The ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad V. Shri Pramod K.Patel, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 323/AHD/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9390 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Loose papers; Document seized; Valuation report; Block assessment; Documents seized

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.323 & 326/AHD/2004 BLOCK ASSESSMENT FROM 1/4/95 TO 27/9/01 DATE OF HEARING:23.3.10 DRAFTED:23.3.10 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), AHMEDABAD PRAMODBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL, 19-1, SAYAWADI SOCIETY, USMANPURA, AHMEDABAD-14 V/S . V/S . SHRI PRAMODBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL, 19-A, SATYAWADI SOCIETY, USMANPURA AHMEDABAD PAN NO.AAVPP9674J ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.320 & 327/AHD/2004 BLOCK ASSESSMENT FROM 1/4/95 TO 27/9/01 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), ROOM NO. 303, AAYKAR BHAVAN, AHMEDABAD MANJULABEN PRAMODBHAI PATEL, 19A, SATYAWADI SOCIETY, USMANPURA, AHMEDABAD-14 PAN NO.AAVPP9689H V/S . V/S . SMT. MANJULABEN PRAMODBHAI PATEL, 10-A, SATYAVADI SOCIETY, USMANPURA, AHMEDABAD ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), 3 RD FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, AHMEDABAD-380 009 (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A. NO.232/AHD/2006 BLOCK ASSESSMENT FROM 1/4/95 TO 27/9/01 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, 2 ND V/S . SHRI PRAMOD K PATEL, 19, IT(SS)A NO.320 & 327/AHD/04 B.P. 1-4-95 TO 27-9-01 SMT. MANJULABEN P PATEL V. ACIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 2 FLOOR, NAVJIVAN TRUST, BUILDING, OFF. ASHRAM, ROAD, AHMEDABAD SATYAWADI SOCIETY, USMANPURA, AHMEDABAD PAN NO.AAVPVV9674H (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI S.N.DIVETIA, AR REVENUE BY:- SHRI ANIL KUMAR, CIT-DR O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE FIVE APPEALS THREE BY REVENUE AND TWO BY D IFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE ARISING OUT OF DIFFERENT ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XI, AHMEDABAD IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-XI/128-130/2003-04 D ATED 30-09-2004 AND CIT[A]- I/CENTRAL CIRCLE.1[1]/162A/06-07 DATED 25-09-2006. THE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED BY THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CE NTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD U/S.158BC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDERS DATED 28-10-2003 & 29-10-2003 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FROM 01-04-1995 TO 27- 09-2001. FIRST WE WILL DEAL WITH REVENUES APPEAL NO. IT(SS) A.NO.320/AHD/2004 & ASSESSEES APPEAL NO. IT(SS)A NO.327/AHD/2004. 2. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE IN THESE CROSS APPEALS OF REVENUE AS WELL AS OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN RESTRICT ING THE ADDITION AT RS.9,93,450/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PA YMENT FOR PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY AMOUNTING TO RS.16,18,450/-. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HA S RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1 :- IT(SS)A NO.327/AHD/2004. (1) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,93,450/- TOWARDS CASH PAYMENT FOR JEWELLERY. AND REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1 :- IT(SS)A. NO.320/AHD/2004 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIR ECTING TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION OF RS.16,18,450/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PAYMENTS FOR JEWELLERY TO RS.9,93,450/-. IT(SS)A NO.320 & 327/AHD/04 B.P. 1-4-95 TO 27-9-01 SMT. MANJULABEN P PATEL V. ACIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 3 3. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE COMMON ISSU E ARE THAT A SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION U/S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE DE PARTMENT ON 27-09-2001, IN THE NIRMA GROUP OF CASES ALONG WITH THE ASSESSEE. DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, LOOSE PAPER F ILE CONTAINING VARIOUS CHITS FOR PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY ARE FOUND AND SEIZED AS ANNEX URE-A/1 TO PANCHNAMA DATED 27-09-2001 PAGES-27 TO 33. DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH, A STATEMENT OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND, SHRI PRAMOD K PATEL WAS RECORDED U/S.132(4 ) OF THE ACT, WHEREBY HE ADMITTED THE LOOSE PAPERS FILE SEIZED AS ANNEXURE-A /1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REFERRIN G TO THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT A ND CONSIDERING THE REPLY SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, STATING THAT T HE DETAILED NARRATION OF JEWELLERY WRITTEN ON PAGES NO.27 TO 33 OF ANNEXURE-A/1 SEIZED BY INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT ARE CO-RELATED WITH THE VALUATION REPORT FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ALONG WITH THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS FILED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESS EES CONTENTION BEFORE THE AO WAS THAT THE SEIZED NOTING DO NOT PERTAIN TO PAYMENT MA DE OF PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY BUT PERTAINS TO SALE AND MODIFICATION OF JEWELLERY ALRE ADY REFLECTED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO ALTERNATIVELY C ONTENDED THAT THE TOTAL PAYMENTS REFLECTED IN THE SEIZED PAPERS DO NOT TOTAL UP TO R S.16,18,450/-, BUT, IN FACT IT ADDS UP ONLY TO RS.4,98,500/- AS PER PAGES 28 TO 33 AND THE BALANCE RS.4.94 LAKH NOTED ON PAGE 27 IS A RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF SELL ON JEWELLER Y. THE AO HAS NOT BELIEVED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.16,18,450/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY RECORDING THE INCONSISTENCY AND BY GIVING FOLLOWING REASONING IN PARA-7 (A) (B) & (C):- 7. BOTH THE ABOVE MENTIONED ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN DU LY CONSIDERED AND ARE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE DUE TO REASONS AND INCONSISTEN CIES ENUMERATED BELOW:- A) THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE NARRATIONS OF THE SEIZED NOTINGS CORRELATED WITH THE JEWELLERY ALREADY REFLECTED IN THE WT RETURNS. ITEM-WISE CORRELATION OF THE SAME WITH THE WT RETUR N HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY SHRI PRAMOD K PATEL VIDE HIS SUBMISSIO N DATED 14-10- 2003 AS ANNEX-2. THE SAME HAS BEEN PERUSED AND THE DETAILS NOTED ON THE SEIZED PAPERS HAVE BEEN COMPARED WITH THE INVENTORY OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND. IN THIS IT IS SEEN THAT THE JEWELLERY NOTED IN THE SEIZED PAPERS CORRELATES WITH THE JEWELLERY REF LECTED IN THE WT RETURNS. THUS THE CONTENTION THAT THE NOTINGS ON PA GE 28-33 DO NOT PERTAIN TO PAYMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF NEW JEWELLE RY, BUT PERTAIN TO MODIFICATION OF JEWELLERY ALREADY REFLECTED IN T HE WT RETURN IS FOUND ACCEPTABLE. HOWEVER STILL NO EXPLANATION OF T HE SOURCE OF IT(SS)A NO.320 & 327/AHD/04 B.P. 1-4-95 TO 27-9-01 SMT. MANJULABEN P PATEL V. ACIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 4 CASH PAYMENTS REFLECTED THEREIN FOR MODIFICATION ET C. HAS BEEN FURNISHED. B) TILL DATE, NO CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE SEIZED NOTINGS ON PA GE 27 PERTAIN TO THE SALE OF JEWELLERY AND NOT PURCHASE PURCHASE THE REOF HAS BEEN FURNISHED. ALSO, TILL DATE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CL ARIFIED AS TO HOW HER HUSBAND IN THE STATEMENT U/S.132(4) HAD CATEGOR ICALLY ACCEPTED THE NOTINGS ON PAGE 27, WHICH ARE NOT CLAIMED TO BE RECEIPTS, AS PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, INSPITE OF HAVING BEEN GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND HAVE FAILE D TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTY TRANSACTED WITH, HENCE, T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE IN THE NATURE OF SELF SERVING SUBM ISSIONS, AS THE SAME CAN NOT BE COUNTER VERIFIED BY REVENUE. AS THE TRANSACTING PARTY HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED REVENUE CANNOT VERIFY THE SOURCE OF PAYMENTS NOTED ON PAGE 27 ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS MENTIONED IN POINT A ABOVE, THIS CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE IS CONTRADICTORY TO THE STATEMENT U/S.132(4) AND IS NO T BACKED BY ANY CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. FURTHER, FROM TH E PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED NOTINGS ON PAGE-27, IT IS VERY CLEAR THA T THE SLIP IS IN THE FORM OF KACCHA BILL ADDRESSED TO SHRI PRAMOD K PATE L AND IS SIGNED BY THE OTHER PARTY. IT IS THE GENERAL PRACTICE THAT ALL BILLS ARE RAISED IN THE NAME OF THE PERSON BUYING A PARTICULAR THING AN D ARE SIGNED BY THE PERSON WHO MAKES THE SALE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE S UBMISSION ARE CONTRARY TO COMMON TRADE PRACTICE. C) FURTHER, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT NOTINGS OF ON LY RS.4,98,500 AND RS.4,84,000 ARE REFLECTED ON THESE PAGES IS INC ORRECT. THE SEIZED PAPERS HAVE BEEN REEXAMINED AND IT IS ASCERT AINED THAT THE TOTAL QUANTUM OF PAYMENTS REFLECTED ON PAGES 27 TO 33 ADD UPTO RS.16,18,450/-. AS PER THE ASSESSEES CALCULATION O NLY THOSE PAYMENTS WHERE NARRATION IS CASH SHOULD BE TAKEN TO BE UNEXPLAINED. THIS CONTENTION HOWEVER IS NOT FOUND A CCEPTABLE AS FOR THE REMAINING AMOUNTS ALSO THE NARRATION READS BAKI COLLOQUIAL IN GUJARATI FOR OUTSTANDING 5. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICE R, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). BEFORE CIT(A), ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO GAVE A CHART MADE OUT OF NARRATIONS RECORDED IN LOO SE PAPERS AS UNDER:- SR. NO. 1 LOOSE PAPER NO. 2. NARRATION 3 GROSS AMT. 4 KASAR 5. NET AMT. 6. CASH RECD. BY APPELLANT 7. CASH PAID BY APPELLANT 8 1 NO.27 SALE OF ORNAMENTS 494000 - - 494000 494000 -- 2 NO.28 PURCHASE OF ORNAMENTS 256557 15557 241000 -- 55000 IT(SS)A NO.320 & 327/AHD/04 B.P. 1-4-95 TO 27-9-01 SMT. MANJULABEN P PATEL V. ACIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 5 3 NO.29 PURCHASE OF ORNAMENTS 313431 18431 295000 -- -- 4 NO.30 PURCHASE OF ORNAMENTS 153678 9678 144000 -- -- 5 NO.31 PURCHASE OF ORNAMENTS 230674 7174 223500 -- 223500 6 NO.32 PURCHASE OF ORNAMENTS 215670 8670 207000 -- 207000 7 NO.33 PURCHASE OF ORNAMENTS 14378 428 13950 -- 13950 16,78,388 59,938 16,18,450 4,94,000 4,99,450 THE CIT(A) INTERPRETED PAGE NO.27, AS NOTED, AFTER RELYING ON ANSWER NO.27 OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBANDS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT, THAT THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND ADMITTED THAT THESE PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH A ND DETAIL NOTED ON BACK SIDE OF PAGE-27 IS REGARDING PAYMENT OF RS.4.94 LAKHS MA DE IN CASH. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE, THE CIT(A) TREATE D THIS AS PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY AND NOT SALE. AS REGARDS TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,99, 450/- MENTIONED IN LOOSE PAPERS NO.28 TO 33 ON ANNEXURE-A/1 THE CIT(A) RELIED ON TH E STATEMENT OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND, SHRI PRAMODBHAI K PATEL RECORDED U/S.132(4 ) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED THAT THESE CASH PAYMENTS ARE MADE WIT H REGARD TO PURCHASE OF ORNAMENTS OF ASSESSEES WIFE AND THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD OF A SSESSEE AS SHE HAS NO JUSTIFIABLE SOURCE OF THIS INVESTMENT. WITH REGARD TO BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.6.25 LAKH, HE DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPO RT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN HE HAS NOT MENTIONED ABOUT THE FIGURES OF C ASH WRITTEN AND THESE WERE ONLY CASH PAYMENTS AND AO CANNOT INTERPRET THE SAME ACCO RDING TO HIS CONVENIENCE. HE NOTED THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF RE-MAKING OF O RNAMENTS AND ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE ANY ADVERSE COMMENT IN THE REMAND REPORT, HE A CCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED, AGAIN ST THE DELETION OF RS.6.25 LAKH REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL AND ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL FOR SUSTAINING OF RS.9,93,450/- I.E. RS.4.94 LAKH CASH RECEIPT ON ACC OUNT OF SALE OF JEWELLERY AND RS.4,99,450/- AS JEWELLERY DECLARED IN THE WEALTH T AX RETURN. 6. BEFORE US LD. CIT-DR, SHRI ANIL KUMAR RELIED ON THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER PARTICULARLY PARA-7, AS RE-PRODUCED ABOVE. AS REGA RDS TO DELETION, THE LD. COUNSEL IT(SS)A NO.320 & 327/AHD/04 B.P. 1-4-95 TO 27-9-01 SMT. MANJULABEN P PATEL V. ACIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 6 FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND FOR CONFIRMATION, HE REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS MADE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GOING TH ROUGH THE CASE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CO-RELATE THE JEWE LLERY/ORNAMENTS PURCHASED AND NOTED ON PAGES NO.27 TO 33 OF LOOSE PAPERS, I.E. IT EM-WISE, DESCRIPTION-WISE AND WEIGHT-WISE WITH THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS. EVEN THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT WITH ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE JEWELLERY ARE R E-MADE AND THE RE-MADE JEWELLERY IS NOTED IN THESE SEIZED PAPERS. WE FIND FROM THE CHART REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A), WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN CIT( A)S ORDER PAGE-9 AND WHICH IS ALSO BEFORE US IN PARA-5. WE CLEARLY FIND THAT AS REGARDS TO RS.4.94 LAKH THE RE IS A CLEAR-CUT SALE OF JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS AS PER TH E NOTING IN THE LOOSE PAPERS AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF THE SE ORNAMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SEIZED PAPER HAS TO BE REA D AS IT IS, WHILE INTERPRETING THE SAME, AND THERE CANNOT BE TWO DIFFERENT MEANING TO THE SAME PAPER. ACCORDINGLY, WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.4.94 LAKH IS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF ORNAMENT AND THIS MUCH CASH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY AND THI S CASH MIGHT HAVE BEEN UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF OTHER JEWELLERY OR RE-MAKING OF JEWELLERY OF RS.6.26 LAKH WHICH IS DELETED BY CIT(A). ONCE THE AO HAS N OT SUPPORTED HIS CASE OF RE- MAKING OF JEWELLERY, WHICH IS DELETED BY CIT(A) AT RS.6.25 LAKH, WE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) TO THAT EXTENT. AS REGARDS TO THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.4,99,450/-, THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND HAS CLEARLY ADMITTED IN HIS STAT EMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT, THAT THESE PAYMENTS ARE FOR THE PURCHASE OF JE WELLERY AND THE CIT(A) HAS NOTED THIS FACT IN PARA-4.2.2 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 4.2.2. .. . .. . EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT COULD PROVE THE SAME. PAYMENTS OF RS.55, 000/- ON PAGE 28 OF RS.2,23,500/- ON PAGE NO.31, RS.2,07,000/- ON PAGE NO.32 AND PAYMENT OF RS.13,950 ON PAGE NO.33 ARE MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED LOOSE PAPERS. THIS FACT IS EVEN ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND THERE IS NO D ISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THESE CASH PAYMENTS. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.1232(4 ) OF SHRI PRAMODBHAI PATEL, IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED THAT THESE ARE CASH PAY MENTS WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OF ORNAMENTS BY HIS WIFE I.E. APPELLANT. I N VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHAS E OF ORNAMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS.4,99,450 IS JUSTIFIED AS THE SOURCE OF THE SAME IS NOT EXPLAINED. IT(SS)A NO.320 & 327/AHD/04 B.P. 1-4-95 TO 27-9-01 SMT. MANJULABEN P PATEL V. ACIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 7 EVEN NOW BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT ADDUCE ANYTHING NEW WHICH SUPPORTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE EXPLANATION AND OUR FINDINGS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6.25 LAKH DELETED BY THE CIT(A) IS UPHELD AND THE SALE OF JEWELLERY OF R S.4.94 LAKH, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASONING IS ACCEPTED AS GENUINE AND THIS ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS DELETED. AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITION OF RS.4,99,450/ - IS SUSTAINED, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASONING. THIS COMMON ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF REVE NUE IS DISMISSED AND THAT OF ASSESSEES ISSUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN IT(SS)A NO.327/AHD/2004 IS AS REGARDS TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.57,387/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND. 9. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH, A CASH WAS FOUND AS UNDER:- I) RS.1.5 LACS REFLECTED IN WT RETURN FILED BEFORE SEARCH AS CASH ON HAND AS ON 31-3-2001 II)RS.0.80 LACS OUT OF RECEIPTS OF AGRICULTURAL PR ODUCE III) RS.0.33 LACS SAVINGS OF PIN MONEY. IV) RS.0.43 LACS RETURNED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CASH FOUND AND A DDED THE SAME BY GIVING FOLLOWING FIND IN ASSESSMENT ORDER:- 11. ASSESSEES REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE VIDE SUBMIS SIONS DATED 7-10-2003 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS ONCE AGAIN REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN REPLY TO THE NOTICE U/S./142(1). AS THE REPLY OF TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT BACKED BY THE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES THE SAME IS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE. HOWEVER, FROM THE WORKING OF THE RETURNED UNDISCLOSED INCOME IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A DISCLOSURE ON THIS ACCOUNT OF R S.43544. FURTHER IN VIEW OF THE STATUS OF ASSESSEES FAMILY THE SAVINGS OF P IN MONEY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.33,000 IS FOUND ACCEPT ABLE. THUS THE DIFFERENCE OF THIS OF RS.227387 IS TAKEN TO UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF TO BLOCK PERIOD. ADDITION RS.227387 10. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFOR E CIT(A) AND CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.1,70 LAKH BY GIVI NG FOLLOWING FINDING IN PARA-6.2 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER:- 6.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SU BMISSIONS OF THE A.R OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE D ETAILS FILED BEFORE ME BY THE IT(SS)A NO.320 & 327/AHD/04 B.P. 1-4-95 TO 27-9-01 SMT. MANJULABEN P PATEL V. ACIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 8 A.R AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER OF RS.2,27,387/- BEING CASH FOUND DURING THE SEARCH, IT IS SEEN THAT RS.1,50,000/- IS REFLECTED IN WEALTH-TAX RETURN FILED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH A S CASH IN HAND AS ON 31.03.2001. WITH REGARD TO THE SUM OF RS.80,000/-, THE EXPLANATION/CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAME IS OUT OF RECEIPTS O F AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MEREL Y SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.31,362/- AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN A.Y 2001-02, IN THE A.Y. 1999-2000 AT NIL . IN THIS VIEW OF MATTER, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE N ET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF LESS THAN RS.40,000/- P.A. DOES NOT IN ANY WAY SUBS TANTIATE THE CASH OF RS.80,000/- AS EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT BY WAY OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. FURTHER, THE RS.80,000/- SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AS BALANCE AVAILABLE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE/PROOF. IN THE W.T. RETURN CASH BALANCE OF RS.1,50,000/- HAS BEEN SHOWN AS ON 31.03.2001 WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED HEREINABOVE. IF THE APPELLANT AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.40,000/- PER YEAR IS CONSIDERED AS REASONABLE, THEN FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2001 TO 27.9.2001 (FOR SIX MONTHS) IT SHOULD BE OF RS.20,000/-. IN THESE C IRCUMSTANCES WITH REGARD TO THE CASH SEIZED, THE APPELLANTS EXPLANATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,70,000/- (RS.1,50,000 + 20,000)_ IS ACCEPTED AS CASH BALANCE AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THUS, THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF ON THIS COU NT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,70,000/- AND FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.57,3 87/- (RS.2,27,387 1,70,000), THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O IS CONFIRME D. THE A.O IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 11. AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND AND TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AMOUNTING TO RS..57,387/ -, BEFORE US NOT MUCH ARGUMENT WAS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND NO THING WAS ADDUCED. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE O F CASH OF RS.57,387/- APART FROM WHAT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. NOW COMING TO REVENUES APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.323/AH D/2004. 12. THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE CARRIES THE SAME ISS UE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.43,66,300/-, AS IN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN IT(SS)A NO.232/AHD/2006, WHICH IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROPER VERIFICAT ION OF BANK STATEMENTS OF THE PERSONS, WHO HAVE ADVANCED THE MONEY TO THE ASSESSE E, AND IN ALL THESE CREDITORS ARE EIGHT PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE THE NOTARIZED CONFIRMATIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT FILED BEFORE CIT(A) FOR T HE FIRST TIME AND CIT(A) HAS SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO. THE LD. CIT-DR FAIRLY STATED THAT THIS APPEAL HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AFTER THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY T HE AO IN PURSUANCE TO THE IT(SS)A NO.320 & 327/AHD/04 B.P. 1-4-95 TO 27-9-01 SMT. MANJULABEN P PATEL V. ACIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 9 ORDER OF CIT(A) SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT, FOR W HICH IS THE REVENUE IN APPEAL NO. IT(SS)A. NO.232/AHD/2006, AS THE FRESH ASSESSMENT M ADE IN THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT AND THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE HAS BECOME IN FRUCTUOUS. 13. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. NOW COMING TO REVENUES APPEAL NO. IT(SS)A. NO.232/ AHD/2006. 14. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND REG ARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF CASH CREDITS AT RS.43,66,300/-:- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-I, AHMED ABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.43,66,3 00/- BEING THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS WHICH WAS RETAINED WHILE GIVEN EFFECT TO CIT(A) ORDER DATED 30/09/2004. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE TH ROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT A SEARCH OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE U/S.132 OF THE ACT ON 27-09-2001. ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF $67,260/- MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENTS AND CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED, THE AO IN HIS ORDER U/S.158BC OF THE ACT , HELD THAT THERE WERE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS TOTALING RS.43,66,300/-. THE CONFIRMAT IONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE NOT NOTARIZED AND THEREFORE THE ONUS U/S.68 OF THE ACT WAS NOT DISCHA RGED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) AND CIT(A) IN HIS AP PELLATE ORDER DATED 13-09-2004 HELD THAT:- THE AO HAS ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS LE TTERS WERE FILED BEFORE HIM ON 29/10/2003 BUT THE SAME WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY HIM DUE TO THE REASONS THAT THEY WERE NOT NOTARIZED. HOWEVER AT THE REMAND REPORT STAGE, THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THAT LATER ON NOTARIZED CONFIRMATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE APPELLANT. SINCE THE NOTARIZED CONFIRMATIONS HAVE B EEN RECEIVED BY THE AO AS REQUIRED BY HIM AND AS HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS ON THE SAME IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE SAME IS ACCEPTABLE. HOWEV ER, IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THERE THAT NEITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, NOR AT THE REMAND REPORT STAGE, ANY COMMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , WITH REGARD TO THE PARTICULARS OF LOANS TAKEN AND MODE OF REPAYMENTS A S CLAIMED IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE SAME AS GIVE N IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI JANAK PATEL/APPELLA NT, THE SAME CANNOT BE IT(SS)A NO.320 & 327/AHD/04 B.P. 1-4-95 TO 27-9-01 SMT. MANJULABEN P PATEL V. ACIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 10 ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS THEREFORE, DIREC TED TO ACCEPT THE CREDITS, AS STATED IN NOTARIZED CONFIRMATION LETTERS, AFTER PRO PER VERIFICATION OF THE SAME FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 16. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SET ASIDE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FILED NOTARIZED CONFIRMATIONS BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE NOTARIZED CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDING, WHICH READS:- FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS, THIS CLAIM OF THE REPRES ENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE VERIFIED SINCE IN THE BANK STATEMENT I T WAS NOT REFLECTED AS TO WHO HAS ISSUED THIS CHEQUES. THE BIFURCATION OF AMOUNT OF 49399 DOLLARS COULD ALSO NOT BE VERIFIED. THEREFORE, IT CAN NOT BE ASCE RTAINED AS TO THIS AMOUNT OF WAS INCLUDED IN THIS OR NOT. IN HIS DIRECTION, LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE DEPOSITS AS WELL AS REPAYMENTS OF THE LO ANS, THE SAME COULD NOT BE DONE IN ABSENCE OF ELABORATE SUBMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE ONUS IN THIS REGARD IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE VERACITY AND GENUINENESS OF MODE OF PAYMENT AND REPAYMENT AND SINCE HE FAILE D TO DISCHARGE THIS ONUS. THIS CASH CREDIT IS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE SAME IS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A) AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, DELETED THE ADDITION. 17. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. B EFORE US LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE O RDER OF CIT(A) AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE OBSERVATION ABOUT THE MI NOR DISCREPANCY IN THE DATE MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DATE MENTIONED IN FEW OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS, WITHOUT SEEKING EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E. THUS FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CASE OF (I) SHRI BABUBHAI PATEL, (II) SHRI RASIKBHAI SAH A (III) SHRI BHANU DOSHI (IV) SHRI SHARADBHAI (V) SHRI ATUL PARIKH (VII) SHRI RASIK P ATEL (VII) SHRI MANISH RAO (VIII) SHRI TEJAL PARIKH (IX) SHRI RAMESH PATEL, STATED CREDITS ARE SHOWN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ON 05-06-2001, WHEREAS THESE PERSONS IN THEIR NOTAR IZED CONFIRMATION HAVE STATED THAT CASH CREDITS WERE GIVEN ON OR AFTER 06-06-2001 . THE AO HAS DRAWN ADVERSE INFERENCE WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN. IN ANY CASE, FURTHER CLARIFICATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THESE PERSONS AND IT WAS SEEN THA T THE DISCREPANCY WAS DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE IN TIME ZONE AND IN ONE CASE, A TYPO GRAPHICAL ERROR. THUS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE EXPLANATION SENT BY BHANU DOSHI, ON E OF THE CREDITORS, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT:- IT(SS)A NO.320 & 327/AHD/04 B.P. 1-4-95 TO 27-9-01 SMT. MANJULABEN P PATEL V. ACIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 11 I HAD MENTIONED THE DATE OF GIVING THE LOAN AS 6 TH JUNE, 2001 THOUGH MY DATE OF TRANSACTION WAS 5 TH JUNE 2001, UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE SAID STATEMENT IS BEING USED IN INDIA AND DUE TO DIFFERE NCE OF 11 HOURS IN TIMINGS OF INDIA AND USA, THE CORRECT DATE FOR INDIA WAS ST ATED BY MUST BE ONE DAY LATER. ONCE AGAIN, I CONFIRM THAT MY DATED OF TRANS ACTION WAS 5 TH JUNE, 2001. IT WAS STATED THAT HE FURTHER EXPLANATION OBTAINED FROM THESE PERSONS FOR THE MINOR DISCREPANCY IN DATE WAS NOT A NEW EVIDENCE BUT WAS ONLY IN THE NATURE OF CLARIFICATION AND REQUIRES TO BE ADMITTED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT OTHER SUSPICION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE STATED REPAYMENTS TO THE DEPOSITORS WERE ALSO NOT SEPARATELY AND INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIABLE, MISPLACED. THUS, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE BANKS IN THE USA REFLECTS DESPITE PAYMENTS . MOREOVER, THE COMPOSITE TOTAL COMPRISED OF THE SUM OF ALL INDIVIDUAL PAYMENTS. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THE CREDITORS LIVING IN USA, WERE ADVERSE TO GIVING COM PLETE DETAILS / COPIES OF THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS AS IT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE AN INTRUSION IN THEIR PRIVATE MATERS. IN THIS REGARD, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE CONTENTS OF THE C ONFIRMATION OF ONE SUCH CREDITOR, RASIKBHAI SHAH WHEREIN HE REFERS TO THIS ASPECT AS UNDER:- I WAS REQUESTED BY SHRI JANAK PATEL TO GIVE MY BAN K STATEMENT, BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME-TAX RETURN IF POSSIBLE. I SAY THAT THESE ARE SENSITIVE AND STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS AND AS PER MY ACCOUNTS ADVICE NOT BEING MADE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE. THEREFORE, I AM SOR RY, I CANNOT GIVE THOSE DOCUMENTS. IN ANY CASE, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE DETAILS, R EFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF JANK PATEL, THE NOTARIZED CONFIRMATIONS, ALREADY ACCEPTE D BY THE CIT(A), THE FACT THAT THE CREDITORS WERE ALL EXISTING PERSONS WHO HAD SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS AND BANK ACCOUNTS ETC. ESTABLISHED THE GENUINENESS OF THE LO ANS AND THEIR REPAYMENTS. DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS REFERENCE WAS ALSO MADE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. A CHART SUMMARIZING THE QUANTUM OF CRED ITS/REPAYMENTS, AS APPARENT FROM BANK ACCOUNT OF JANAK PATEL, SON OF ASSESSEE, WAS ALSO SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- SUMMARY STATEMENT OF AMOUNT OF LOAN TAKEN AND REPAI D. DATE OF DEPOSIT AMT. OF DEPOSIT DATE OF REPAYMENT AMOUNT OF REPAYMENT SARABHAI SHAH 05/06/01 19/6/01 TOTAL 400 1000 5000 5/6/01 5000 ATULBHAI PARIKH 10/5/01 5/6/01 TOTAL 5000 10000 15000 1/10/01 9/7/01 7000 8000 15000 IT(SS)A NO.320 & 327/AHD/04 B.P. 1-4-95 TO 27-9-01 SMT. MANJULABEN P PATEL V. ACIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 12 BHANUBEN DOSI 5/6/01 10000 11/10/01 10000 TAJ ENTERPRISE 5/5/01 5000 11/10/01 11000 R PATEL 24/7/01 TOTAL 6000 11000 11000 A PARIKH 30/7/01 1000 11/10/01 1000 R. RAO 18/6/01 2/7/01 26/7/01 TOTAL 5000 5000 5000 15000 18/7/01 11/10/01 500 1000 15000 BABUBHAI PATEL 24/7/01 6/8/01 TOTAL 6600 6600 13300 2/8/01 11/10/01 6600 6600 13300 DR. RASIKBHAI SHAH 16/7/01 2126 11/10/01 2126 RASHIKBHAI PATEL 30/7/01 4/9/01 18/9/01 TOTAL 6500 3500 5000 15000 28/9/01 26/6/01 9/7/01 11/10/01 11/10/01 5000 500 300 7070.43 1673.53 14543.96 18. WE FIND FROM THE DETAILS AND FACTS ON RECORD, T HE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER DATED 30-09-2004, THE ARGUMENTS & SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REASONS OF THE AO ETC. THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WA S A COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT BY SHRI JANK PATEL TO ONE ALPA WITH THE DIRECTION THAT IT BE GIVEN TO ONE KETA OR PAPA (APPELLANT). THE E-MAIL READS AS UNDER:- THIS IS THE HISAB OR HOW MUCH MONEY AND FROM WHOM I GOT I AM WRITING YOU WHICH I HAVE REMEMBER BHANUBEN DOSH (NJ) 10,000$ RAY (NJ) 10,000$ TAJ ENTERPRISE 11,000$ ATUL PARIKH 15,000$ SHARAD KAKA 5,000$ TAJAL PARIKH 1,000$ BABUBHAI G PATEL 6,600$ DR. RASIKBHAI SHAH 2,160$ RASIKBHAI PATEL 6,500$ (GIRISH BHAIS BROTHER HIS CHEKS I RECEIVE TODAY ON 27 TH JULY) TOTAL 67,260$ AS THIS DOCUMENT WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF T HE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE PRESUMPTION U/S.132(4A) NEEDED TO BE REBUTTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE PLAIN READING OF THIS E-MAIL, PRIMA FACIE SUGGEST T HAT JANAK PATEL, THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE, HAD RECEIVED AMOUNTS FROM THE PERSONS MEN TIONED IN THIS E-MAIL. FURTHER, IT(SS)A NO.320 & 327/AHD/04 B.P. 1-4-95 TO 27-9-01 SMT. MANJULABEN P PATEL V. ACIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 13 FROM THE CONTENTS OF THE NOTARIZED CONFIRMATIONS, T HE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS IS ESTABLISHED BY THE SINGULAR FACT OF THEIR SOCIAL SE CURITY NO. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.49,39.53$ WAS CREDIT BALANCE IN ACCOUN T NO.1110615612999 OF NANAK PATEL ON 05-10-2001. THIS CREDIT BALANCE WAS REDUCE D TO NIL ON 11-10-2001 OWING TO THE DEBIT ENTRIES. THESE DEBITS ARE EXPLAINED AS COMPRISING OF THE REPAYMENTS OF ATULBHAI PARIKH ($7000), BHANUBEN DOSHI ($10000), T AJ ENTERPRISES ($11000), TEJAL PARIKH ($1673.53) ALL ON 11-10-2001. IN ADDITION, T HE SECOND ACCOUNT NO.1110028771995, BETWEEN HE PERIOD 17-06-2001 (WHE N IT WAS OPENED) TO 11-10- 2001 (WHEN IT WAS CLOSED) ALSO SHOW A CREDIT BALANC E OF $7070 ON 06-09-2001 AND NIL BALANCE ON 11-10-2001 OWING TO DEBIT OF $7070 O N 11-10-2001 WHICH IS STATED TO THE BALANCE OF REPAYMENT MADE OF RASIKBHAI. THE REA SON FOR OBTAINING THE LOANS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AS THE DESIRE AND THE NEED OF HAVING A GOOD BANK BALANCE FOR THE BENEFIT OF US IMMIGRATION AUTHORITY, FOR WHOM NANAK PATEL HAD SOUGHT A L-I VISA (VIDE APPLICATION DATED 24/08-2001). HOWEVER, HIS APPLICATION WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND IN FACT THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE/IMMIGRATION VI DE LETTER DATED 29-08-2001 SOUGHT MORE INFORMATION/CLARIFICATION WHICH THE APPLICANT WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDED. IN THE ABOVE VIEW, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT T HERE WAS NO FURTHER NEED TO KEEP A HIGHER BANK BALANCE AND IT WAS FOR THIS REASON AT THE LOANS OBTAINED WERE REPAID. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION DELETED BY THE CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFER ENCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE SAME AND THIS ISSUE OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISM ISSED. COMING TO ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.326/AHD/2 004. 19. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND NOS. 1-4 :- 1) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS W HILE CONFIRMING HE ADDITION OF RS.1,72,043/- UNDER THE HEAD OF INVESTM ENT IN JEWELLERY. 2) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED I LAW AND FACTS WHI LE CONFIRMING HE ADDITION OF RS.63,720/- UNDER THE INVESTMENT IN SILVER. 3) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS WH ILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,09,800/- UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINE D CASH PAYMENT. 4) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS WH ILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.58,850/- UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED US DOLLAR. IT(SS)A NO.320 & 327/AHD/04 B.P. 1-4-95 TO 27-9-01 SMT. MANJULABEN P PATEL V. ACIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 14 20. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ABOVE ADDITIONS CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ABOVE FOUR GROUNDS ARE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) JUST ON DIFFERENCE OF O PINION. HE STATED THAT HE HAS INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE ASSESSEE NOT TO PRESS THESE G ROUNDS DUE TO SMALLNESS OF AMOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, HE HAS NOT PRESSED THESE ISSU ES. 21. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, AS THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT PRESSED THESE ISSUES DUE TO SMALLNESS OF AMOUNT, WE DISMISS THESE ISSUES OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AS NOT PRESSED. 22. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AND THAT OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.327/AHD/2004 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND IT(SS)A NO.326/AHD/2004 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 09/04/2010 SD/- SD/- (N.S.SAINI) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 09/04/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-XI, AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD