DCIT, Chandigarh V. Sh. Ramesh Nikhanj, Chandigarh

ITSSA 4/CHANDI/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0300 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Document seized; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.4 /CHD/2007 BLOCK PERIOD : 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 AND 01.4.2000 TO 20.07.2000) THE D.C.I.T., VS. SH.RAMESH NIKHANJ, CIRCLE 4(1) # 268, SECTOR 9-C, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAPHN15340 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.N.SINGLA DATE OF HEARING : 21.08.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.09.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DAT ED 27.11.2006 RELATING TO BOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 AGAINS T THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SH ORT THE ACT). 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE CIT(A) VIDE APPELLATE ORDER NO. 487/P/02-03 DATED 2 4.11.2006 HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: I) ADDITION MADE ON A/C OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON MARRIAGE OF DAUGHTER AT RS. 8,29,664/- ; II) ADDITION MADE ON A/C OF UNE XPLAINED HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE AT RS. 11,06,285/-; III) MISC. ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE PAYMENTS AT RS.21,500/-; 2 IV) UNEXPLAINED GIFT OF RS. 5,83,156/- ; V) ADDITION OF RS.,77,156/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOS ED INTEREST RECEIVED FROM M/S BRINSAR IN DIA PVT. LTD. AND M/S BRINSAR FOODS PVT. LTD.; AND VI) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY AT RS. 1.56.446/-. 2. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) BE CANCELLED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY G ROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 20.7.2000. THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NAMED OPERATION GENTLEMAN AND THE WARR ANTS OF AUTHORIZATION WERE ISSUED IN THE NAMES OF VARIOUS C RICKET PLAYERS, THEIR ASSOCIATES AND THE BOOKIES WHO WERE INVOLVED IN BET TING AND MATCH FIXING. SHRI RAMESH NIKHANJ WAS THE BROTHER OF SH RI KAPIL DEV AND HIS PREMISES ALONGWITH THE CONCERNS OF HIS BROTHERS WER E ALSO SEARCHED. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION A T THIS RESIDENCE HOUSE NO.268, SECTOR 9-C, CHANDIGARH, CERTAIN INCR IMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND, WHICH RELATED TO VARIOUS EXPENSES AND I NCOME INCURRED OR EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. MANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS W ERE SEIZED AND ANNEXURES WERE PREPARED. THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE NOTINGS FROM THE SAID ANNEXURES, WHICH IN TURN HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) AND THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID DELETION OF ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE PROCEED TO DEAL WITH EACH OF THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IN TURN HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE. 3 4. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.1(I) RAISED BY THE REVEN UE IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF MARRIAGE OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE TOTALING R S.8,29,664/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 4.11 AT PAGES 2 TO 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD DEALT WITH VARIOUS DOCUMENTS SEIZED AT THE RESI DENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH PERTAINED TO THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF THE DAU GHTER OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAD COMPUTED THE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AT RS. 8,29,664/-. THE FIRST DOCUMENT REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 4.1 IS DIARY SEIZED AS PER ANNEXURE A-7 WHICH CONTAINED THE DETA ILS OF SHOGUNS/GIFTS GIVEN TO THE NEAR RELATIVES OF SON-IN-LAW. THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IT THIS DIARY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOTED THE FOLLO WING GUESTS: 1. SHRI VISHESH TANDON, SON-IN-LAW RS.51,000/- I N CASH 2. MOTHER OF SHRI VISHESH TANDON TWO SETS AND FI VE SARIS 3. FATHER OF SHRI VISHESH TANDON ONE BRACELET, O NE SUIT, ONE TIE AND 1 SHIRT 4. BROTHER OF SHRI VISHESH TANDON ONE SUIT 5. RELATIVES OF BRIDEGROOM SAREES, SUITS, SILVE R ITEMS, FRUIT BASKET, ETC. 6. FATHER & BROTHER OF SHRI VISHESH ONE GOLD GINNY EACH TANDON ON THE OCCASION OF MILANI 7. RELATIVES ON THE OCCASION OF MILANI RS.2100 X 5 IN CASH 8. RELATIVES ON THE OCCASION OF CHUNARI RS.1100 X 15 IN CASH 5. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD CALCULATED THE ABOVE SA ID EXPENSES AT RS.6,25,700/- AS PER PAGE 4 OF ANNEXURE A-7. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID EXPENSES WERE PROPOSED EXPENSES AND S INCE THE MARRIAGE WAS PERFORMED IN AHMEDABAD AND NOT AT CHANDIGARH, T HESE EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE NATURE OF THE EXPENSES WAS SUCH THAT WOULD HAVE BEE N INCURRED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PLACE OF MARRIAGE AND REJECTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE SUM OF RS.6,25,700/- WAS TREATED AS THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE CIT (APPEALS) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. 4 7. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVEN UE WAS THAT IN VIEW OF THE DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENTS WHEREIN TH E ENTRIES WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THE TOTAL FIG URE OF RS.6,25,700/- HAS BEEN MENTIONED AT PAGE 4 OF ANNEXURE A-7. THE SAID ADDITION IS WARRANTED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. 8. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANC E ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT TH E UN-DISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD IN THE HANDS OF THE PER SON SEARCHED IS TO BE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE A DIARY MARKED AS ANNEXURE A-7 WAS SEI ZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID DIARY CONTAIN ED NOTINGS OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURE OF VARIOUS SHOGUNS/GIFTS GIVEN TO THE N EAR RELATIVES OF THE SON-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TOTA LED THE SAID EXPENDITURE AT PAGE 4 OF ANNEXURE A-7 AT RS.6,25,70 0/-. THE ASSESSEE , HOWEVER, CLAIMED THAT THE SAME WERE PROPOSED EXPEND ITURE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE FA CT THAT THE MARRIAGE OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SOLEMNIZED AND ENT RIES IN THE DIARY NOTED VARIOUS SHOGUNS/GIFTS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN ALL FAIRNESS, WE RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS.3 LACS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE NEXT ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE E XPENDITURE AS PER PARA 4.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF TITAN WATCH. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, PAGE NO.2 OF ANNEXURE A-10 WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS A CASH MEMO NO.5827 DATED 1.3.2000 FOR RS.8700/- ISSUED BY KAPO OR BROTHERS 5 AGENCIES, CHANDIGARH ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF WATCH WA S PURCHASED BEFORE THE MARRIAGE OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TITAN WATCH BY THE BROTHER -IN-LAW WAS GIVEN AS A GIFT AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE AND CASH MEMO WAS HAND ED OVER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E THOUGH A CONFIRMATION WAS FILED WITH REGARD TO THE SAID GIFT S. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAD DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. WE ARE IN CONFORMI TY WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) WHERE CONFIRMATION OF GIFTS HAS B EEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS CUSTOMARY THAT THE GIFTS ARE REC EIVED FROM THE RELATIVES AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. MERELY BECAUSE THE RECE IPT WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SAID TITAN WATCH WAS PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.8700/-. 11. THE NEXT ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE E XPENSES WAS AS PER PARA 4.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON ACCOUNT OF TRA VELING EXPENSES FROM CHANDIGARH TO AHMEDABAD FOR MARRIAGE. AS PER ANNE XURE A-10, PAGES 6 TO 11 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE CON TAINED INVOICES ISSUED BY M/S DHAWAN TRAVELS PVT. LTD. DATED 25/26.2.2000 WERE FOUND, WHICH RELATED TO TRAVEL BY FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM CHANDIGARH TO AHMEDABAD. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT RECODED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAD ADMITTED THAT HE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAD TRAVELED FROM CHANDIGARH TO AHMEDABAD BY AIR. THE TOTAL EXPEND ITURE INCURRED WAS RS.29,841/-. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS OUT OF SHOGUNS AND OUT OF THE UN-EX PLAINED INCOME OF THE AOP. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.29,841/- WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). 6 12. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEA LS) WHERE THE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF INVOICES WERE FOUND FROM TH E POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE MARR IAGE OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN SOLEMNIZED AT AHMEDABAD. TH E ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT HAD ADMITTED THAT HE AND HIS RELATIVES HA D TRAVELED BY AIR FROM DELHI TO AHMEDABAD FOR SOLEMNIZING THE MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.29,841/- MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE/INVOICES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 13. THE NEXT ADDITION MADE AS PER PARA 4.4 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER WAS ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ON PRE-MARRIAGE DINNER AT CH ANDIGARH. AS PER PAGE 12 OF ANNEXURE A-10 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE CONTAINED A MATERIAL LIST GIVEN BY KIRPAL CATERING AGENCY FOR THE FUNCTION HELD ON 20.2.2000. AS PER THE SAID LIST, THE NUMBER OF ESTIMATED GUESTS WAS ABOUT 300. HOWEVER, THE ASSE SSEE ADMITTED THAT ONLY 150 PERSONS ATTENDED THE DINNER AT HIS RESIDEN CE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE LIST FOUND ESTIMATED THE EXP ENDITURE @ RS.250/- PER HEAD AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.75,000 PLUS ESTIMA TED ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- ON OTHER ARRANGEMENTS LIKE TENT, LIGHTI NG, ETC. THUS AN ADDITION OF RS.1 LAC WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). AS POINTED OUT BY U S IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, THIS IS THE CASE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT A ND ADDITION CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE PRESENT ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MA TERIAL LIST SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IN NOWHERE ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED THE SAID EXPENDITURE. IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID ADD ITION OF RS.1 LAC AND THE SAME IS DELETED. 7 14. ANOTHER ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER PARA 4.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF M ISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FOR MARRIAGE. THE SAID ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE B ASIS OF ANNEXURE A- 10, PAGES 14 AND 15 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF TH E ASSESSEE WHICH CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE ON I TEMS SUCH AS CUSION, RUBBER, NIWAR, ETC. THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS RS.33,025/-. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE S AID PAPERS WERE ONLY THE ESTIMATE, WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ADDITION OF RS.33,025/- WAS MADE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAI D ADDITION AS THE PAPERS DEPICTED ONLY ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE AND IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN FOUND OF THE EXPENDITURE BEING INCURRED I.E. IN THE FORM OF ANY BILLS, RECEIPTS OR PAYMENT SLIPS, WE FI ND NO MERIT IN THE SAID ADDITION AND WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEAL S) IN DELETING THE AID OF RS.33,025/-. 15. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER PARA 4.6 H AS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF SILVER ITEMS/UTENSILS. ON THE BASIS OF ANNEXURE A-12, PAGE 20 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSE SSEE, WHICH CONTAINED SLIP OF PURCHASES OF SILVER ITEMS UTENSILS AT RS.29 ,800/-. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION AND HE SAME WAS A DDED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT (APPEA LS). WE DO NOT CONFIRM WITH THE VIEW OF THE CIT (APPEALS) AS THE B ILLS FOR PURCHASE OF SILVER ITEMS WERE FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF IN VESTMENT, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) AND UPHOLD THE ADDIT ION OF RS.29,800/-. 16. THE NEXT ITEM OF EXPENDITURE AS PER PARA 4.7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ON ACCOUNT OF STAY AT AHMEMDABAD. AS PE R ANNEXURE A-12, PAGES 21 AND 22 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE AS SESSEE AND BILL FROM HOTEL WEST END AT AHEMEDABAD FOR THE PERIOD 4.3.200 0 TO 10.3.2000 AN 8 EXPENDITURE OF RS.21,097/- WAS INCURRED. THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THIS EXPENDITURE AND ACCEPTED THE CLAI M THAT THESE WERE PART OF THE MARRIAGE EXPENDITURE. HENCE THE ADDITION O F RS.21,097/- WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS DELETE D BY THE CIT (APPEALS). 17. ONCE THE EVIDENCE OF HAVING INCURRED THE EXPEND ITURE HAS BEEN FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION AS TO THE SOURCE OF EXPENDITURE, THE SA ME CONSTITUTE UN- DISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. A CCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.21,097/- AND REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD. 18. THE NEXT EXPENDITURE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER VIDE PARAS 4.8 AND 4.9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE ON A CCOUNT OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES AT AHMEDABAD AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS EXPEN SES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY BEING SOLEMNIZED AT AHMEDABAD AND IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSES SEE THAT 150 PERSONS HAD ATTENDED THE FUNCTION AT AHMEDABAD, IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY HOTEL BILLS AND OTHER RECEIPTS ESTIMATED THE EXPENDITURE AT RS.1 LAC. FURTHER THE ESTIMATION OF EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF INVITAT ION CARDS, SWEETS, DRY FRUITS JEWELLERY, CLOTHS, ETC. WAS MADE AT RS.2 LAC S AND SUM OF RS.3 LACS WAS STATED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WHILE EXPLAINING THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF HIS DAUGHTER HA D CLAIMED THAT SUM OF RS.2,84,650/- WAS RECEIVED AS SHOGUNS. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 4.10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT AT BEST THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE RECEIVED RS.1 LAC AS SHOGUNS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,84,650/- SHOULD NOT BE ADDED AS UN-EXPLAINED E XPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A LIST OF PERSONS FROM 9 WHOM SHOGUNS WERE RECEIVED AND IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT OF SHOGUNS COULD NOT BE ASSUMED ON ESTIMATE BASIS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE TREATED THE SUM OF RS.1,84,650/- AS DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 69C O F THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED OUT OF WITHDRAWALS FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2,18,499/- AND RS.1 LAC OUT OF SHOGUNS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) A ND THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME. 19. THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER REFLECTS THAT THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES AT AHMEDABAD HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESS EE THAT 150 PERSONS HAD ATTENDED THE FUNCTION. FURTHER OTHER MISCELLANEOU S EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BEING CUSTOMS. UNDOUBTEDLY THE EXPENDIT URE CLAIMED TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE RELATED TO THE MARRIAG E FUNCTION. THE TOTAL ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES HAD BEEN M ADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.3 LACS. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED HAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IN CA SE THE SAID ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO RS.1 LAC. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE REST RICT THE ADDITION AT RS.1 LAC AND PARTLY ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 20. NOW COMING TO THE SECOND PART OF THE ADDITION I .E. THE SHOGUNS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE MARRIAGE FUN CTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ESTIMATED THE SAID SHOGUNS AM OUNT AT RS.1 LAC THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT IT HAD RECEIVE D RS.2,84,650/-, WHICH HE CLAIMED TO HAVE SPENT ON VARIOUS MARRIAGE OCCASIONS. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US OR BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS OF THE SAID RECEIPTS OF SHAGUNS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.1,84,65-/- IS T REATED DEEMED INCOME 10 OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1(I) RAI SED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 21. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE NO.1 (II) IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UN-EXPLAINED HOU SEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.11,06,285/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 5 HAD ESTIMATED THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS ON THE BASIS OF FEW TELEPHONE BILLS AND ELECTRICITY BILLS FOUND FRO M THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, CLAIME D THAT HE ALONGWITH HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAD MADE WITHDRAWALS OF RS.4,24, 000/- DURING THE PERIOD 1.4.1996 TO 31.3.2000. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ESTIMATED THE ANNUAL AVERAGE AMOUNT OF UN-EXPLAINED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.10,64 ,300/- + RS.37,900/- = RS.11,06,285/-. THE SAID ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) AS NO EVIDENCE OR ANY MATERIAL WAS FO UND TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED THE SAID EXPENDITURE. WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FINDING OF THE CIT (APPEALS) THAT IN THE A BSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR ANY MATERIAL F OUND TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED THE SAID EXPENDITURE, NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) WE DISMISS THE GROUND NO.1(II) RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 22. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.1(III) RAISED BY THE REV ENUE IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.21,500/-. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER VIDE PARA 6.1 HAD MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF MISCELLANEO US UN-EXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ANNEXURE A-9, PAGE 37 WERE SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH CO NTAINED DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF RS.18,000/- TO SHRI KIMAT RAI GARG. TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE. HOWEVER, IN REPLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE 11 DOCUMENTS SEIZED BELONGED TO THE AOP. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER NOTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINED TO THE ASSESSEE AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVEST MENT, THE AMOUNT OF RS.18,000/- WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER ANOTHER DOCUMENT AS ANNEXURE A-10 WAS SEIZED FROM T HE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THE CASH PAYMENT OF RS.2000/- MADE TO CHANDIGARH CLUB DATED 7.5.1999 AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATIO N, THE SAME WAS ALSO TREATED AS UN-EXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. BOTH THE ADD ITIONS WERE DELETED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST ADDIT ION OF RS.18,000/-, WHEREIN DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH EVIDENCE OF PAY MENT OF RS.18,000/- TO SHRI KIMAT RAI GARG WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION AS TO THE SOU RCE, THE SAID SUM IS TO BE TREATED AS UN-EXPLAINED EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTIO N 69C OF THE ACT RELATABLE TO THE BLOCK PERIOD. HOWEVER, WE UPHOLD THE DELETION OF RS.2000/- BEING PETTY EXPENDITURE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1(III) RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 23. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.1(IV) IS AGAINST THE DEL ETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED GIFTS MADE OF RS.5,83,156/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER PARA 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD N OTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED TWO GIFTS FROM THE PERSONS, WHO ACCORD ING TO THE ASSESSEE, WERE LIVING ABROAD. SUM OF RS.2,90,200/- WAS REC EIVED FROM SHRI VINOD KUMAR BALI ON 2.12.1992. FURTHER SUM OF RS .2,93,400/- WAS RECEIVED FROM SMT.KRISHNA DEVI ON 17.11.1992. DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN PAPERS CONTAINING PAGE NOS.1 TO 6 A ND 11 TO 16 OF ANNEXURE A-8 WERE SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE, WHICH CONTAINED DETAILS OF BANKS THROUGH WHICH THE GIFTS AMOUNTS WERE TRANSFER RED TO THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THE GIFTS LETTERS. THE PLEA OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND DUL Y REFLECTED IN THE 12 BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS, WHO HAD GIFTED THE AMOUNTS. THE ASSE SSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THE SAME EXCEPT FOR POINTING OUT THAT THE REL EVANT DOCUMENTS WERE AVAILABLE AS PART OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5,83,600/-, WHICH WAS DELETE D BY THE CIT (APPEALS). 24. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAD FAILED TO BRING ON R ECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE ANY EVIDENCE OF RELATION WITH THE SAID PER SONS OR THE OCCASION ON WHICH THE SAID GIFTS WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME AND AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE ID ENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SAID PERSONS, WE UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS.5,83,600/-. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1(IV) RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE IS THUS ALLOWED. 25. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1(V) RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.8,77,156/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE DIRECTOR OF M/S BRI NSAR INDIA PVT. LTD. AND M/S BRINSAR FOODS PVT. LTD. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND, W HICH CONTAINED DETAILS OF COMPUTATION OF INTEREST PAYMENT MADE BY THE TWO COMPANIES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE PART O F ANNEXURE A-13, PAGE NOS.3,4,5,20 TO 23, 28 AND 29, SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME WERE ROU GH CALCULATIONS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY REPLY FROM THE ASSE SSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE FROM THE TWO CONCERNS AS PER APPENDIX-I AND CONFRONTED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER PARA 8.4 HAD REPRODUCED THE NOTINGS ON THE DIFFERENT PAGES IN WHICH THERE IS NOTING OF PUCCA/ KACHCHA INTEREST AND 13 THEN NET TO BE CREDITED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW THEREOF, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.8,77,156/-. 26. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT T HAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. S HRI H.S.CHADHA IN IT(SS)A NO.1/CHD/2007 AND VIDE ORDER DATED 30.9.200 9 THE MATTER HAD BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT (APPEALS). THE RELE VANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAS 17 TO 24 ARE AS UNDER: 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE RECORDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING THE UNDISCLOSED I NCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON THE PERUSAL OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS SEIZED B EING PART OF ANNEXURE A-13, FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI ROMESH NI KHANJ VIDE PANCHNAMA DATED 20.7.2000, COMPUTED THE INTEREST IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE TWO COMPANIES M/S BRINSAL FOODS ( P) LTD AND BRINSAL INDIA (P) LTD FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD BEING NOT REFLEC TED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WORKED OUT THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,58,75 0/- RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 2001-02. 18. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT THE SAID ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED DIARIES DID NOT RELATE TO THE TWO COMPANIES IN WHICH ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTOR. HOWEVER, THE SAID ENTRIES IN SEIZED DIARIES RELATED TO THE FINANCE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE A OP OF ROMESH NIKHANJ AND ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT AF TER FILING THE RETURN FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD IN THE CASE OF AOP, NOTHING RE MAINS UNACCOUNTED OR UNDISCLOSED. THE AOP CONSISTED OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI ROMESH NIKHANJ WHICH CARRIES ON THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LEND ING AND NO REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED. HOWEVER, ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE SAID AOP HAD MADE A DISCLOSURE OF RS. 95,77,200/- WHICH AS PER THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE WAS INCLUSIVE OF INTEREST EARNED ON SUCH ADVANCES. THE ASSESSEE CLA IMS THAT THE ABOVE SAID FIGURES OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AND INTEREST EARNED THEREON WAS BY THE TWO GROUPS OF FAMILIES AND WAS WORKED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS, DIARIES AND OTHER MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI ROMESH NIKHANJ. THE ASS ESSEE THUS CLAIMS THAT WHATEVER WAS UNDISCLOSED OR UNACCOUNTED ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS INCLUDING A-13 HAS BEEN DISCLOSED AND ASS ESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP WHICH INCLUDES THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMI LY MEMBERS AND SHRI ROMESH NIKHAJ AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. 19. THE SECOND PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAINST THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INTEREST FOR AND FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 BEING MADE ON HYPOTHETICAL BASIS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT NO MATERI AL OR DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND / SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELATING TO THESE YEARS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND, THE ADDITION REL ATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 TO 2000-01 WERE TO BE DELETED. REGARD ING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 AND 1995-96, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E WAS THAT THE SAME 14 HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PEAK AMOUNT AND ACCEPTED I N THE HANDS OF THE AOP OF ROMESH NIKHANJ AND ASSESSEE. 20. BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE ALSO ELABORATELY EX PLAINED THE FIGURES OF INTEREST RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995-96 ADOPTED AT RS. 8,01,730/-, RS 4,97,723/- AND RS. 30,567/- RESP ECTIVELY, IN CONNECTION WITH THE NOTINGS AT PAGE 34 OF A-13, SEI ZED DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND CLAIMED THAT AS THE INTEREST PAYABL E ON INVESTMENT OF SHRI CHADHA & FAMILY, WAS HIGHER THAN THAT OF SHRI ROMESH NIKHAJ AND FAMILY, ONLY INTEREST CHARGED ON THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT WAS CREDITED IN THE CASH BOOK OF ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE WORKI NG OF INTEREST BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CHALLENGED. FURTHER, THE PLE A OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ACTUAL INTEREST HAD ALREADY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE HANDS OF AOP. 21. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US POINTED OUT THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE AOP, ADDITION ON ACCO UNT OF ADDITIONAL INTEREST WAS MADE IN ADDITION TO THE PEAK INVESTMEN T WORKED OUT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE SAID ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 47/CHANDI/2004 D ATED 17.2.2006 IN THE CASE OF AOP HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 22. THE CIT(A) THOUGH HAS REFERRED TO THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM INCLUDING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, BUT HAS FAILED TO GIVE A FIN DING IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE IS THAT THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS OR FINANCING BUSINESS WAS CA RRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI ROMESH NIKHAJ, AOP APART FROM THE BUSINESS SHOWN IN THE TWO CONCERNS M/S BRINSAR INDIA (P) LTD AND BRIN SAR FOODS (P) LTD. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST NON INCLUSION OF THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE MULTIFOLD AND ARE BEING E NUMERATED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY: A) THE ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ON TH E BASIS OF WHICH ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN WORKED OUT HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH THE TWO CONCERNS M/S BRINSAR INDIA (P) LTD AND BRINSAR FOODS (P) LTD. B) THE AFORESAID ENTRIES WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DIARIES ARE RELATABLE TO THE INCOME REFLECTED IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP CONSISTING OF ASS ESSEE AND SH. ROMESH NIKHANJ EARNED FROM THEIR BUSINESS O F MONEY LENDING. C) THE INCOME ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI ROMESH NIKHANJ AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS ARE PART OF THE IN COME DECLARED IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP. D) THE FIGURE OF DISCLOSURE OF RS. 95,77,200/- IN THE HANDS OF AOP IS INCLUSIVE OF INTEREST EARNED AND PLOUGHED BA CK UPTO 23.11.1994 WHICH IN TURN IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BE EN 15 E) WORKED OUT BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE I.T. DEPARTMENT. F) THE BASIS OF WORKING THE DISCLOSURES OF RS. 95.77 L AKHS IN THE HANDS OF AOP WAS THE ENTRIES IN DOCUMENTS AND DIARIES AND OTHER MATERIAL FOUND INCLUDING A-13 AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF ROMESH NIKHANJ, WHICH ARE ALSO THE BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. G) WHATEVER WAS UNDISCLOSED OR UNACCOUNTED INCOME EITH ER IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND SHRI ROMESH NIKHAJ AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ON THE BA SIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS WAS DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF A OP AND NOTHING REMAINS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND SHRI ROMESH NIKHANJ AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. H) AS REGARDS ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 (W.E.F. 24.11.1 994) TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN W ORKED OUT ON HYPOTHETICAL BASIS AND NO MATERIAL OR DOCUME NTS WERE FOUND OR SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RE LATING TO THESE YEARS. I) REGARDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 TO PART OF ASSESS MENT YEAR 1995-96, THE INTEREST INCOME IS INCLUDED IN TH E PEAK AMOUNT DECLARED IN THE HANDS OF AOP AND THE SAME IS APART FROM THE INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM TWO CONCERNS I.E. BRINSAR INDIA (P) LTD AND BRINSAR FOO DS (P) LTD. J) IN RESPECT OF 1993-94, AFTER REFERRING TO THE ENTR IES ON THE RESPECTIVE PAGES OF THE SEIZED DIARY, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT AS THE INTEREST PAYABLE ON INVEST MENT OF ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY WAS HIGHER THAN THAT OF ROM ESH NIKHAJ AND HIS FAMILY, THE INTEREST WAS ALLOWED ONL Y ON THE EXCESS AMOUNT WHICH IN TURN WAS CREDITED TO THE CASH BOOK OF AOP. THE INCOME BEING ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF AOP IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARAS 6.4 TO 6.6 OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE CIT(A), ELABORATEL Y EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF ENTRIES RELATABLE TO WORKIN G OF INTEREST FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995-96. 23. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK INVESTMENT UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 WAS WORKED OUT BY THE INVESTING WING OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTM ENT ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS / DIARIES ETC. SEIZED DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI ROMESH NIKHANJ. THE FIGURE OF PEA K INVESTMENT WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 95,77,200/-. THE PLEA OF THE ASSE SSEE IS THAT THE SAID PEAK INVESTMENT INCLUDES THE INCOME EARNED BY ASSES SEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND SHRI ROMESH NIKHANJ AND HIS FAMILY MEMB ERS. FURTHER PLEA IS THAT ONCE INCOME IS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS O F AOP, NO OTHER ENTRY REMAINS ON SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH IS INCLUDIBLE IN CASE OF ASSESSEE OR ROMESH NIKHANJ AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. HOWEVER, IT NEEDS TO BE 16 VERIFIED WHETHER THE INTEREST APPEARING IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE INCLUDED IN THE AFORESAID PE AK INVESTMENT DECLARED AND ACCEPTED IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP. IT ALSO NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED WHETHER THE SAID INCOME RELATES TO THE TWO CONCERNS BRINSAR INDIA (P) LTD AND BRINSAR FOODS (P) LTD. OR RELATES TO THE AOP. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAD WORKED OUT THE FIGURES O F INTEREST RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995-96 AND THE EXERCIS E OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE SAME IS A PART OF THE AFORESAID PEAK IN VESTMENT ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE C IT(A). 24. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES IN THEIR PROPER PERSPECTIVE. THE CIT(A) UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE I.T. ACT IS TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE IT. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS F AILED TO GIVE A FINDING IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE IT EXCEPT FO R UPHOLDING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNTS ARE IN CLUDED IN THE PEAK INVESTMENT TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP. THE CIT( A) REFERS TO THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 TO 2001-02 BEING OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW PROVISIONS OF CHA PTER XIV B, BEING WORKED OUT ON HYPOTHETICAL BASIS, AND THE DELETION MADE BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT APPEALED BY THE REVENUE. IN THE INTEREST OF JU STICE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES POINTED OUT BY US IN PARAS 22 & 23 IN LINE W ITH OUR DIRECTIONS IN THE PARA HEREINABOVE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACT S AND TOTALITY AND AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS OF PEAK INVES TMENT WORKED OUT IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP, BOTH IN RESPECT OF THE QUANTUM AN D THE PERSONS WHOSE INCOME IS INCLUDED IN SUCH PEAK INVESTMENTS. THE CIT(A) SHALL ALLOW A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS CLARIFIED THAT ISSUE RAISED BEFORE BY THE REVENUE IS ONLY IN RESPE CT OF DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EARNED FOR ASSESSME NT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995-96 AND THUS ISSUES SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF CI T(A) ARE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEARS. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 27. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE R AISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. H.S.CHADHA (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK T O THE FILE OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 28. THE LAST ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE VIDE GROUN D NO.1(VI) IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT O F JEWELLERY FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,56,446/ -. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOTED T HAT DURING THE COURSE 17 OF SEARCH, TOTAL VALUE OF JEWELLERY FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS 3,83,749/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THA T THE JEWELLERY BELONGED TO HIS WIFE AND HIS MOTHER AND THE JEWELLE RY FOUND WAS REASONABLE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY BREAK-UP OF THE JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSUMED THAT 300 GMS OF JEWELLERY MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE WIFE AND 200 GMS MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THREE MALE MEMBERS. SINCE THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIVING WITH HIM, NO RELIEF WAS GIVEN ON THIS AC COUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,56,446/-, WHI CH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). AS PER THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUE BY T HE CBDT, THE SEARCH TEAM IS DIRECTED NOT TO TAKEK INTO ACCOUNT THE JEWE LLERY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOTAL NUMBERS OF THE FAMILY WHERE IN CREDIT OF 500 GMS OF JEWELLERY IS TO BE ALLOWED TO A MARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS OF JEWELLERY IS TO BE ALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF THE MALE MEMBERS AND 250 GM OF JEWELLERY ON ACCOUNT OF UNMARRIED FEMALE. THE SAI D INSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN APPLIED BY VARIOUS TRIBUNALS IN DETERMINING TH E VALUE OF JEWELLERY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED OF SELF, HIS WIFE AND TWO SONS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT HIS MOTHERS JEWELLERY WAS ALSO FOUND BUT IT IS THE FIN DING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT STA YING IN HIS HOUSE AND HENCE, IT COULD NOT BE ASSUMED THAT ANY JEWELLERY B ELONGING TO HER WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM. WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH TH E FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. WE DIRECT THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF 500 GMS OF JEWELLERY IN THE HA NDS OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND 300 GMS OF JEWELLERY ON ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS TWO SONS AND THEREAFTER COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE, IF AN Y, ON ACCOUNT OF 18 JEWELLERY FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE . THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1(VI) RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THUS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 29. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH