Shri Vivek Chouhan, Bhopal V. THE ACIT (CENTRAL) II, Bhopal

ITSSA 311/Ind/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0300 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DESHPANDE
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Business income; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Condonation of delay; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 44AD; 153A; 132

Judgement Text

VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)NOS.310 TO 313/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2013-14 ITA NO.829/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 SHRI VIVEK CHOUHAN, 25-26, WALMI ROAD NEW FRIENDS COLONY CHUNA BHATTI, BHOPAL VS. ACIT - (CENTRAL) II BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO. ACWPC 4065B SHRI VIVEK CHOUHAN, 25-26, WALMI ROAD NEW FRIENDS COLONY CHUNA BHATTI, BHOPAL VS. ACIT - (CENTRAL) II BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO. ACWPC4065B VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 2 ITA NO.833/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IT(SS)NOS.314 TO 317 /IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2013-14 ITA NO.830/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 JYOTSANA CHOUHAN 25-26, WALMI ROAD NEW FRIENDS COLONY CHUNA BHATTI, BHOPAL VS. ACIT - (CEN TRAL) II BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO. ALPPC3551Q SHRI V INEET CHOUHAN, 25-26, WALMI ROAD NEW FRIENDS COLONY CHUNA BHATTI, BHOPAL VS. ACIT - (CENTRAL) II BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO. ACSPC 2560 M SHRI VI NEET CHOUHAN, 25-26, WALMI ROAD NEW FRIENDS COLONY CHUNA BHATTI, BHOPAL VS. ACIT - (CENTRAL) II BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO. ACSPC 2560 M VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 3 FOR ASSESSEE S SHRI S.S. DESHPANDE, CA FOR DEPARTMENT SMT. ASHIMA GUPTA, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING 26 . 0 3 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 . 0 3.2019 O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS BY THE ABOVE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-3 BHOPAL DATED 27.07.2017, 25.07.2017 & 28.7.2017, RESPECTIVELY, PERTAINING TO THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THIS GROUP O F APPEALS IS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. FIRST WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN CASE OF VIVEK CHOUHAN BEING LEAD CASE AS BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE GROUP APPEALS. THESE APPEALS ARE TIME BARRED BY 76 DAYS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEES SENT THE APPEAL PAPERS THROUGH CHARTERED BUS TO MR. S.S. DESHPANDE BUT, THE TELEPHONE NUMBER WAS INCORRECTLY RECORDED ON THE DEL IVERY SLIP BY THE BUS CO. AND FOR THIS REASON, THE APPEAL PAP ERS VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 4 COULD NOT BE RECEIVED ON TIME. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE BUS CO. HAD CALLED THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL COUNSEL, WHO HAS SEN T THE APPEAL PAPERS, AND AFTER RECEIPT OF SUCH INFORMATION, FOL LOW UP WAS MADE AND THE APPEAL PAPERS WERE DELIVERED TO THE OFFICE OF MR. S.S. DESHPANDE AND THEN THE APPEALS COUL D BE FILED. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. CIT/DR OPPOSED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. AFTE R CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESS EES HAVE FILED APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FIL ING THE APPEALS ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR THE DELAY, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED ON THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE A S WELL AS ON THE PREMISES OF OTHER RELATED CONCERNS/BUS INESS ASSOCIATES ON 29.01.2014. SINCE, THE VARIOUS CONCERNS AND INDIVIDUALS ARE INTER-CONNECTED AND HAVE BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS, THEY HAVE BEEN PUT TOGETHER UNDER ONE COMMON NAME. SIGNATURE GROUP. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAVING BUSINESS INCOME, RENTAL INCOME AN D VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 5 OTHER SOURCES. CONSEQUENTLY, NOTICES U/S 153A OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 12.09.2014 WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO F ILE THE RETUNES OF INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S 153A, THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURNS OF INCOME. ISSUE NO.1- INCRIMINATING MATERIAL 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FIRST GROUND FOR A.YS 2010-1 1 TO 2013-14 WITH REGARD TO SUSTAINING THE ADDITION BY THE LD. CIT(A) HOLDING THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADD ITION IN THE YEARS WHERE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NO T PENDING AND NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE NULL AND VOID. LD. CIT-DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFTER PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONCL UDED THAT DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, DOCUMENT, LOOSE PAPERS ETC. WERE SEIZED. T HE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS ARE THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 6 WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WI TH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED FOR A.YS. 2010-11 TO 2013-14. ISSUE NO.2- UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN TRAVEL 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE GROUNDS IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN TRAVEL FOR A.YS. 2 010- 11 TO 2014-15. THE AO MADE THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT O F FOREIGN TOURS UNDER TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS COUNTRIES DURING THE A.YS. 2010-11 TO 2014-15. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE PAYMENTS FO R TOURS UNDERTAKEN FOR A.Y. 2012-13 TO 2014-15 WERE MAD E BY ASSESSEE TO THE TRAVELING AGENTS. THE AO DID NOT AC CEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AS PAYMENTS MADE TO THE TRAVEL AGENTS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. HE FURTHER OBSE RVED THAT THE EXPENSES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE LOOKED. THUS, THE AO ESTIMATED THE EXPENDITURE AND MA DE THE ADDITIONS OF RS.3,00,000/-, RS.5,00,000/-, RS. 4,97,175/-, RS. 1,60,060/- & RS.8,00,000/- U/S 69C, RESPECTIVELY FOR THE A.YS. 2010-11 TO 2014-15. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSION AS VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 7 MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FILED WRITTEN SYNOPSIS. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. CIT-DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS ESTIMATED UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN TOURS UNDERTAKEN B Y THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS, DURING COURSE OF HEARING, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE VARIOUS ADVERTISEMENTS BY THE TRAVEL AGENTS IN RESPECT OF FORE IGN TOURS OFFERED BY THEM. AFTER CONSIDERING TOTALITY OF FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD SERVE THE INTEREST OF J USTICE IF ESTIMATE BY THE AO IS REDUCED TO 50%. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE 50% OF THE ADDITIONS I.E. RS.3,00 ,000/-, RS.5,00,000/-, RS. 4,97,175/-, RS. 1,60,060/- & RS.8,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY FOR THE A.YS. 2010-11 TO 2014- 15 AND REST ARE SUSTAINED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAV EL AGENTS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR A.YS. 2010-11 TO 2014-15. ISSUE NO.3- UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY 7. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, THE ASSESSEE HAS VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 8 CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIF IED IN HOLDING THAT ONLY 100GRMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND WI TH THE ASSESSEE IS EXPLAINED OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,79 ,754/- MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT I N JEWELLERY. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, 2936 GMS GOL D ORNAMENTS WERE FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE, 643.30 GMS GOL D ORNAMENTS WERE FOUND IN THE BANK LOCKER AND 3.733 KG SILVER UTENSILS WERE FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF 1045 GMS PLUS 643 GMS WORTH RS.58,13,115/- ON OUT OF THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND I N THE ROOM OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE LOCKER AND RS.59,59,50 8/- ON ACCOUNT OF SILVER UTENSILS. THE LD. CIT (A) ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF 100 GMS VALUED APPROXIMATE LY AT RS.3,50,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER BOARDS CIRCULAR AND MAINTAINED THE BALANCE ADDITION. 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSION AS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FILED WRITTEN SYNOPSIS. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. CIT-DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HA S VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 9 GIVEN BENEFIT OF THE BOARDS CIRCULAR. LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUAL I.E. ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE SUSTAINED BECAUS E ASSESSEES FAMILY RESIDES JOINTLY WITH HIS TWO BROTHE RS AND FATHER. IF THE TOTAL JEWELLERY IS CALCULATED AS PER THE BOARDS CIRCULAR, THE AVAILABILITY WOULD BE OF 2500 GMS. ASSESS EES BROTHER SHRI VIPIN CHOUHAN HAS PURCHASED JEWELLERY OF RS.20 LACS THROUGH CHEQUE WHICH IS ESTIMATED FOR 450 GMS. THUS, THE TOTAL JEWELLERY OF 2950 GMS. STAND EXPLAINE D WHEREAS JEWELLERY KEPT IN LOCKER BELONGS TO HIS DECE ASED MOTHER WHO PASSED AWAY ON 26.9.2010 AND THE SAME WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SA FE CUSTODY BECAUSE SHE IS THE ELDEST DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF THE FAMILY. IF THIS JEWELLERY IS CONSIDERED THEN THERE W OULD BE NO SURPLUS. LOOKING TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIN D THAT ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT JEWELLERY WAS JOINTL Y HELD AND SINCE THE JEWELLERY HAVE BEEN RECOVERED FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT APART FROM THE JEWELLERY COVERED BY C BDT CIRCULAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS CERTAIN JEWELLERY WHERE HE H AS EVIDENCES OF PURCHASE OF THE SAME, THIS ASPECT REQUIRES VERIFICATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. THEREFORE, WE DE EM IT VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 10 APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE REQUISI TE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM AND THEN THE AO WIL L DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE . THUS, THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES O NLY. ISSUE NO.4- CASH FOUND 10. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2, 95,333/- APPORTIONING AND TREATING THE CASH FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH WITH THE FAMILY AS EXPLAINED. THE TOTAL CASH FO UND WITH ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS WAS RS.8,86,000/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE, T HE CASH IS RS.1,38,484/- AND AS PER THE CASH BOOK OF THE F IRM, THE IMPREST CASH BALANCE WITH THE BROTHER OF THE ASSES SEE IS RS.9,30,000/-. SHRI VIVEK CHOUHAN IS THE PARTNER I N THE FIRM AND THE CASH OF THE FIRM WAS KEPT WITH HIM. HOWEV ER, THE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE SAME AND ADDED ONE THIRD CASH IN THE HANDS OF EACH ONE OF THE BROTHERS. THUS, T HE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,95,333/- IN HANDS OF THE PRES ENT ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) MAINTAINED THE ADDITION ON THE GRO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF ACTUAL CASH VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 11 AND RECONCILE THE SAME FROM THE CASH BOOKS. 11. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSION AS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FILED WRITTEN SYNOPSIS. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. CIT-DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. COUNSEL F OR ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE RESPECTIVE CASH BOOKS HAVE BEEN SEIZED AND ARE VERIFIABLE AND WITHOUT VERIFYIN G THE SAME FROM THE BOOKS, THE ADDITIONS ARE NOT JUSTIFI ED. CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ASPECT REQUIRES VERIFICATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE A O. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IS SUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH DIRECTION TO THE AO TO PROVIDE THE COPIES OF THE REQUIRED RECORDS TO THE AS SESSEE AND THEN THE AO WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. THE ASSE SSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE IN THIS REGARD. THUS, THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 13. IN RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN CASE OF VIVEK CHOUHAN ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 14 NOW, WE SHALL TAKE THE APPEAL IN CASE OF SMT. JYOTSANA VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 12 CHOUHAN IN I.T.A. NO.833/IND/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 15 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUND THAT LD. CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.29,79,754/- T OWARDS ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. 16. BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF TH E CASE OF VIVEK CHOUHAN. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE REASON GIV EN IN THE CASE OF VIVEK CHOUHAN (SUPRA), WE DEEM IT APPROPRIAT E TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WIT H DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE EV IDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM AND THEN THE AO WILL DECIDE T HE ISSUE AFRESH IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. THUS, THI S ISSUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 17. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 18. NOW, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEALS IN CASE OF VINEET CHOUHAN IN IT(SS)A NOS.314 TO 317/IND/2017 AND I.T.A. NO.830/IND/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2014-15. VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 13 19. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, 2010-11 TO 2013-14, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FIRST GROUND WITH REGARD TO SUSTAININ G THE ADDITION BY THE LD. CIT(A) HOLDING THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION IN THE YEARS WHERE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT PENDING AND NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF TH E CASE OF VIVEK CHOUHAN. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE REASON GIV EN IN THE CASE OF VIVEK CHOUHAN (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) . ACCORDINGLY THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED FOR A.YS. 2010- 11 TO 2013-14. 20. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE GROUNDS IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN TRAVEL FOR A.YS. 2 010- 11 TO 2014-15. THE AO MADE THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT O F FOREIGN TOURS UNDER TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS COUNTRIES DURING THE A.YS. 2010-11 TO 2014-15. BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CASE OF VIVEK CHOUHAN . THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE REASON GIVEN IN THE CASE OF VIVEK CHOUHAN (SUPRA), THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE 50% OF THE VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 14 ADDITIONS FOR THE A.YS. 2010-11 TO 2014-15 AND REST AR E SUSTAINED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD N OT FURNISH ANY CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAVEL AGENTS. ACCORDIN GLY, THIS ISSUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR A.YS. 2010-11 TO 201 4-15. 21 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.47,83,340/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE IN JEWELLERY. BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT O F THE CASE OF VIVEK CHOUHAN. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE REASON GIVEN IN THE CASE OF VIVEK CHOUHAN (SUPRA), WE DEEM I T APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE REQUISI TE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM AND THEN THE AO WIL L DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE . THUS, THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES O NLY. 22. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2, 95,333/- APPORTIONING AND TREATING THE CASH FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH WITH THE FAMILY AS EXPLAINED. BOTH THE PARTIES VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 15 SUBMITTED THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS ISSUE AR E IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CASE OF VIVEK CHOUHAN. THEREFO RE, FOLLOWING THE REASON GIVEN IN THE CASE OF VIVEK CHOUH AN (SUPRA), WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH DIRECTION TO THE AO TO P ROVIDE THE COPIES OF THE REQUIRED RECORDS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE N THE AO WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE IN THIS REGARD. THUS, THIS ISS UE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ISSUE NO.5 UNEXPLAINED OPENING CAPITAL 23. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT( A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1,04,44,784/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED OPENI NG CAPITAL. FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED CAPITAL GAINS AND ALSO PROFIT FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE SAM E HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURNS FILED EARLIER. NO BALANCE SHEET WAS PREPARED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS SINC E THE RETURNS WERE FILED ON THE PRESUMPTION INCOME U/ S 44AD FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE ASSESSEE PREPARED THE BAL ANCE SHEET FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. WHILE PREPARING THE BALANCE SHEET, THE OPENING CAPITAL WAS SHOWN AT RS.1,04,44,784/-. THE AO ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE JUSTIF ICATION VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 16 OF THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE PREPARED THE INCOME CHART BASE D ON THE RETURNS FILED EARLIER TO ARRIVE AT THE QUANTUM OF THE OPENING CAPITAL. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH T HE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION. LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 24. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSION AS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FILED WRITTEN SYNOPSIS. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. CIT-DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 25. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT ALL THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT SHE DID CONSIDE R THE SAME. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT OPENING BALANCE IS OUT OF PAST SAVINGS OF THE ASSESSEE, INVESTMENT IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRMS WERE VERIFIABLE F ROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK BALANCES WERE ALSO VERIFIABLE. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. C(IT(A) WITH D IRECTION TO CALL FOR REMAND REPOT FROM THE AO ON THIS ISSUE AND THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD DECIDE THE ISSUE AFR ESH IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. THUS, THIS ISSUE IS ALLOW ED FOR VIVEK CHOUHAN AND OTHERS 17 STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 26. IN RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN CASE OF VINEET CHOUHAN ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 27. FINALLY, THESE GROUP APPEALS FILED BY THE ABOVE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.0 3.2019. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) (KULBHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER / DATED : 28 TH MARCH, 2019 PATEL/PS COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE