M/s Khosla Ice & General Mills, Ambala City V. ACIT, Ambala

ITSSA 4/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1875 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Document seized; Source of fund; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT/SS/4/CHANDI/2015 BLOCK PERIOD 01/04/1988 TO 31/03/1998 M/S KHOSLA ICE & GENERAL MILLS, VS. THE ACIT CIRCULAR ROAD, AMBALA CITY AMBALA PAN NO. AAGFK6959G & IT/SS/5 /CHANDI/2015 BLOCK PERIOD 01/04/1988 TO 31/03/1998 M/S BHARTI KHOSLA, VS. THE ACIT 630, CIRCULAR ROAD, AMBALA CITY AMBALA PAN NO. ACUPK0195C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. VINEET KRISHAN RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 11/05/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :23/05/2016 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M BOTH APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE DIFFERENT ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) ROHTAK DT. 22/04/2015 FOR THE ABOVE BLOCK PERIOD CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 158BF A(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH THE PAR TIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. SINCE ISSUE IS COMMON IN BOTH APPEALS THEREFORE BOTH WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND WE DECIDE ON THE SAME THROUGH THIS COM MON CONSOLIDATE ORDER. 2 4. IN IT/SS4/CHANDI/2015, M/S KHOSLA ICE & GENERAL MILLS (ASSESSEE) CHALLENGED UPHOLDING THE PENALTY OF RS. 40,620/-. T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT ADDITION OF RS. 34,500/- WAS MADE O N ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN PURCHASE OF SCOO TER IN BENAMI NAME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT MERELY NON ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE REVENUE DOES NOT IFSO FACTO SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. T HE CONFIRMATION OF SH. NATHI RAM WAS FILED THOUGH HE COULD NOT PRODUCE BEFORE AO THEREFORE MERELY BECAUSE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED, IT WILL NOT PROVE TH AT ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME OR FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. T HE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE IS BONAFIDE. FURTHER THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 33, 200/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE STOCK FOR WORKING OUT THE STOCK C URRENT RATES WERE APPLIED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS VERY OLD CONCERN AND THE OLD STOCK ALSO REMAINS WITH THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE PENALTY NEED NO T BE INVOKED. 4.1 THE LD. CIT(A) ON BOTH THESE ISSUES FIND THAT A DDITION TO THE INCOME WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK AND UNDISCLOSED INV ESTMENT IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM IN THE PURCHASE OF SCOOTER IN BENAMI NAME. THIS WAS CONFIRMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 67,700/- BY LD. CIT(A) PANCHKULA VIDE HIS ORDER DT. 19/03/2002. THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH VIDE ORDER DT. 09/09/2010 IN IT (SS) A NO. 32/CHANDI/2002 DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HEN CE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED WAS IN THE NATURE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT ON A SCOOTER AND DIFFERENCE IN STOCK WHICH MAKES IT AS A CLEAR CASE OF FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREFORE PENALTY WAS CONFIRMED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132(1) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREM ISES OF ASSESSEE FIRM ON 07/10/1998. SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WERE ALSO CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL 3 PREMISES AND BANK LOCKERS OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FI RM AND SOME OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS AND DURING THE SEARCH CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND. THE AO COMPLETED THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT BUT ASSESSEE FILED RETURN FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD DECLARIN G NIL INCOME. THE AO DETERMINING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS. 27,65,690 /-. 6. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 67,700/- ON WHICH PENALT Y OF RS. 40,620/- WAS LEVIED WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE. 7. THE MATTER ULTIMATELY TRAVEL TO THE TRIBUNAL ON QUANTUM. ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE IN IT(SS)A N O. 32/CHANDI/2002 VIDE ORDER DT. 09/09/2010 DISPOSED OFF THE APPEALS AS RE GARDS THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK IN A SUM OF RS 33,200/-. TH E FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 11 OF THE ORDER DT. 09/09/2010(SUPRA) IS REPRO DUCED AS UNDER : 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE RIVAL STANDS ON THIS ASPECT. FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IN COMPARISON TO THE STOCK POSITION IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT. THE PRIMARY CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF STOCKS WAS CARRIED OUT ON ESTIMATION AND THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK, DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE. ON THIS POINT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LEARNED CIT-DR HAS RIGHTLY CONTENDED THAT THE PHYSI CAL INVENTORY WAS TABULATED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD T O SHOW THAT ANY OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY AGAINST SUCH INVENTORY. E VEN OTHERWISE, WE FIND AMPLE FORCE IN THE OBSERVATION O F THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT SINCE THERE WAS LOOSE HEAPS OF RI CE AND PADDY, CERTAIN ELEMENT OF ESTIMATION IN PHYSICAL INVENTORY COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. CONSIDERING THE FACT POSITION, WE THEREFORE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ENTERTAI N THE PRESENT OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PHYSICAL INVENTORY DURING SEARCH DID NOT REVEAL ANY EXCESS S TOCK. REGARDING THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE ADDITION, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE EXCESS STO CK AT 75.37 QTLS. OF RICE AND APPLIED A RATE OF RS.2251/- PER QUINTAL TO COMPUTE THE ADDITION AT RS.83,287/-. T HE CIT(APPEALS) HAS SCALED DOWN THE ESTIMATION OF EXCE SS STOCK TO 40 QTLS. AND HAS ADOPTED A RATE OF RS. 830 /- PER 4 QUINTAL TO WORK OUT AN ADDITION OF RS.33,200/-. IN OUR VIEW, RATE OF RS.830/- ADOPTED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IS QUI TE JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF BASMATI RIC E, WHEREAS ADMITTEDLY, IN THIS CASE THE EXCESS STOCK F OUND WAS OF PARMAL RICE VARIETY, WHOSE SALE RATE IS OSTE NSIBLY LOWER. AT PAGE 30 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS PLACED COPY OF THE SALE BILL OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH CORROBORATES TH E ADOPTION OF THE RATE OF RS.830/- PER QUINTAL BY THE CIT(APPEALS). CONSIDERING THE OVERALL CIRCUMSTANCE S, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ASPECT. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE AND GROUND NO.(II) IN APPEAL OF THE REVENU E ARE DISMISSED. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND MATERIAL ON RECORD CLE ARLY INDICATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH EXCESS STOCK WAS FOUND WHICH WAS C ONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN STOCK IN RESPECT OF WHICH ASSESSEE DI D NOT DECLARE ANY INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT IS AN ESTIMATED ADDITION. WE DO NOT ACCEPT THE C ONTENTION OF LD. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE EXCESS STOCK WAS FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN TO THE SATISFA CTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE QUANTITY AND VALUATION WAS ONLY SCALE DOWN BY T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW BUT THE FACT REMAINED THAT IT WAS EXCESS STOCK FOUND DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AGAINST WHICH ADDITION WAS MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSE E. 7.1 FURTHER ADDITION OF RS. 34,500/- WAS MADE ON AC COUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN PURCHASE OF SCOO TER IN BENAMI NAME. ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE V IDE ORDER DT. 09/09/2010(SUPRA) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. THE FINDI NGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 27 OF ITS ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 27. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY. CLEARLY, THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED INDICATE PURCHASE OF SCOOTER EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN THE NAME O F ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES SHRI NATHI PRASAD. THEREFORE, IT WAS IMPERATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF SUCH PURCHASE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER BASED ON A CONFIRMATION FROM THE EMPLOYEE I S CONTRARY TO THE STATEMENT TENDERED BY THE SAID EMPL OYEE BEFORE THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 17.10.1998. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 17.10.1 998, THE EMPLOYEE DENIED THE OWNERSHIP OF SCOOTER. THE 5 CONFIRMATION TO THE CONTRARY BY THE EMPLOYEE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT FOLLOWED UP BY PRODUC ING HIM FOR EXAMINATION, WHEN CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW, THE A SSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF FUNDS COMING FO RTH FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE COST OF SCOOTER IS TO BE ASS ESSED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(APPEALS) MADE NO MISTAKE IN SUSTAININ G THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. HENCE, ON GROUND NO.4, ASSESSEE FAILS. THEREFORE THE FACT REMAINED THAT SEIZED DOCUMENTS W AS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH DISCLOSED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM PURCHASED THE SCOOTER IN THE NAME OF SHRI. NATHI PRASAD EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. SHRI NATHI PRASAD WAS EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER S DURING COURSE OF SEARCH AND HAD DENIED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SCOOTER. LATER ON ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI. NATHI PRASAD STATING THAT S TATEMENT GIVEN TO THE AUTHORIZED OFFICERS IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS UND ER THREAT AND PRESSURE. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE SHRI. NATHI PR ASAD BEFORE AO FOR EXAMINATION DESPITE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE AO, THER EFORE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND ADDITION WAS CONFIRME D. 7.2 THESE FACTS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT SPECIFIC SEIZED MATERIAL WAS FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING BOTH THESE ADDITION WHICH D ISCLOSES AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF CHAPTER XIV B OF THE A CT. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO FURTHER APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE FINDING OF FACTS RECORDED BY TRIBUNAL HAS REACHED F INALITY . SECTION 158B(B) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THE DEFINITION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME W HICH READS AS UNDER: 158B. IN THIS CHAPTER, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES,- (A) .. (B) UNDISCLOSED INCOME INCLUDES ANY MONEY, BULL ION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR ANY INCOME BASED ON AN Y ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS, WHERE S UCH MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY, VALUABLE ARTICLE, THING, ENTRY IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENT OR TRANSACTION REPRESENTS WHOLLY OR PARTLY INCOME OR PROPERTY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OR WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT, OR ANY EXPENSES, DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE C LAIMED UNDER THIS ACT WHICH IS FOUND TO BE FALSE. 6 SECTION 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT PROVIDES AS UNDER : 158BFA (1).. (2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPE ALS) IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS CHAPTER, MAY DIRECT THAT A PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY A SUM WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN T HE AMOUNT OF TAX LEVIABLE BUT WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF TAX SO LEVIABLE IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETER MINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 158BC: PROVIDED THAT NO ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY SHALL BE MA DE IN RESPECT OF A PERSON IF (I) SUCH PERSON HAS FURNISHED A RETURN UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 158BC; (II) THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH RETURN HAS BEE N PAID OR, IF THE ASSETS SEIZED CONSIST OF MONEY, THE ASSESSEE OFFERS THE MONEY SO SEIZED TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE TAX PAYABLE; (III) EVIDENCE OF TAX PAID IS FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE RE TURN; AND (IV) AN APPEAL IS NOT FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT OF TH AT PART OF INCOME WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE RETURN: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE PRECEDI NG PROVISO SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN EXCESS OF THE INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN AND IN SUCH CASES THE PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THAT PORTION OF UNDISCL OSED INCOME DETERMINED WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF UNDI SCLOSED INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN. 7.3 SINCE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE SPECIFIC RECOVERY OF THE MATERIAL FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE PROVING UNDISCLOSED INCOME EAR NED BY THE ASSESSEE, HAS NOT BEEN OR WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DECLARED BY ASSESSE E IN THE NORMAL COURSE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED THEREFORE IT WAS CLEARLY UNDISCL OSED INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF CHAPTER XIV B OF THE ACT. 7.4 ACCORDING TO SECTION 158BFA(2), THE SECOND PROV ISO CLEARLY PROVIDES FOR LEVY OF PENALTY ON UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED BY AO IS IN EXCESS OF INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN THEREFORE PENALTY IS LEVIABLE O N EXCESS AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO E VIDENCE WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN EXCESS STOCK OR PURCHAS E OF SCOOTER IN BENAMI NAME. THIS PLEA OF ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN TURNED DOWN WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ON MERIT BY THE TRIBUNAL. FURTHE R LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE 7 SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS ESTIMATED ADDITION AND RELIE D UPON THE ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHANTI KUMAR CHABARA 121 TTJ 0985 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT ADDITIONS IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAVING BE EN MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS, NO PENALTY UNDER S. 158BFA(2) COULD BE IMPOSED IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY POSITIVE FINDING REGARDING CONCEALMENT OF SUPPRESSION OF INC OME ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 8.1 HOWEVER AS NOTED ABOVE, IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SPECIFIC INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND WH ICH CLEARLY DISCLOSES THAT ASSESSEE HAS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF CHAPTER XIV B OF THE ACT AND ON SUCH BASIS ADDITION HAVE BEEN MADE BY TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL THEREFORE NO ADDITION HAV E BEEN MADE MERELY ON ESTIMATE BASIS. ADDITION ARE MADE ON THE BASIS OF S EIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAV E NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8.2 SINCE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS DETERMINED BY THE A O WAS IN EXCESS OF INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR BLOCK PERI OD, THEREFORE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 158BFA(2) HAS BEEN CORRECTLY LEVIED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF AS SESSEE THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED . 9. IN THE RESULT IT/SS-4/CHANDI/2015 IS DISMISSED. 10. IT/SS5/CHANDI/2015 (SMT. BHARTI KHOSLA) THE ASS ESSEE CHALLENGING THE PENALTY OF RS. 60,000/- UNDER SECTION 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT. 11. THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELO W ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. ULTIMA TELY ADDITION TO THE INCOME WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY IN A S UM OF RS. 1 LAKH BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DT. 09/09/2010 I N IT(SS)A NO. 38/CHANDI/2002 8 DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE CIT(A) ORDER. THE LD. CI T(A) THEREFORE NOTED THAT THE ADDITION SO CONFIRMED WAS IN THE NATURE OF UNEXPLAI NED JEWELLERY THEREFORE PENALTY WAS CONFIRMED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HA S BEEN DISMISSED. 12. THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH WHILE DECIDING THE GR OUP APPEAL IN THE CASE OF KHOSLA ICE & GENERAL MILLS & OTHERS (SUPRA)INCLU DING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. BHARTI KHOSLA(IND) VS DCIT IN IT(SS)A . NO. 38/CHANDI/2002 VIDE ORDER DT. 09/09/2010 CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND DIS MISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNA L ON THIS ISSUE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: IN THE FIRST GROUND, THE DISPUTE RELATES TO AN ADD ITION OF RS.1,00,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. IN BRIEF, THE FACTS ARE, THAT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH U/S 132(1) OF THE A CT, JEWELLERY OF 1381.960 GRAMS WAS FOUND WITH THE ASSE SSEE. OUT OF ABOVE, ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED 894.380 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY AS EXPLAINED AND THE BALANCE OF 487.580 GRAMS WAS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PUT TH E VALUE OF THIS UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY @ RS.3500/- PER 10 GR AMS, WHICH CAME TO RS.1,70,625/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED A SUM OF RS.40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELL ERY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN FORM NO. 2B, THE BALA NCE OF RS.1,30,625/- WAS ASSESSED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 COMPRISED IN THE BLOCK PE RIOD. 119. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS SINCE ALLOWED PARTIAL R ELIEF. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(APPEALS), AFTER TAKING INTO AC COUNT JEWELLERY ATTRIBUTED TO THE HUSBAND AND SON OF THE ASSESSEE, ONLY 400 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY BE TAKEN AS UNEXPLAINED. HE, THEREFORE, VALUED 400 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY @ RS.3500/- PER 10 GRAMS AT RS.1,40,000/- AND AFTER REDUCING RS.40,000/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE , THE BALANCE OF RS.1,00,000/- HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 120. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ATTRIBUTING TO THE HUSBAND AND SON OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 87.580 GRAMS. IT IS CON TENDED THAT THE ENTIRE JEWELLERY CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED COULD BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE HUSBAND AND SON OF THE ASSES SEE AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION WAS MAINTAINABLE. 121. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR HAS RELIED UPO N THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9 122. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CA REFULLY. WE FIND NO REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(APPEALS) AS NO COGENT REASON HAS BEEN ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE US. ACCORDINGLY, ON GROUND NO .1, ASSESSEE FAILS. 12.1 THE ABOVE ADDITION MAINTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY SHOWS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH EXCESS JEWELLERY WAS FOUND WHI CH ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFIC EVIDEN CE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS FOUND AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE THEREFORE, UNDISCLOSED INCOME DET ERMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS IN EXCESS OF INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN THEREFORE PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY LEVIED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. BY FOL LOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S KHOSLA ICE & GENERAL MILLS(SUPRA ), WE CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT. 13. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE , THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :23/05/2016 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR