ACIT, Chandigarh V. Sh. Amarjit Singh Dhingra, Mohali

ITSSA 47/CHANDI/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0132 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-04-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2005
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Source of fund; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 32; 69; 132

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.47/CHD/2005 BLOCK PERIOD ENDING 01.04.1987 TO 20.11.1997 THE A.C.I.T., VS SHRI AMARJIT SINGH DHINGRA, CIRCLE 1(1), HOUSE NO. 813, PHASE 3B1, CHANDIGARH. MOHALI. . PAN : ............. & IT(SS)A. NO.48/CHD/2005 BLOCK PERIOD ENDING 01.04.1987 TO 20.11.1997 SHRI AMARJIT SINGH DHINGRA, VS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HOUSE NO. 813, PHASE 3B-1, INV. CIRCLE (I), MOHALI. CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VINEET KRISHAN DATE OF HEARING : 03.04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.05.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE CROSS-APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE A RE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDIGARH DATED 23.02.2005 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC TION 158BC(C) READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 196 1 ( 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT). 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE REVISED GROUNDS OF AP PEAL WHICH READ AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IN APPEAL NO.328/P/99-2000 VIDE ORDER DATED 23.2.2005 2 HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.35,56,533/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS BANK DEPOSITS FROM F.Y. 90-91 TO 97- 98. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 56302/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.50,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT OF FDR PURCHASED BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N TO THE EXTENT OF RS.26,895/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF HOUSEHOLD ITEMS. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.35000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF MARUTI CAR. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.L4000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T IN PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.30000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PLOT. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.21,60,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT IN PROPERTY. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CHANDIGARH IN APPEAL NO.328/P/99-2CCO DAT ED 23.02.2005 IS BAD IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T X (APPEALS) GRAVELY ERRED IN TREATING THE DEPOSITS IN THE HANDS OF MRS.SURJIT KAUR ,WHO IS AN INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE ASSESSEE IN HER OWN RIGHT, TOWARDS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE ID. C. I. T. (APPEALS ERRED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS.38,099/- OUT OF AN ADDITION OF RS.76,107/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN RESPECT OF DEPOSITS IN BANK IN THE NAME OF MRS. SUR JIT KAUR BY TREATING THESE DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T BY THE APPELLANT. B) THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE ADDITIO N IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 3 4. THAT THE ID. C.I. T. (APPEALS) GRAVELY ERRED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS.30,000/- OUT OF THE ADDITION OF 4 0,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF BANK DE POSITS OF RS. 5,000/- ON 29.05.1993; RS. 5,000/- ON 02 .06.1993; RS. 10,000/- ON 18.06.1993, RS.10,000/- ON 21.08.1993 AND RS. 10,000/- ON 18.09.1993 MADE BY MRS.SURJIT KAUR AS UNEXPLAIN ED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. B) THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE ADDITION IS HIGHLY E XCESSIVE. 5. THAT THE ID. C.I.T. (APPEALS) GRAVELY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.33,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOS ITS OF RS. 16,000/- ON 01.02.1993 RS. 10, 000/- ON 18.02.1993 AND RS .7,000/- ON 03.03.1993 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF MRS.SURJIT KAUR A S UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANTS. 6. THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ID. CIT (A) GRAVELY ERRED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF TE.77,158/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF CAR. 7. THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ID. CIT(A ) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S L58BFA(L)(A) ON THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED. 4. THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED BY THIS CONSO LIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH & SE IZURE OPERATIONS UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT WERE CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 20.11.1997. THE ASSESS EE WAS WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IN THE ELECTRICAL WING OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BC(A) OF THE AC T WAS ISSUED ON 30.07.1998 REQUISITIONING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD. ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH RE TURN OF INCOME BUT NO SUCH RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD W AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE VARIOUS ISSUES RELATED TO THE SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF IN COME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON 16.08.1999. THEREAFTER, VARIOUS NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT EXCEPT FOR GIVING SOME GENERAL REP LY TO THE 4 QUESTIONNAIRE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE I NFORMATION AND EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SUMMONS W ERE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 131(1) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE WHO FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE APPOINTED DATE. HOWEVER, HIS SON SUBMITTED A LETTER AT THE RECEIPT COUNTER STATI NG THAT HE COULD NOT CONTACT HIS FATHER WHO WAS POSTED IN PATIALA. THE A SSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE BASIS OF THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTE D BY THE INVESTIGATION WING AND DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. 6. THE FIRST ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HAND OF THE A SSESSEE VIS-- VIS THE CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY FOR WHICH, NO EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. TOTAL ADDITION WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AS TA BULATED AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION, CERTAIN DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE O N ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS OF HOUSE NO. 813, 3B/1, MOHALI WERE FOU ND AND THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE DETAILS OF THE EXP ENDITURE FOR REPAIRS AND RENEWAL. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN TH IS REGARD WAS THAT IT WAS EARNING RENTAL INCOME FROM THE SAID PROPERTY AND OUT OF THE SAID RENTAL INCOME AND ALSO OUT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE GPF ADVANCE OF RS. 89,000/-, THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM USA OF 10000 DOLLARS HAD MADE INVESTMENTS. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE CORRESPONDING EVIDENCE IN SUP PORT OF ITS EXPLANATION, THE SAME WAS REJECTED AND THE INVESTME NT OF RS. 102,173/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND RS. 208,40 2/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WAS TREATED AS INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. FURTHER FIXED DEPOSIT AND NSCS WORTH RS. 1,37,000/- WERE SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS EXPLA INED BY THE 5 ASSESSEE THAT OUT OF THE SAID DEPOSITS, FDR FOR RS . 50,000/- BELONG TO HIS WIFE MRS. SURJIT KAUR WHICH WAS TAKEN FROM H ER PERSONAL SAVINGS AND SHAGUNS RECEIVED FROM HER RELATIVES ON FESTIVE OCCASIONS. REGARDING FDR OF RS. 25,000/- WITH BANK OF PUNJAB DATED 17.08.1995 IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SAME WAS OUT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 38490. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE CREDIT IN THE FDRS ISSUED AFTER WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE FD OF RS. 50,000/- , AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROD UCE ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD, THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION BEING NOT EXPLAINED, ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN INVENTORY OF THE MOVEABLE ASSETS AS ENLISTED AT PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS NOTED THAT THERE WERE NO AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN ON THE RESPECT IVE DATES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN T HIS REGARD, ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAID INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS MOVEABLE ASSETS. 7. THE NEXT ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISITION OF THE MOTOR CAR ON THE BASI S OF THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE A SSESSEE AS PER INVOICE DATED 13.07.1990 FOR RS. 107,109/- HAD PURC HASED MARUTI CAR AND DOCUMENT NOS. 25 TO 27 IN FILE A-3 WERE PRO FORMA INVOICE DATED 11.09.1996 FOR PURCHASE OF ANOTHER MARUTI MOT OR CAR FOR RS. 194,021/-. AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE S OURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE SAID ASSETS, INVESTMENT OF RS. 10 7,109/- IN MARUTI CAR PURCHASED ON 13.07.1990 AND RS. 77,153/- IN THE MARUTI CAR 6 PURCHASED ON 11.09.1996 WERE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO FOREIGN VISITS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE AND ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY WORTH RS.14,000/-. 8. THE NEXT ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY ON TH E BASIS OF HAND WRITTEN DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH. ADDITION OF RS. 21,60,000/- WAS MADE ON THIS ACCOUN T. 9. ANOTHER ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE VIS-- VIS PLOT NO. 422, GIANI ZAIL SINGH NAGAR, ROPAR AMO UNTING TO RS. 30,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FUND THAT THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MEETING HIS HOUSEHOLD EXPE NDITURE WERE VERY LOW AND CONSEQUENTLY ESTIMATED ADDITION FOR ME ETING THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE AS PER TABULATED DETAILS AT PAGE 8 OF THE ACT. IN TOTALITY , THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 80,18,788/- ON WHICH TAX @ 60% WAS CHARGED. 10. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , THE ASSESSEE FILED ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS VIS--VIS EACH OF THE ENTRY AGAINST WHICH ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ASKED THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THEREAFTER DEALT WITH EACH OF THE ISSUE IN LINE WIT H THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PARTLY ALLOW ED RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION ON OTHER ACCOUNTS. BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) WHICH 7 WE SHALL CONSIDER IN PARAS HEREIN BELOW WHILE DECID ING THE ISSUE IN EACH OF THE ADDITION. 11. BOTH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES MADE ELABOR ATE SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAI SED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL AND ALSO IN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL AND WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN LINE WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFER ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US IS AGAINST THE ASSESSM ENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04 .1987 TO 20.11.1997 FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PURSUANT TO SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATIONS AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 20.11.1997. THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS WORKING AS E XECUTIVE ENGINEER IN THE ELECTRICAL WING OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED ON 30.07.1998 UNDER S ECTION 158BC(A) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE RETU RN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD DESPITE VARIOUS REMINDERS. HOWEVE R, THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 16.08.1999. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED A QUESTIONNAIRE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIS--VIS VARIOUS DOCUMENTS F OUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND EVEN BEFORE US WAS THAT IT WAS NOT AFFORDED REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR ON THE APPOINTED DATES OF HEARING AND ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE INFORMATION AS CALL ED FOR. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE PARA 3.2 AT PAGE 2 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY 8 HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BUT SINCE THE IS SUES WERE BEING TAKEN UP ON MERIT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL AS PER THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE. ON THE PE RUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE FIND THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ADMITTE DLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ELABORATELY CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND REMAND REP ORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIS--VIS THE VARIOUS ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS, ADDITION AGAINST WHICH HAD BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO WITH REGARD TO THE V ARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, AD DITIONS AGAINST WHICH WERE ALSO MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND BEFORE TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SPECIALLY WAS THAT IN ADDIT ION TO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, CERTAIN BANK ACCOUNTS BEL ONG TO HIS WIFE SMT. SURJIT KAUR AND CERTAIN BANK ACCOUNTS BELONG T O HIS SON SHRI JITENDER PAL SINGH. PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS THAT AS BOTH MRS. SURJIT K AUR AND SHRI JITENDER PAL SINGH WERE INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES, NO A DDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE NAME OF THE SAID PERSONS. THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS GIVEN CREDIT ON A CCOUNT OF SAVINGS OF SMT. SURJIT KAUR IN VIEW OF THE LIMITED SOURCE O F FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH HER AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER EVIDENCE B EING FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE ITS CLAIM THAT SMT. SURJIT KAUR H AD INDEPENDENT SOURCES OF INCOME, ADDITIONS PARTLY WERE UPHELD IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE SAID ASSETS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND 9 CERTAIN ADDITIONS WERE DELETED BEING OUT OF THE SAV INGS OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF THE ENTRIES BELONGIN G TO SHRI JITENDER PAL SINGH, NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDITION, IF ANY WAS CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABOVESAID BACKGROUND, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHERE AN INSTRUMENT OR INVESTM ENT WAS REFLECTED IN THE HANDS OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. SMT.S URJIT KAUR, NO ADDITION IN THIS REGARD COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A WORKING MEMBER OF THE FAMILY. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SMT. SURJIT KAUR WAS TAKI NG TUITIONS, COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND HENCE THE RE WAS NO MERIT IN THE REPEATED PLEAS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SOUR CE OF INVESTMENT IN THE ASSETS HELD IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT BE ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SA ID ASSETS WERE FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ARE T O BE INCLUDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS WIFE OF THE A SSESSEE HAS LIMITED SOURCES OF INCOME, CREDIT FOR WHICH HAS BEE N ALLOWED IN HER HAND. NOW, WITH THIS BACKGROUND, WE PROCEED TO DEA L WITH EACH OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE IN THE PARAS HEREIN BELOW. 13. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENU E IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 35,56,533 /- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS BANK DEPOSITS RELATING TO THE FI NANCIAL YEAR 1990- 91 TO FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98. 14. BEFORE COMING TO THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UNDER WHICH VIDE PARA 4, THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ADDI TION OF RS. 10 49,40,056/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT RE LATABLE TO THE CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON. THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED SUBM ISSIONS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE LETTE RS DATED 12.08.2003 AND 14.08.2003 RUNNING INTO 13 & 18 PAGE S RESPECTIVELY. THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 26.08.2003 AND THE REMAND REPORT DATED 0 1.12.2004 WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WITH REGARD T O THE ADDITION OF RS. 49,40,056/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS BANK DEPOSITS , THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOTED THAT THE RE WERE 106 CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANKS WHICH WERE NOTED IN THE REMAND REPORT AND WERE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DETAI L. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS TABULATED THE DETAILS REGARDING CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND C OMMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT TOTALING RS. 49,40,056/- AT PAGES 4 TO 13 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, WHICH ARE BEING REFERRED TO BUT ARE NOT BEING REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVIT Y. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE PARA 4.2 OBSERVED THAT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT, VERIFICATION OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND AFTER DISCUSSION WITH THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE, IT WAS CLEAR THAT LARGE NUMBER OF CREDIT ENTRIES AND THE BANK AC COUNTS STOOD EXPLAINED. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN FURTHER ABOUT CERTAIN ENTRIES W HERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EITHER NOT VERIFIED OR EXAMINED THE CRE DIT ENTRIES FULLY, THE DETAILS OF SUCH ENTRIES AS APPEARING IN THE REM AND REPORT ARE REPRODUCED AT PAGES 13 TO 16 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER . THE ASSESSEE MADE TWO-FOLD ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN RESPECT OF SUCH ENTRIES THAT THE ENTRI ES RELATING TO THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE WERE SOURCES OUT OF HER INDIVI DUAL INCOME AND 11 THE SAME HAD TO BE CONSIDERED IN HER HANDS AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, THEREAFTER FURNISHED E XPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE ENTRIES NOTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR WHICH FURTHER CLARIFICATION WAS ASKED FOR AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AT PAGE 16 HAS TABULATED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE VARIOUS DO CUMENTS/EVIDENCES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THEREAFTER HAS DEALT WITH THE EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE PARA-WISE VIS--VIS THE SAID DOCUMENTS, WH ICH WE SHALL DEAL WITH WHILE DECIDING THE VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL R AISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE. 15. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WE HAVE PERUSED THE REMA ND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHICH IS REPRODUCED AT PAGES 4 TO 13 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER AND THE PERUSAL OF THE SAME REFLECT S THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E IN RESPECT OF THE VARIOUS CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE OR IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSES SEE I.E. THE SON AND THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. CERTAIN CREDIT ENTRIE S REFLECT THE DEPOSITS ON ACCOUNT OF ENCASHMENT OF VARIOUS FDRS A ND OTHER ARE RELATABLE TO REFUND OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OR E NCASHMENT OF MUTUAL FUND, NSC ETC. CERTAIN ENTRIES RELATED TO T HE SON OF THE ASSESSEE BEING SALARY DRAWN BY HIM, ADDITION TO WHI CH EFFECT HAD BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE S HRI JITENDER PAL SINGH AND THE SAME ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ENTRIES RELATING TO THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DECLARE SOURCES OF INCOME JUSTIFYING THE SAID INVESTMENTS. 12 THE HOLDING OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE NAME OF WIFE O F THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT BELONGS TO THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT THE ASSESSEE AS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DECLARED SOURCES OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE WIFE OF THE A SSESSEE, THE PRESUMPTION IS DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE WAS SALARIED EMPLOYEE AND HAD KNOWN SOURCE S OF INCOME BUT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN DIFFEREN T ASSETS WAS OUT OF UNKNOWN SOURCES OF INCOME AND HENCE, ADDITION TO THAT EFFECT WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER WHICH VARIOUS DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE SAID INVESTMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEI ZED. MERELY BECAUSE THE INVESTMENT IS HELD IN THE NAME OF THE W IFE OF THE ASSESSEE, DOES NOT ESTABLISH PER-SE THAT THE SAID I NVESTMENT BELONG TO THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. REJECTING THE SAID PLEA OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE PROCEED TO DEAL WITH THE VARIOUS QUERIES RAISED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) AND THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE T O EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE ENTRIES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED COMPLETE INFORMATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS RE GARD AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDER ING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTLY CONFIRMED TH E SAID ADDITION AND PARTLY ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ADDITION/DE LETION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. THE FIRST BUNCH OF ENTRIES WERE REGARDING MATUR ITY OF FDRS AND DEPOSIT OF THE MAJORITY AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCO UNT OF MRS. SURJIT KAUR, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SECOND BUNC H OF ENTRIES WAS 13 REGARDING DEPOSITS MADE IN DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS AGAINST SALE OF SHARES. THE THIRD BUNCH OF ENTRIES, QUERY AGAINST WHICH WAS RAISED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WAS RE GARDING THE TUITION INCOME OF MRS. SURJIT KAUR DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AND THE FOURTH ENTRY WAS REGARDING NRI ACCOUNT OF S HRI JASBIR SINGH WHEREIN CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WERE RECORDED. THE DE TAIL OF SUCH ENTRIES, AS APPEARING IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UNDER PARA 4.2 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUND ER : 4. 2 FROM A PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT, VERIFI CATION OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND DISCUSSION WITH THE APPELLANT/COUNSEL, IT IS CLEAR THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS STAND EXPLAINED. AFTER EXAMINING THE REMAND REPORT, THE APPELLANT WA S ASKED TO EXPLAIN FURTHER ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ENTRIES WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED/EXAMINED THE CREDIT ENTRIES FULLY . THE DETAILS OF SUCH ENTRIES, AS APPEARING IN THE /REMAND REPORT ARE RE PRODUCED BELOW :- I. REGARDING MATURITY OF FDRS AND DEPOSIT OF THE MATURITY AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF MRS. SURJIT KAUR, WIFE OF THE APPELLANT S. NO. BASIS OF ADDITION AMOUNT OF ADDITION ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION & COMMENTS BY THIS OFFICE 8. DEPOSIT ON 16.3.92 IN CBI A/C NO. 13473 OF SURJIT KAUR 294 1 4/- IT IS STATED TO BE MATURITY OF FDR OF RS.25000/- HOWEVER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE REGARDING THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF FDR AND SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN FDR.. 13. DEPOSIT ON 31.3.92 IN CBI A/C NO. 13473 OF SURJIT KAUR 2924 1/- IT IS STATED TO BE MATURITY OF OLD FDR WITH PUNJAB & SIND BANK, PATIALA BUT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED TO PROVE THIS FACT EXCEPT CREDIT ENTRY OF RS.29241/- BANK STATEMENT IN WHICH THE SAME STANDS DEPOSITED. 78 ON 1.5.96 IN CBI A/C NO.16840 OF SURJIT KAUR 1 75427- IT IS STATED TO BE MATURITY OF FDR . 16. II . REGARDING DEPOSITS MADE IN DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS AGAINST SALE OF SHARES DEPOSIT ON 21.4.92 IN CBI A/C NO.11456 OF A.S. DHINGRA LL 500/- IT IS STATED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE PARTICULARS OF SHARES SOLD. . 14 18. DEPOSIT ON 25.4.92 IN CBI A/C NO.11456 O F A.S. DHINGRA 14800/- IT IS STATED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE PARTICULARS OF SHARES SOLD. .. 40 DEPOSIT IN CBI A./C NO,. 13473 OF SURJIT KAUR ON 2.2.94 26000/- THE SAME IS STATED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF SAL E OF SHARES. THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE AS PER BANK STATEMENT FURNISHED BUT NO EVIDENCE REGARDING DESCRIPTION OF SHARES SOLD FURNISHED. 51 ON 21.7.94 IN A/C NO. 14828 WITH CBI OF A.S. DHINGRA 10500/- IT IS STATED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF S ALE OF SHARES RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE. HOWEVER, THE DESCRIPTION OF SHARES SOLD 54 ON 27.10.94 IN PB. 7 SIND BANK A/C NO.38490 OF A.S. DHINGRA 10000/- IT IS STATED TO BE REFUND OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM LIBERTY SHOES RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE. 47 24.5.94 IN CBI A/C NO.14828 OF A.S. DHINGRA 12000/- IT IS STATED TO BE MUTUAL FUND ENCASHMENT. 96 ON 12.7.97 IN A/C NO,. 16840 OF SURJIT KAUR 32020/- IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES. THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE. 103 ON 26.8.97 -DO- 24847/- IT IS STATED TO BE DEPOSIT IN RESPECT OF SALE OF 500 SHARES OF L&T FOR RS.13990/- AND 100 SHARES OF ICICIFORRS.10857/-. III REGARDING TUITION INCOME OF MRS SURJIT KAUR DEP OSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT 30 DEPOSIT ON 29.5 .93 IN CBI A/C NO. 13473 OF SURJIT KAUR 5000/- THE SAME IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED OUT OF TUITION INCOME EARNED BY MRS. SURJIT KAUR. 31 DEPOSIT ON 2.6.93 IN CBI A/C NO. 13473 OF SURJIT KAUR 5000/- THE SAME IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED OUT OF TUITION INCOME EARNED BY MRS. SURJIT KAUR. . 33. DEPOSIT ON 18.6.93 IN CBI A/C NO. 13473 OF SURJIT KAUR 10000/- THE SAME IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED OUT OF TUITION INCOME EARNED BY MRS. SURJIT KAUR. . 36. DEPOSIT ON 21.8.93 CBI A/C NO. 13 7 43 OF SURJIT KAUR ON 2 1.8. 93 10000/- THE SAME IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED OUT OF TUITION INCOME EARNED BY MRS. SURJIT KAUR 38. DEPOSIT IN CBI A/C NO.13473 ON 18.9.93 OF SURJIT KAUR 10000/- THE SAME IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED OUT OF TUIT ION INCOME EARNED BY MRS. SURJIT KAUR IV REGARDING NRE ACCOUNT OF SH. JASBIR SINGH WHEREI N CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS ARE REFLECTED 15 97 ON 30.7.97 IN VIJAY BANK A/C NO.998 OF SURJIT KAUR 889508/- IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT FDR OF RS.7,50,000/-WAS MADE IN THE NAME OF SURJIT KAUR BY DEBIT TO SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH VIJAY BANK HELD IN THE NAME OF SH. JASBIR SINGH WHICH WAS MADE FOR TWO YEARS AND ON MATURITY, THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AT RS. 8,89.5087 - . 106 ON 25.11.97 IN A./C NO.998 WITH VIJAY BANK OF SURJIT KAUR 510118/- FDR OF RS.5 LACS WAS MADE FROM SAME A/C I.E. NO,. 998 ON 30.7.97 AND THE MATURITY AMOUNT OF RS.5, 1 0, 1 1 8/- WAS DEPOSITED ON 25. 1 1 .97. 17. WITH REGARD TO SR.NO. 8, 13 AND 78 AMOUNTING TO RS. 76,197/- I.E. RS. 29,414/- + RS. 29,241/- + RS. 17,542/-, TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) WAS THAT THE SAID RELATED TO MATURITY AMOUNT OF FIXED DEPOSI TS WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT. SURJIT KAUR A ND THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE SAID ACCOUNT WAS OUT OF HER PAST SAVINGS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND EVEN BEFORE US WAS THAT SHE HAD INDEP ENDENT INCOME FROM TUITION FOR WHICH SHE WAS FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND IN ADDITION, SHE HAD OTHER INCOME LIKE HER SAVINGS AND GIFTS RECEIVED FROM HER FAMILY MEMBERS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FUR NISH ANY COGENT MATERIAL REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM TUITION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OR EVEN BE FORE US. IN VIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY AND HER QUALIFICAT IONS AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE GIFTS AND SAVINGS COU LD NOT BE RULED OUT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD C ONSIDERED 50% OF THE AMOUNT AS COMING OUT OF HER SAVINGS AND THE BALANCE 50% WAS CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOS ED SOURCES AT RS. 38,099/-. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES, WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN ALLOWING CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OF PAST SAV INGS TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAME CANNOT BE RULED OUT. WE UPHOL D THE ADDITION OF 16 50% OF THE AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE S IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 38,099/-. 18. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID DELET ION BY WAY OF GROUND NO. 1 BUT THE ABOVE INCLUDES OTHER ENTRIES W HICH WE SHALL DEAL WITH IN THE PARAS HEREIN BELOW. HOWEVER, THE A SSESSEE BY WAY OF GROUND NO. 3 HAS RAISED THE ISSUE AGAINST ADDITI ON OF RS. 38,099/- WHICH IS DISMISSED. 19. THE NEXT SET OF ENTRIES, IN THE BANK ACCOUNT CO NSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WERE THE ENTRI ES AT S.NO. 30, 31, 33, 36 AND 38 WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO BE T HE DEPOSITS OUT OF TUITION INCOME OF HIS WIFE. THE TOTAL DEPOSITS WERE RS. 40,000/- WHICH WERE ADDED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE TUITION INCOME OF HIS WIFE EXCEPT FOR THE CLAIM THAT SHE HAD EARNED TUITION INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ALSO NOTED THAT NO INCOME HAD BEEN SHOWN EITHER BEFORE OR AFTE R THIS PERIOD. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED RS . 10,000/- TOWARDS THE SAVING OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE BEIN G DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 30,000/- WAS CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 20. THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF GROUND NO. 4 IS IN APPEA L AGAINST THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 30,000/-. IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY EVIDENCE BEING PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF HIS WIFE HAVING EARNED OUT OF INCOME FROM YEAR TO YEAR, WE F IND NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND REJECTING THE SAME, W E UPHOLD ADDITION OF RS. 30,000/-. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, DISMISSED. 17 21. THE SECOND SET OF ENTRIES RELATE TO THE DEPOSIT S MADE IN DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS AGAINST SALE OF SHARES. TH E ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE SA ID SALE OF SHARES EXCEPT THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF CHEQUE. THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE PARA 4.6 TO 4.8 ON THE PR EMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES AGAINST WHICH THE SAID AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON HIS SA LES. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD SINCE THE ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE OF THE PARTICULARS OF SHARES SOLD AGAINST VARIOUS ENTRIES. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE BASIC PARTICULARS OF THE NAME OF THE COMPANY, THE NUMBER OF SHARES ETC., THE N IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE AND CO-RELATE THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAID SHARES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS HAVING BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THECA IN THIS REGARD AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE REVERSE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,41,667/- . 22. THE LAST SET OF ENTRIES CONSIDERED BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WERE ENTRY NO. 97-106 WHICH RE LATED TO ENCASHMENT OF TWO FDRS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FROM THE DETAILS NOTED AS UNDER : 4.9. NRE ACCOUNT NO. 329 IS MAINTAINED IN VIJAY BA NK, CHANDIGARH IN THE NAME OF SH. JASBIR SINGH, BROTHER OF THE APPELL ANT'S WIFE WHERE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED FROM TIME TO TIME. THERE WAS NO DEPOSIT IN THIS ACCOUNT DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. AL L THE DEPOSITS WERE BEFORE THE BLOCK PERIOD. FROM THIS ACCOUNT, FDR WAS MADE F OR RS. 7,50,000/- IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT'S WIFE WHICH ON MATURITY BECA ME RS. 8,89,508/-. THIS AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN ACCOUNT NO. 998 OF VIJAY BA NK WHICH STANDS IN THE NAME OF SMT SURJIT KAUR. FROM THIS ACCOUNT, AN AMOU NT OF RS. 5 LAC WAS TAKEN OUT FOR THE FDR WHICH ON MATURITY BECAME RS. 5,10,118/-. THE COPIES 18 OF BANK ACCOUNTS WERE VERIFIED BY ME AND I SEE NO J USTIFICATION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ANY ADDITION ON THIS ACCO UNT SINCE THE DEPOSITS ARE FULLY EXPLAINED. SO, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR SO F AR AS THE CREDIT ENTRIES ARE CONCERNED. 23. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD DE LETED THE ADDITION IN VIEW OF THE ENTRIES IN THE NRE ACCOUNT OF THE BROTHER OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO SUCH EVIDENC E WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR ANY REMAND REPORT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE INTEREST OF JUS TICE, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHA LL DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 24. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL BY WAY OF CONSOLIDATED DELETION OF ADDITION OF THE BANK ACCOU NTS TOTALING RS. 335,56,533/- AND THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 889,508/- + RS. 510,118/- IS PART OF THE SAID CUMULATIVE DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 49,40,056/- ON ACCOUNT OF V ARIOUS BANK DEPOSITS AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) BY WAY OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO V ERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS DIFFERENT CREDIT ENTRIES IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS. THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 106 CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANKS WHICH WERE NOTED IN THE REMAND REPORT AND WERE EXAM INED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DETAILED, W HICH ARE REPRODUCED AT PAGES 4 TO 13 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. 25. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT ITSE LF ACCEPTED LARGE NUMBER OF CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TO BE EXPLAINED AND THE BALANCE ENTRIES AS REPRODUCED BY US UNDER P ARA 15 WERE THE ENTRIES CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) WHICH WE HAVE DEALT WITH IN THE PARAS HEREIN ABOVE. 19 26. ANOTHER SET OF ENTRIES CONSIDERED BY THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WERE THE ENTRIES AT S.NO. 25, 26 AND 27 OF THE REMAND REPORT WHICH COMPRISED OF DEPOSITS OF RS.16, 000/- ON 01.02.1993, RS. 10,000/- ON 18.2.1993 AND RS. 7000/ - ON 03.03.1993. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TH AT IT HAD WITHDRAWN CASH OF RS. 25,000/- ON 21.04.1992, RS. 6 ,000/- ON 07.05.1992 AND RS.5,000/- ON 27.04.1992 WHICH WERE DEPOSITED LATER ON IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE I N THIS REGARD WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) BECAUSE OF LONG GAP IN THE DEPOSIT OF THE CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND ADDITION OF RS. 33,000/- WAS UPHELD. THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN TOTALITY UPHELD AN ADDITION OF RS. 101,099/- ( RS. 38,099/- + RS. 30,000/- + RS. 33,000/-). WE HAVE A LREADY UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS. 38,099/- IN THE PARAS HEREIN AB OVE AND ALSO ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) WITH REGARD TO RS. 30,000/-. THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 33,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO JUSTIFIED IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF BEING FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO TH E AVAILABILITY OF THE CASH IN HAND. IN ADDITION TO THE THREE ADDITION S UPHELD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE FURTHER UP HOLD THE ADDITION RELATABLE TO THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AGAINST SALE OF SHARES TOTALING RS. 141,667/-. IN VIEW THER EOF, WE PARTLY ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVE NUE. 27. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE UPHOLDING OF ADDITION OF RS. 38,099/- BY WAY OF GROUND NO. 3 WHICH WE HAVE A LREADY UPHELD IN THE PARAS HEREIN ABOVE. SIMILARLY, WE HAVE UPHE LD THE ADDITION OF RS. 30,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE OUT OF TUITION FEE AND ALSO UPHOLD THE 20 ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 33,000/- OF VARIOUS DATES. BY REJECTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD MADE CASH WITHDRAWALS ON EARLIER DATES AND THE SAID CASH WAS AVAILABLE WI TH THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NOS. 3, 4 AND 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 28. ANOTHER RELATABLE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST GROUND NO. 2 THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE HANDS OF SMT. SURJIT KAUR COULD NOT BE INCLUDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS SHE WAS INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED TO TAX. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE INDEPENDENT SOURCES OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND MERELY THE WI FE OF THE ASSESSEE DECLARING MEAGER INCOME, DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAME AND WE UPHOLD THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE ON ACCOUNT OF THE SO CALLED INVESTMENTS RELATABLE TO HIS WIFE. 29. THE ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVEN UE IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 56,302/-. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS. 102,173/- AND RS. 208,402/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN BILLS FOR REPAIRS AND RENOVATIONS W ERE FOUND IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS TO HOUSE NO. 813, 3B1, MOHALI AND AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED THE ENTR IES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.284,603/-AS NOTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) IN PARA 7.3 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED 21 THAT REGARDING ITS INCOME FOR THE YEAR 1996-97 WAS MORE THAN ITS OUTGOING AND IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING SPENT R S. 56,302/- AGAINST BILLS ON VARIOUS DATES, NO ADDITION WAS MAD E BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). WE ARE IN CO NFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) IN THIS REGARD SPECIALLY AFTER THE VERIFICATION EXERCISE CA RRIED OUT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DURING THE APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE RE VENUE. 30. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- MADE ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF FDR IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE OF THE AS SESSEE. THE FDR FOR RS. 50,000/- WAS ISSUED ON 07.06.1997 FROM CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SAID FDR WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE PERSONAL INCOME OF HIS WIFE. DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 20,000/- ON 13.03.1997 AND RS. 48,000/- ON 26.03.1997. THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSES SEE IN VIEW OF THE SAID WITHDRAWALS WHICH HAD BEEN VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE APPROXIMATE INCOME OF RS. 75,000/- FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES BEING AVAILABLE WITH THE ASS ESSEE. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE FIN DINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND IN VIEW TH EREOF, WE FIND NO MERIT IN GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 31. THE GROUND NO. 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAIN ST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 26,895/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 96,895/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF HOUSEHOLD ITEMS WAS DELETED BY THE COMM ISSIONER OF 22 INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS APPROXIMATELY RS. 70,000/- FOR THE PURCHASE OF VARIOUS ITEMS WAS PAID THROUGH CHEQUES AND BALANCE AMOUNT WAS HELD TO BE OUT OF THE KNOWN SOURCES OF I NCOME. WE FIND NO MERIT IN GROUND NO. 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN T HIS REGARD IN VIEW OF THE ABOVESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND S AME IS DISMISSED. 32. ANOTHER ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTM ENT IN PURCHASE OF CARS OF RS. 107,109/- AND RS. 77,153/-. BOTH REVENUE AND ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL. THE REVENUE IS IN APPE AL BY WAY OF GROUND NO. 5 AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 35 ,000/- AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BY WAY OF GROUND NO. 6 AGAINS T SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 77,153/-. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS FOUND TO HAVE ACQUIRED MARUTI CARS AND IN RESPE CT OF MARUTI CAR NO. 744, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS PURCHAS ED FOR A SUM OF RS.1.07 LACS. THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT WAS CLAIME D TO BE OUT OF SALE OF OLD CAR FOR RS. 72,000/- AND RS. 35,000/- A S WITHDRAWAL FROM ONE OF HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. THE SAID CAR WAS A GAIN SOLD IN THE YEAR 1996 AND THE NEW CAR WAS PURCHASED AGAINST WHI CH, A SUM OF RS. 1,25,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 11.09.1996 AND THE BALANCE WAS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE OLD CAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.1,2 5,000/- BUT AS NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 107,109/- AND R S. 77,153/- AS DEEMED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE REMAND P ROCEEDINGS, REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR AND THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ACCEPTED THE PAYMENT OF RS. 107,109/- PAID TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF MARUTI CAR AND THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS TREATED AS EXPLAINED. WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND MARUTI CAR, IT WAS NOTED BY THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME 23 TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE NEW CAR WAS PURCHASED ON 11. 09.1996 AND THE OLD CAR WAS SOLD ON 08.12.1996 HENCE, THE NEW CAR B EING PURCHASED BEFORE THE SALE OF THE OLD CAR, DOES NOT JUSTIFY TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND AN ADDITION OF RS. 77,153/- WAS UPHELD IN THIS REGARD. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIEW OF THE REMAND REPORT, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF AP PEAL NO. 5 RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. WE ALSO FIND NO MERIT IN THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO. 6 WHERE THE OLD CAR WAS SOLD LATER THAN THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF THE NEW CAR AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAID SALE PROCEEDS OF OLD CAR NOT BEING AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, THE CLAIM IN THIS REGARD WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS. 77,153/- AND DISMISS GRO UND NO. 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 33. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 6 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 14,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHAS ED AN ITEM OF JEWELLERY FROM THE JEWELLER AND THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD MADE THE ADDITION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION OF SOURC ES OF INVESTMENT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED TH E ADDITION BECAUSE OF THE SALARY DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE ABOVESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN GROUND NO. 6 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 34. THE GROUND NO. 7 IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITIO N OF RS. 30,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE S OF INVESTMENT IN PLOT NO. 422 GIANI ZAIL SINGH NAGAR, ROPAR WHICH WAS PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 1986-87 AND WAS SOLD FOR RS. 30,000/- I N 1987-88. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS, THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PLOT WAS TAKEN AT NIL BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ENT IRE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM CAPITAL GA INS. THE 24 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOTED THAT IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS VIS--VIS THE VARIOUS BANK DEPOSITS, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT RS. 30,000/- HAD COME FROM S ALE PROCEEDS OF THE ABOVE LAND WHICH WAS PURCHASED IN THE YEAR ENDI NG 31.3.1987. THE LOSS ON THE SALE OF THE PLOT WAS CLAIMED AT RS. 5,000/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE COST AT RS. 35,000/-. IN VI EW THEREOF, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND UPHOLDING THE SAME, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 7. 35. THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.21,60,000/-. THE SAID A DDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF A HAND W RITTEN DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH REFLECTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD PROPERTY FOR RS. 21,60,000/-. AS THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY INFORMATION, THE SAME WAS TREATED AS UN EXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 36. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETE D THE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER : 15.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AS REPORTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. 1 HAVE GONE THROUGH T HE LOOSE PAPER, A PHOTO- COPY OF WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE ME. IT IS SEEN FROM THE PAPER THAT THE WRITINGS ARE ON THE PAD OF M/S RAJ T RAVELS AND TOURS LTD. NO DATE OF SALE OF PROPERTY, NO DESCRIPTION REGARDING THE PROPERTY AND THE NAMES OF PERSONS INVOLVED IN THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE ALLEGED PROPERTY HAVE BEEN MENTIONED ON THE PAPER. NO SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND EITHER AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OR AFTERWARDS REGARDING THE SALE AND SUBS EQUENT MOVEMENT OF FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PLA CE ANYTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 21,60,000/- REPRESENTS SALE CONSIDERATION. THE CASE LAWS QUOTED BY THE APPELLANT ALSO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD. TAKING THE ABOVE FACTS IN TO CONSIDERATION, I FIND THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. AND SO THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND IS DELETED.. 25 37. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, A HAND WRITTEN DOCUMENT NO. 62 FILE NO. A-3 WAS FOUND WHIC H REFLECTED THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR RS. 21,5000/ - OUT OF WHICH SUM OF RS. 10,00,000/- WAS TRANSFERRED TO LONDON. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF EXPLAINING THE CONT ENTS OF THE SAID DOCUMENT AND IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 32 OF THE ACT, ASSUMPTION WAS DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FROM WHOS E POSSESSION THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS FOUND AND AN ADDITION OF RS. 21,60,000/- WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 38. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSE E CLAIMED THAT IT NEVER SOLD SUCH PROPERTY WHICH WAS ALLEGEDLY SOL D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DOCUMENT NO. 62WRITTEN ON THE PAD OF M/S RAJ TRAVELS & TOURS LTD. FOUND FROM HIS PREMISES WAS DE NIED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE NOT IN HIS HAND WRITING, NOT PERTAIN ING TO HIM. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THAT THE HAND WRITTEN DOCUMENT DEPICTED ONLY CALCULATION SHOWING SALE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS SOLD FOR RS. 21,60,000/- OUT OF WHICH RS. 10 LACS WAS SENT TO LONDON. IT FURTHER GAVE DETAILS O F PAYMENT OF COMMISSION AND PAYMENTS MADE AT THE TIME OF REGISTR ATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER REPORTED THAT THE ASSESSE ES SISTER-IN-LAW MRS. JAGJIT KAUR WAS RESIDING IN LONDON AND THE SAI D DOCUMENT WAS WRITTEN BY GURPREET KAUR I.E. THE DAUGHTER OF THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER REPORTED THAT SMT. JAGJIT KAUR WAS ALSO THE JOINT ACCOUNT HOLDER IN INDIA WITH MRS. SURJIT KAUR , WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FOREIGN TRIP OF ASSESSEE AND HIS W IFE WERE SPONSORED BY THE SAID LADY. ON THE BASIS OF THE SA ID REASON, THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSUMING THE 26 TRANSACTION TO HAVE ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE BUT IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT NO EVID ENCE REGARDING REMITTANCE OF RS. 10 LACS WAS FOUND ACCEPTING HAND- WRITTEN DOCUMENT. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SAID PAPER WAS NEITHER IN HIS HANDWRITING NOR IN THE HANDWRITING O F HIS DAUGHTER. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT NO SUCH PROPERTY WAS HEL D BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE COULD NOT BE ANY QUESTION OF ANY SALE, THE DOCUMENT AT BEST HAVING SOME ROUGH CALCULATION, WAS A DUMB DOCUMENT AS THERE WAS NO NAME OF THE PERSON OR THE PROOF OF ANY PROPERTY NOR ANY DATES MENTIONED ON THE SAID DOCUME NT AND NO ADDITION ON SUCH ACCOUNT WAS WARRANTED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DELETE D THE ADDITION ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 38. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE DOCUMENT WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSES SEE, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT BELONGS TO TH E ASSESSEE AND THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE DOCUMENT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE HAND WRITTEN DOCUMENT FOUN D FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMED TO BE A DUMB DOCUMENT AS NO PROOF OF THE PROPERTY OR DATE OF THE TRANSACTION WA S MENTIONED IN SAID PROPERTY. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND BY T HE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE OF TRANSFER OF REMITTANCE OF RS. 10 LACS TO LONDON. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE FOUND TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE AS OWNER OF ANY PROPERTY, HAD SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY OR HIS SHARE IN PROPERTY FOR A SUM OF RS.21,60,000/-, NO ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DOCUMENT, WHICH CLEARLY IS A DUMB DOC UMENT, COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. UPHOLDING THE OR DER OF 27 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE DISMISS TH E GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 6 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 39. THE GROUND NO. 7 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAI NST CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 158BFA(1)(A) OF THE ACT, WHI CH IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND HENCE, THE SAME IS DISM ISSED. 40. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH MY,2014. SD/- SD/- ( T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29 TH MAY,2014 POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA T,CHD.