Shri Lalit Gupta, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Cent.Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 217/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0946 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S V AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Gift; Peak credit; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, J.M. & SHRI ANIL CHATURV EDI, A.M.) I.T(SS) A. NO. 214 TO 220/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 200 3-04 TO 2009-2010) SHRI LALIT GUPTA, C81, CENTURY TOWER, B/H, HOTEL GRAND BHAGWATI, AHMEDABAD-380054 V/S DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AIBPG 5466 H APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.V. AGRAWAL, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR, D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 06-08-201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 -08-2015 PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THESE 7 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST T HE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD DATED 31.01.2012 FOR A.YS. 20 03-04 TO 2009-2010. 2. BEFORE AT THE OUTSET THE LD AR SUBMITTED ALL THE AP PEALS OF THE ASSESSEE THOUGH PERTAIN TO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEAR BUT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNT AND THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THAT IN AY 2009-10 IN ADDITION TO THE GROUND WHICH IS CO MMON IN ALL THE YEARS, THERE ARE 2 OTHER GROUNDS AND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) H AS ALSO PASSED A COMMON IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 220/AHD/2012 . A.YS. 2003- 04 TO 2009-2010 2 ORDER FOR ALL THE YEARS AND HE HAS COMMON SUBMISSIO N TO MAKE AND THEREFORE ALL THE APPEALS CAN BE DISPOSED OF TOGETHER. LD DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF LD AR AND THEREFORE WE PROC EED TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE APPEALS TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AN D PROCEED WITH THE FACTS FOR AY 2003-04. 3. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. AN ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ON 15.10.2008. THEREAFTER NOTICE U /S 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 18.8.2009 PURSUANT TO WHICH ASSESSEE FILE D HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.7.2010 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 40,000/-. THER EAFTER NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) WAS ISSUED AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSME NT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A(L)(B) OF THE ACT AND THE TOTAL I NCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS 6,46,500/- AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 31.01.2012 GRANTED PART IAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSE E IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 3,61,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT, WHEN NO SUCH ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. THE S AME MAY BE DELETED. THE GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT 4. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT DURING THE YEAR ASSES SEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH SBI AND ORIENTAL B ANK OF COMMERCE BRANCH AND THE AGGREGATE DEPOSITS WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS 6,06,500/-. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT S TO WHICH ASSESSEE IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 220/AHD/2012 . A.YS. 2003- 04 TO 2009-2010 3 INTERALIA SUBMITTED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS TO BE TH E AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM HIS LATE MOTHER AND FATHER, FROM SALE PROCEEDS OF HOUSE ETC. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO BEC AUSE ACCORDING TO AO NO EVIDENCE OF THE SOURCE WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE CASH DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED AND MADE A DDITION OF RS 6,06,500/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE MATTER WAS CARRIE D BEFORE CIT(A) WHO DECIDED THE ISSUE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELL ANT. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS SU BMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK IS OUT OF THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT RS.3.50 LAKHS TO RS.4 LAKHS PLUS CASH RECEIVED FROM FATHER'S HUF ON THE S ALE OF HOUSEHOLD ITEMS OF RS.3.50 LAKHS AT ROHTAK PLUS CASH BALANCE RECEIVED FROM MOT HER ON HER DEATH RS.3.40 LAKHS AND ALSO THE CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM YEAR TO YEAR FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AND CUSTOMARY GIFTS RECEIVED FROM RELATIVES ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS LIKE B IRTHDAY ETC. THE MOTHER OF THE APPELLANT WAS SICK. THEREFORE, FOR HER MEDICAL EXPE NSES AND TREATMENT THE APPELLANT WAS KEEPING CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS.3.50 LAKHS TO RS.4 L AKHS FOR MEETING ANY EMERGENCY MEDICAL NEED. AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS MOTHER, CASH O F RS.3.40 LAKHS WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN 2006. CASH OF RS.5.95 LAKHS WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALE OF A FLAT BELONGING TO HIS FATHER'S HUF AN D THE SALE OF HOUSEHOLD ITEMS AT ROHTAK. FURTHER IT WAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN R ECEIVING SMALL GIFTS OF RS.20,000/- TO RS,22,000/- PER ANNUM ON BIRTHDAY AND MARRIAGE ANNI VERSARY FROM RELATIVES AND FRIENDS. THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF RS. 18.65 LAKHS WERE TRIED TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT BY GIVING THE ABOVE MENTIONED EXPL ANATION. BEFORE ME ALSO, THE APPELLANT FURNISHED THE SAME EXPLANATION AS GIVEN B EFORE THE A.O. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, A SALE DEED DATED 10/6/2002 IN RESPECT OF SALE OF HIS FLAT ADMEASURING 254SQ.YD. AT BLOCK NO.351 AND 352 FOR RS.2.45 LAKHS WAS PRODUCED. THE APPELLANT TRIED .TO PROVE THAT ON 24/6/2002 THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2.45 LAKHS IN SBI REPRESENTS THE SALE PROCEED OF RS.2.45 LAKHS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF HIS FLAT AT ROHTAK. PRIMA-FACIE THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS.2.45 LAKHS ON 24/6/2002 APPEARS TO BE CORRECT. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE SALE D EED, IT IS SEEN' THAT THE SALE DEED IS IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 220/AHD/2012 . A.YS. 2003- 04 TO 2009-2010 4 EXECUTED ON 10/6/2002 AND THE CASH OF RS.245,000/- HAS BEEN DEPOSITED ON 24/6/2002.. THEREFORE, THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2,45,000/- MADE O N 24/6/2002 IS TREATED AS EXPLAINED AS OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE FLAT AT ROHTAK. TO THIS EXTENT, THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT IS ACCEPTABLE TO ME. HOWEVER, ALL OTHER C ONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING CASH BALANCE OF RS.4 LAKH AS O N 1/4/2002 CANNOT BE ACCEPTED TO ME IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. SIMILARL Y, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT DURING THE ASST. YEAR 2003-04 THE APPELLANT HAS SOL D HOUSEHOLD ITEMS FOR RS.3.,40 LAKHS IS NOT AGAIN ACCEPTABLE TO ME IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SU PPORTING EVIDENCE. SIMILARLY, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT DURING THE A.Y. 20 07-08 THE APPELLANT RECEIVED RS.3.40 LAKHS AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS MOTHER IS AGAIN NOT AC CEPTABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN TH E SOURCE OF CASH OF RS. 3.40 LAKHS WITH HIS MOTHER. RATHER THE APPELLANT HAS ACCEPTED THAT HIS MOTHER WAS NOT KEEPING, WELL. THEREFORE, HE MUST HAVE INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENSES F OR HER TREATMENT WHICH IS NOT SHOWN AS WITHDRAWALS BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS SUBMISSION. FURTHER THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT HE AND HIS FAMILY HAD RECEIVED .CUST OMARY GIFTS OF RS.20,000/- TO RS.22,000/- PER YEAR IS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY F ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT HAS NOWHERE MENTIONED THAT OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS F ROM THE BANK HE HAS SPENT CERTAIN EXPENSES TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD ITEMS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT, I HOLD THAT ONLY THE A MOUNT OF RS.2.45,000/- IS EXPLAINED AND ALL OTHER CASH DEPOSITS ARE UNEXPLAINED. THE AR H AS TAKEN A PLEA THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 CASH OF RS.3,50,000/- HAS B EEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK AND THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT OF RS.3,37,000/- IN A.Y. 2007-08 IS OUT OF THESE CASH WITHDRAWALS. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN THE DETA ILS OF DATE-WISE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS IN THE BANK. HOWEVER, IF THE CASH HAS B EEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE WIT HDRAWALS THEN TO THAT EXTENT SUCH DEPOSITS WOULD BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED. THE APPE LLANT WOULD FURNISH BEFORE THE AO THE BANK STATEMENT SHOWING THE DATE-WISE WITHDRAWALS AN D DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AND IN CASE THE APPELLANT IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE WITHDRAWALS MADE IN A.Y. 2006-07 HAD BEEN RE- DEPOSITED IN THE BANK IN A.Y. 2007-08 WITHIN 15 DAY S OF THE WITHDRAWAL, THEN TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH DEPOSITS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WOULD BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED, OTHERWISE THE ADDITIONS MADE WOULD STAND CONFIRMED. SUBJECT T O THIS DIRECTION THE ADDITIONS MADE IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 220/AHD/2012 . A.YS. 2003- 04 TO 2009-2010 5 ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT STA ND CONFIRMED FOR A.Y. 2004-05 TO A.Y. 2009-10. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS N OW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US LD AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEF ORE AO AND LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANKS IN THE FORM OF THE TABLE WHICH WAS PLACED IN PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE B ANK AND THUS THE SOURCE IS EXPLAINED AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE HE SUBMITTED WHEN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT S IS OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS THEN IN SUCH A SITUATION AT THE MOST TH E ADDITION BE MADE ONLY OF THE PEAK AMOUNT. HE POINTED TO THE WORKING OF THE P EAK AMOUNT FOR DIFFERENT YEARS WHICH WAS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS OF PEAK AMOUNT HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND FOR WHICH HE POINTED TO THE RELEVANT FINDING OF LD. CIT (A) FOR AY 2006-07 AT PAGE 15 OF HIS ORDER. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ADDITION BE DELETED OR AT THE MOST BE RESTRICTED TO THE PEAK AMOUNT THE LD DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDI TIONS OF UNEXPLAINED CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. BEFORE US, LD AR HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS TO BE THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM BANK AND I N SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THE LD AR HAS PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF T HE BANK STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORI ENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE AND FROM HE HAS ALSO WORKED OUT THE DATE-W ISE WORKING OF THE PEAK CREDIT OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOU NTS. WE ALSO FIND THAT IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 220/AHD/2012 . A.YS. 2003- 04 TO 2009-2010 6 WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 20 06-07, LD CIT(A) HAS IN PRINCIPLE PARTIALLY ACCEPTED THE ADDITION BASED ON THE PEAK THEORY AS HE HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO ACCEPT THE AMOUNTS WHICH ARE RE- DEPOSITED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF WITHDRAWAL. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE DECISION OF TH E CIT(A) FOR AY 2006-07 HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND HAS NOT PRE FERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THOUGH THE FACTS OF THAT YEAR ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF OTHER YEARS. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE WORKING OF PEAK CREDIT FURNISHED BY THE LD. A.R. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS CANNOT BE ADD ED AS INCOME BUT THE ADDITION BE MADE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF PEAK CREDIT. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF PEAK CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PROMPTLY FURNISH THE DETAIL S CALLED FOR BY THE AO. IN THE RESULT THE GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. FURTHER, SINCE THE GROUNDS FOR AY 2004-05 TO AY 2009-10 ARE ALSO SIMIL AR TO AY 2003-04 AND THEREFORE FOR SIMILAR REASONS GIVEN WHILE DECIDING ISSUE FOR A.Y. 03-04, THE GROUND WITH RESPECT TO CASH DEPOSITS IN A.Y. 04-05 TO A.Y. 09-10 ARE ALSO RESTORED TO AO. THUS THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y . 03-04 TO 2008-09 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. NOW WE TAKE UP AY 2009-10 (ITA(SS) NO 220/AHD/2 012) 7. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITI ON OF RS.1,82,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT, WHEN NO S UCH ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 220/AHD/2012 . A.YS. 2003- 04 TO 2009-2010 7 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITI ON OF RS.1,86,981/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY, WHEN NO SUCH ADDITION IS CAL LED FOR. THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITI ON OF RS.1,10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND, WHEN NO SUCH ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. TH E SAME MAY BE DELETED. 8. IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL APART FROM ONE GROUND WITH RESPECT TO CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK, THERE ARE 2 ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. SINCE THE GROUND WITH RESPECT TO CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS COMMON AND IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS, AND WHICH HAS ALREADY BE EN ADJUDICATED BY US HEREINABOVE, WE NOW TAKE UP REMAINING 2 GROUNDS. 2 ND GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF JEWELLERY 9. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, 1113.50 GMS OF JEWELLE RY VALUED AT RS 12,73,415 WAS FOUND. A.O AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE BOARD INSTRUCTION NO 1916 DATED 11.5.1994, CONSIDERED THE JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 200 GMS TO BE AS EXPLAINED AND MAD E THE ADDITION OF REMAINING JEWELLERY OF 913.50 GMS VALUED AT RS 10,4 4,692. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A) WHO GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: - 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLA NT. AS CONTENDED BY THE AR THAT THE APPELLANT IS STAYING WITH HIS WIFE CHARU AND SON GA RV. AS PER THE INSTRUCTIONS NO. 1916 OF CBDT THE CREDIT OF 500 GMS. OF JEWELLERY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO A MARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS. EACH IN RESPECT OF MALE MEMBERS IN THE FAMILY. ACCORDINGLY, 700 GMS. OF GOLD JEWELLERY I.E. 500 GMS. BELONGING TO THE WIFE OF TH E APPELLANT AND 100 GMS. EACH IN RESPECT OF APPELLANT AND HIS SON GETS EXPLAINED. TH IS VIEW HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 220/AHD/2012 . A.YS. 2003- 04 TO 2009-2010 8 GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RATANLAL VYAPARIL AL JAIN, 235 CTR 568. ACCORDING TO THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, THE INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 IS APPLICABLE NOT ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE SEIZURE OF THE JEWELLERY BUT ALSO IN ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO TREAT THE 700 GMS. OF GOLD JEWELLERY AS EXPLAINE D IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED DECISION. 7. ACCORDING TO THE AR, 775.500 GMS. JEWELLERY VA LUING AT RS.8,06,215/- FOUND FROM LOCKER NO. 117 WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA, BODAKDEV B RANCH REPRESENT 500 GMS. GIVEN TO THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT BY HER MOTHER IN LAW AND FATHER IN LAW AND THE REMAINING 250 GMS. JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED BY HER FROM HER PARENTS AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. THIS FACT WAS ALSO STATED BY SMT. CHARUBEN L GUPTA AT THE TIM E OF OPERATION OF LOCKER ON 4/11/2008 IN WHICH SHE STATED THAT THE LOCKER NO.11 7 WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA WAS ORIGINALLY IN JOINT NAMES OF HERSELF AND HER MOTHER IN LAW. AFTER THE DEATH OF HER MOTHER IN LAW THE SAID LOCKER WAS TRANSFERRED IN HER NAME. ACCORDING TO HER, 500 GMS. OF THE GOLD JEWELLERY WAS GIVEN TO HER BY HER MOTHER IN LA W AND FATHER IN LAW AND 250 GMS. OF JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED BY HER FROM HER PARENTS AT T HE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE, IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ON 15/10/2008 THE APPELLANT IN RESPONSE TO Q. NO. 7 HAD STATED THAT 300 GMS. OF GOLD FOUND FROM HIS RES IDENCE BELONGS TO HIS WIFE WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO HER BY HER PARENTS AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE. FURTHER 'APPROXIMATELY'400 'GMS. OF JEWELLERY KEPT IN LOCKER HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY HER AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE, ON THE BIRTH DAY OF CHILDREN, ETC, FROM HIS IN LAWS AND FR OM HIS MOTHER AS GIFT. HE ALSO STATED THAT SOME GOLD HAS BEEN LEFT BY HER MOTHER FOR WHICH NO DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE WITH HIM AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. IN OTHER WORDS, ACCORDING TO THE AP PELLANT AND HIS WIFE TOTAL 750 GMS. OF JEWELLERY REPRESENT 250 GMS. JEWELLERY APPROXIMATEL Y GIVEN-BY THE PARENTS OF HIS WIFE AND 500 GMS. BY HIS MOTHER. OUT OF THIS 750 GMS. OF JEWELLERY, CREDIT OF 500 GMS. HAS ALREADY GIVEN TO HIS WIFE. THAT MEANS- 750 GMS. OF JEWELLERY WAS BELONGING TO' THE MOTHER AND THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE DEATH OF H IS MOTHER WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED BY HIS WIFE. IN OTHER WORDS, 250 GMS. OF J EWELLERY CAN BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED AS BELONGING TO THE MOTHER OF THE APPELLANT. IN SHORT, TOTAL JEWELLERY OF 700 GMS + 250 GMS. = 950 GMS. GETS EXPLAINED. THE BALANCE JEWELLERY OF 163.500 GMS. (AT THE AVERAGE RATE OF 1143.61) VALUING AT RS.1,86,981/- REMAINS UNEXPLAIN ED. THE AO IS THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 220/AHD/2012 . A.YS. 2003- 04 TO 2009-2010 9 REDUCE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWEL LERY TO RS. 1,86,981/- AGAINST RS. 10,44,692/-. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US, ID AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BE FORE AO AND LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE CBDT INST RUCTION NO 1916 DATED 11.5.1994 SINCE THE 1113.50 GMS OF JEWELLERY FOUND WAS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF CBDT INSTRUCTIONS (SUPRA) NO AD DITION IS CALLED FOR. LD D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITI ON MADE OF JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. WE FIND THAT LD CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND THE CBDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA) AND BY A WELL R EASONED ORDER HAD GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) NOR POINTED ANY FALLACY IN THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE WE FIND NO REA SON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS DISMISS THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE. 3 RD GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND A T THE TIME OF SEARCH. 12. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CASH OF RS 1,17,000/- WAS FOUND OF WHICH CASH OF RS 7000 WAS TREATED AS EXPLAINED AND THE BALANC E CASH OF RS 1,11,000/- WAS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INCO ME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 220/AHD/2012 . A.YS. 2003- 04 TO 2009-2010 10 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLA NT. THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE REPRESENTS RS.70,000/- WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM HIS MOTHER AND THE BALANCE REPRESENTS SAVING FROM HIS SALARY. BEFORE ME ALSO, THE SAME EXPLANATION HAS BEEN SUBMI TTED BY THE APPELLANT. I CANNOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE. APPELLANT PARTICULARL Y WHEN THE MOTHER OF THE APPELLANT EXPIRED IN 2006 AND THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE IN THE CA SE OF THE APPELLANT IN OCTOBER, 2008, FURTHER, WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THE, CASH IN THE HA NDS OF HIS MOTHER HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. SIMILARLY, THE APPELLAN T HAS NOT GIVEN THE DETAILS OF WITHDRAWALS FROM HIS SALARY. RATHER THE APPELLANT H AS TRIED TO 4 PROVE THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS. THERE FORE, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE ACQUISIT ION OF CASH OF RS.1,10,000/- FOUND FROM HIS RESIDENCE. THE ADDITION OF RS.1,10,000/- MADE O N THIS ACCOUNT IS THEREFORE, UPHELD. 13. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS N OW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US, ID AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BE FORE AO AND LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. LD D. R ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND LD. CIT(A). 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE F ACTS HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO. BEFORE US, LD A.R HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE FIND INGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS DISMISS THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE. 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 220/AHD/2012 . A.YS. 2003- 04 TO 2009-2010 11 16. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF AY FOR AY 2003-04 TO 2 008-09 IN IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 219/AHD/2012 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES AND APPEAL FOR AY 2009-10 (ITA NO. 220/AHD/2012) IS PARTLY ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28 - 08 - 20 15. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AH MEDABAD