT FRAMED U/S.158BC OF THE ACT VIDE DATED 24/02/1999 AND ADDI TIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 3. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDI TION OF RS.14,05,341/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT IN PURCHASES OF SILVER, JOB CHARGES AND UNDISCLOSED PROFIT EARNE D. 3.1. THE LD.CIT-DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT A SIMILAR ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE SAME TRANSACTION IN T HE CASE OF MAHASHAKTI JEWELLERS, THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SAME. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE UNDISPUTED FACT WHICH IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY TH E REVENUE IS THAT ALL THE PAPERS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S.MAHAS HAKTI JEWELLERS AND ADDITION WAS MADE THEREIN. THE PAPERS ARE NOT PERT AINING TO THE ASSESSEE. IT(SS)A NOS.206&208/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. SHRI PHOOLCHAND SONI AND IT(SS)A NO.207/AHD/2013 - DCIT VS. SHRI PUKHRAJ SONI BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 - 4 - WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RECORDED A FINDING O N FACT IN PARA-13 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.COUNSE L IN THIS REGARD. I HAVE ALSO SEEN THE REASONING GIVEN BY TH E AO WHILE MAKING THESE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SI LVER WEIGHING 159.034 KG, ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF JOB CHARGES AN D ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECORDED PROFIT. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF T HE MATTER, I HOLD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THESE ADDIT IONS BECAUSE THE PAPERS WHICH ARE PART OF ANNEXURE A-1 HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI KISHANLAL JIYALAL SO NI PROP. M/S.MAHESHAKTI JEWELLERS IN HIS ASSESSMENT AND ADDI TION WAS MADE AMOUNTING TO RS.9,68,000. IT IS CLEAR FROM TH E PERUSAL OF SOME OF THE PAPERS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE A-1 THAT T HESE PAPERS RELATED TO M/S.MAHASHAKTI JEWELLERS. THERE IS CLEA R INDICATION TO THIS EFFECT THAT THE PAPERS RELATE TO THE BUSINESS OF M/S.MAHASHAKTI JEWELLERS. MOREOVER, APPELLANTS ADMITTANCE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED BOTH AT THE RESIDE NCE AND AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S.MAHASHAKTI JEWELLERS WHERE IN HE HAD ADMITTED THAT CERTAIN PAPERS AS PER ANNEXURE A-1 RE LATE TO THE UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS OF M/S.MAHASHAKTI JEWLLERS CAN NOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE PARTICULARLY WHEN ADVERSE INFERENCE H AD ALREADY BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF SH.KISHANLAL JIYALAL SONI PROP. M/S.MAHASHAKTI JEWELLERS. APPELLANT IS AN EMPLOYEE OF M/S.MAHASHAKTI JEWELLERS AND THE FINDING OF CERTAIN PAPERS RELATING TO M/S.MAHSHAKTI JEWELLERS CANNOT BE SAID UNUSUAL. MOREOVER ABSOLUTE INFERENCE CANNOT BE DRAWN U/S.132 (4A) PARTICULARLY WHEN APPELLANT HAD ADMITTED IN CLEAR T ERMS THAT CERTAIN PAPERS IN ANNEXURE A-1 RELATE TO THE BUSINE SS OF M/S.MAHESHAKTI JEWELLERS. THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDEN CE FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OR BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO THA T SUCH PURCHASE OF SILVER WERE MADE BY THE APPELLANT OR FO R THAT MATTER APPELLANT HAD MADE PAYMENT O RS.71,204 FOR JOB CHAR GES FOR MAKING SILVER ORNAMENTS OR THE APPELLANT HAD EARNED A SUM OF RS.2,22,355 ON SUCH TRANSACTION. ACCORDINGLY, I HO LD THAT THE AO WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.11,11,782 ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF SILVER, RS.71,204 ON ACCO UNT OF PAYMENT IT(SS)A NOS.206&208/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. SHRI PHOOLCHAND SONI AND IT(SS)A NO.207/AHD/2013 - DCIT VS. SHRI PUKHRAJ SONI BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 - 5 - OF JOB CHARGES FOR MAKING SILVER ORNAMENTS AND RS.2 ,22,355 ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT EARNED. I, THEREFORE, DELETE TH ESE ADDITIONS TOTALING TO RS.14,05,341. THUS, THE APPELLANT WILL GET A RELIEF OF RS.14,05,341. 4.1. THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY MATERIAL CONTRARY TO THE FI NDING OF THE LD.CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. 5. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF R .10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT. TH E LD.CIT-DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO, WHEREAS LD.COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.10,00/- DULY FURNISHED IN THE RETURN FOR AY 1995 -96. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDING THAT T HE DEPOSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.10,000/- ON 04/10/1994 IN SB A/C. WA S DULY DISCLOSED WHILE FURNISHING RETURN IN THE AY 1995-96 MUCH PRIO R TO THE DATE OF SEARCH. THIS FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. IT(SS)A NOS.206&208/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. SHRI PHOOLCHAND SONI AND IT(SS)A NO.207/AHD/2013 - DCIT VS. SHRI PUKHRAJ SONI BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 - 6 - 7. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS. 2,18,000/- OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.3,46,392/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISC LOSED INCOME FROM JOB WORK, WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FULL FACTS OF THE CASE. 7.1. THE CIT-DR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO, WHEREAS THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 7.2. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS QUITE REASONED ORDER AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FA CT AND MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE HIM HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON FACT THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS A PARTNER IN FIRM KNOWN AS M/S.MAHASHAKTI JEWELLERS UPTO AY 1993 -94, THEREFORE HE THOUGHT IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,28,392/- OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.3,46,392/-. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) SINCE THE A O HAD MADE ESTIMATION WHICH ACCORDING TO THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT PROPER. T HUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 9. GROUND NO.4 IS AGAINST IN HOLDING BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DETERMINING/ESTIMATING UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 9.1. THE LD.CIT-DR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A O. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE IT(SS)A NOS.206&208/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. SHRI PHOOLCHAND SONI AND IT(SS)A NO.207/AHD/2013 - DCIT VS. SHRI PUKHRAJ SONI BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 - 7 - LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE AO ON HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AS THE ESTIMATION IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ESTIMATION IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND ANY ESTIMATIO N IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJEC TED. 11. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL, I.E. IT(SS)A N O.206/AHD/2013 IS DISMISSED. 12. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT(SS) A NO.208/AHD/2013 FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDI TION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.53,424/- OUT OF INVESTMENT IN HOUSEHOLD GOODS/AR TICLES, AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND SU BMISSION THE ADDITION OF RS.53,424 REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 12.1 AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. LD.CIT-DR HAS NO OBJECTION. IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE, THE IT(SS)A NOS.206&208/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. SHRI PHOOLCHAND SONI AND IT(SS)A NO.207/AHD/2013 - DCIT VS. SHRI PUKHRAJ SONI BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 - 8 - GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED AS NOT P RESSED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, I.E. IT(SS)A NO.208/AHD/201 3 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN IT( SS)A NO.206/AHD/2013 IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT(SS)A NO.208/AHD/2013 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 14. LASTLY, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE (I N THE CASE OF SRI PUKHRAJ SONI) IN IT(SS)A NO.207/AHD/2013 FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN :- I) DELETING, ON THE BASIS OF UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION OF RS.10000 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH; II) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.106910/- IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD ORNAMENTS, ON THE BASIS OF UNSUB STANTIATED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FULL FACTS OF THE CASE; III) DELETING ON INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS THE ADDITION OF RS .300506/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW WITHDRAWALS FOR HOUSEHOLD EX PENSES, ALTHOUGH SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAD BEEN DETERMINE D ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEN D OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD FOR DISPOSAL. IT(SS)A NOS.206&208/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. SHRI PHOOLCHAND SONI AND IT(SS)A NO.207/AHD/2013 - DCIT VS. SHRI PUKHRAJ SONI BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 - 9 - 14.1. THE FIRST GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAIN ST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.10,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. 14.2. THE LD.CIT-DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO A ND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADD ITION. 14.3. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS PASSED A REASONED ORDER AND CONSIDERE D THE FACTS IN RIGHT PROSPECTIVE. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON F ACT THAT SMT.SAVITRIDEVI, W/O ASSESSEE ADMITTED IN HER PRIMA RY STATEMENT I.E. IN THE STATEMENT BEFORE THE START OF THE SEARCH THAT T HERE MAY BE ABOUT RS.2000 TO RS.3000 OF CASH AT HER RESIDENCE AND THE RE WAS ALSO CASH BELONGING TO HER FATHER WHICH WAS KEPT AT HER RESID ENCE FOR THE TREATMENT WHO WAS HOSPITALIZED AT AHMEDABAD AFTER HE MET WITH AN ACCIDENT. THIS FINDING ON FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT F IND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 16. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,06,910/- IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD ORNAMENTS , ON THE BASIS OF IT(SS)A NOS.206&208/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. SHRI PHOOLCHAND SONI AND IT(SS)A NO.207/AHD/2013 - DCIT VS. SHRI PUKHRAJ SONI BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 - 10 - UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONSI DERING THE FULL FACTS OF THE CASE. 16.1. THE LD.CIT-DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADD ITION. 16.2. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) HAS REASONABLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE FOUND DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH WEIGHING 263GMS. FROM A LOCKER IN THE JOINT NAMES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE GOLD ORNAMENTS BELONGED TO HIM AND HIS WIFE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHE R STATED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY HIS WIFE O N THE OCCASION OF MARRIAGE FROM THEIR RELATIVES AND HE ALSO RECEIVED GOLD ORNAMENTS ON CERTAIN SOCIAL OCCASIONS. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTL Y ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE THIS KIND O F PRACTICE IS PREVALENT IN THE SOCIETY THAT THE BRIDE AND BRIDEGROOM AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE ARE GIVEN CERTAIN GIFTS IN THE FORM OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CLAIM OF GIFT IS WITHOUT ANY B ASIS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A ), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. IT(SS)A NOS.206&208/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. SHRI PHOOLCHAND SONI AND IT(SS)A NO.207/AHD/2013 - DCIT VS. SHRI PUKHRAJ SONI BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 - 11 - 18. THE LAST GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.3,00,506/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW WITHDRA WALS FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 18.1. THE LD.CIT-DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON ESTIMATED B ASIS AND NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE HAS SPENT MORE ON HO USEHOLD EXPENSES THAT DISCLOSED BY HIM WHILE FILING RETURN PRIOR TO THE D ATE OF SEARCH. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO INFORMATION WAS ALSO BROUGHT ON R ECORD BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD BE SAID ASSESSEES WITH DRAWALS FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE WERE INS UFFICIENT FOR MEETING THE FAMILY EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH COMPRISED OF TWO ADULT MEMBERS AND ONE SMALL CHILD. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON ESTIMATION BASIS WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT. 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON F ACT IN PARA-18 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 18. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL IN TIS REGARD. I HAVE ALSO SEEN THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO FOR MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. AFTER DUE CONSIDERA TION OF THE MATTER, I HOLD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THIS A DDITION BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD BE SAID THAT APPELLANT HAD SPENT MORE ON HOUSE HOLD IT(SS)A NOS.206&208/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. SHRI PHOOLCHAND SONI AND IT(SS)A NO.207/AHD/2013 - DCIT VS. SHRI PUKHRAJ SONI BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 - 12 - EXPENSES THAN DISCLOSED BY HIM WHILE FILING RETURNS FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH. NO INFORMATION WAS ALS O BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD BE SAID AP PELLANTS WITHDRAWALS FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND H IS WIFE WERE INSUFFICIENT FOR MEETING THE FAMILY EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT WHICH COMPRISED OF TWO ADULT MEMBERS AND ONE SMALL CHILD. ADDITION MERELY ON ESTIMATED BASIS CANNOT BE MADE WHILE PASSING ASS TT. ORDER FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. ACCORDINGLY, I HOLD THAT THE AO WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THIS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED HOUS E HOLD EXPENSES AND WHILE HOLDING SO, I RELY UPON THE DECISION OF L D. ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAMRAJ SONI VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.6/JP/ 97 DECIDED ON 31.08.1998. I, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS .3,00,506. 19.1. THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPE AL IS REJECTED. AS A RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI PUKHRA J SONI IS DISMISSED. 20. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS, I.E. IT(SS)A NO.206/AHD/2013 (IN THE CASE OF SRI PHOOLCHAND SONI ) & IT(SS)A NO.207/AHD/2013 (IN THE CASE OF SRI PUKHRAJ SONI) A RE DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE (SRI PHOOLCHAND SONI) IN IT(SS)A NO.208/AHD/2013 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( ) ( %) !' # # ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/09/2014 / .., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS IT(SS)A NOS.206&208/AHD/2013 DCIT VS. SHRI PHOOLCHAND SONI AND IT(SS)A NO.207/AHD/2013 - DCIT VS. SHRI PUKHRAJ SONI BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98 - 13 - !, ' 12 3!2+ !, ' 12 3!2+ !, ' 12 3!2+ !, ' 12 3!2+/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 45 / THE APPELLANT 2. 1645 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $$ 7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7() / THE CIT(A)-JODHPUR 5. 2%8 1 , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 89: ;& / GUARD FILE. !, !, !, !, / BY ORDER, 62 1 //TRUE COPY// < <<