Asha Jain, V. DCIT, Central Circle-8,

ITSSA 51/DEL/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2534 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 12 year(s) 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2004
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: IPS BINDRA
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA; SOMIL AGGARWAL S
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Business income; Search and seizure; Additional evidence; Valuation report; Block assessment
• Section: 142(1); 250; 68; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (SS) A NO. 51 /DEL/ 2004 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 11.01.2001 SMT. ASHA JAIN, 28, NEW ROHTAK ROAD, KABUL SADAN , NEW DELHI VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8, NEW DELHI PAN : ACDPJ8968F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY DR. RAKESH GUPTA & SH. SOMIL AGGARWAL, ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY SH. I.P.S. BINDRA, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 26.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.11.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 31/10/2003 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - II, NEW DELHI FOR B LOCK PERIOD FROM 01/04/1990 TO 11/01/2001 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER CHAPTER XIV B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AS WELL AS OF THE FRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1.1 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT BEFORE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, THE LEARNED DCIT DID NOT PROVIDE DUE AND VALID OPPORTUNITY AND THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE W ITHOUT GIVING SPECIFIC SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN SUCH OF THE ADDITIONS 2 ITA NO. 51/DEL/2004 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 11.01.2001 AS WERE PROPOSED TO BE MADE WHILE COMPUTING AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 2. THAT THE LEARNED DCIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT, WHAT IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT, IS AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME , AS DEFINED U/S 158 B(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THAT THE COMPUTATION UNDER SECTION 158 BB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS TO BE M ADE ONLY OF SUCH INCOME, WHICH IS AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS DEFINED U/S 158 B(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT NO APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, WAS EITHER OBTAINED OR GRANTE D AS NO OPPORTUNITY BEFORE GRANTING AN APPROVAL, WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.L. KAPUR VS JAGMOHAN REPORTED IN AIR 1981 PAGE 135. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE AFORESAID APPEAL, HAS ERRED, IN ONLY PARTLY DELETING THE ADDITIONS INSTEAD OF DELETING THE ENTIRE SUMS OF ADDITIONS AND HELD AS AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS THUS ERRED IN SUSTAINING AN ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONCLUDING SUCH AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME AGGREGATED TO RS.4,44,780/ - (AS REFLECTED IN THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE APPELLATE ORDER). 5. THAT IN SUSTAINING THE AFORESAID AGGREGATE ADDITIO N, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS THUS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: - 5.1 RS.4,84,900/ - - PERTAINING TO THE ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY AND STATED TO BE RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 2002. THAT IN SUSTAININ G THE ADDITION, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NO UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OR INCOME FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH AND THE JEWELLERY FOUND FOR AN AMOUNT AGGREGATING SUM OF RS.2,69,824/ - BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE S HUSBAND AND THE REMAINING ITEMS OF JEWELLERY WERE HER STRIDHAN, IN RESPECT OF WHICH NECESSARY EVIDENCE HAD ALSO BEEN FURNISHED. 5.2 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY HAD OVERTLY BEEN MADE AND THAT, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT 3 ITA NO. 51/DEL/2004 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 11.01.2001 THERE WAS ANY UNDISCLOSED JEWELLERY, WHICH HAD BEEN FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE EXPLANATION AND THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALL BEEN ARBITRARILY OVER LOOKED AN D THE ADDITION OF RS.4,84,900/ - IS UNJUSTIFIABLY SUSTAINED. 6. THAT FURTHER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,44,780/ - AS AN UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF 1991 MODEL CAR, PURCHASED O N 7.2.1991 THE SOURCE OF WHICH WAS DULY EXPLAINED FROM THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. 6.1 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS THUS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE AFORESAID ADDITION OVER LOOKING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NO SUBSTANTIAL SOURCE OF INCO ME AND NO INVESTMENT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE FROM ANY UNACCOUNTED SOURCE. 7. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN SUSTAINING THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 158BFA WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DELETED. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED OF RS.4,44,781/ - BE DELETED AND IT BE HELD THAT NO INTEREST U/S 158 BFA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS LEVIABLE. 2. FROM THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT AN APPLICATION DATED 16/12/2009 WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONA L GROUND AS UNDER: THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO IN AS MUCH AS THE SAME WAS PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ASSUMING JURISDICTION AS PER LAW MORE SO WHEN NO VALID SEARCH WARRANT WAS ISSUE IN THE NAME OF THE A SSESSEE AND NO MANDATORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUT TO HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SINCE THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS PURELY LEGAL, DOES NOT REQUIRE FRESH FACTS TO BE INVESTIGATED AND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, IT IS PRAYED THAT IT MAY PLEASE BE ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE HOBN BLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF NTPC LTD. 229 IT R 383. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF OF THE CASE AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE 4 ITA NO. 51/DEL/2004 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 11.01.2001 PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 11/01/2001 AND CONSEQUEN TLY, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158 BC OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 30/10/2001, REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FROM 01/04/1990 TO 11/01/2001. IN RESPONSE , THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 16/12 /20 01 DECLARING NIL UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE SAID BLOCK PERIOD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED STATUARY NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BL OCK PERIOD WAS COMPLETED AT RS.10, 27,858/ - INCLUDING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY OF RS.1,59, 901/ - ; RS. 5,52,000/ - AND RS. 73,000/ - , UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT IN CAR OF RS. 1,44,780/ - AND UNEXPLAINED BANK ENTRIES OF RS. 98,177/ - UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) S USTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000 / - IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY AND RS. 1,44,780 CAR AND DELETED THE REMAINING ADDITIONS . AGGRIEVED WITH THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX( APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT PRESS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH A N APPLICATION DATED 16/12/2009, AND THUS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 5. THE GROUNDS NO. 1, 1.1 AND 3 WERE ALSO NOT PRESSED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 6. IN GROUNDS NO. 2, 4 TO 6.1 , THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY OF RS. 3,00,000 / - AND ADDITION FOR UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT IN CAR OF RS.1,44, 780 / - SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS). 5 ITA NO. 51/DEL/2004 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 11.01.2001 7. THE FA CTS IN BRIEF IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY ARE THAT FOLLOWING JEWELLERY WAS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND, S H . R . P . JAIN: S. NO. PREMISES PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. 28, NEW ROHTAK ROAD, NEW DELHI GOLD JEWELLARY ( 1108.700 GMS) DIAMOND (49.50 CTS) SILVER JEWELLARY ( 17 KGS) RS. 11,35,148/ - 2. LOCKER NO. 299 VAISH CO - OP BANK, KAROL BAGH JWELLARY ( 123.200 GGMS) DIAMONDS( 0.50 CTS) RS. 56,780/ - TOTAL RS. 11,91,928/ - 8. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED ING, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT: (I) AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT PREPARED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, J EWELLERY ITEMS WORTH RS.2,69, 824/ - BELONGED TO HER HUSBAND SH. R . P . JAIN . (II) THE SOURCE OF BALANCE JEWEL LERY WAS EXPLAINED AS RECEIVED FROM HER MOTHER, FAMILY MEMBERS AND OTHER RELATIVES AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE IN THE YEAR 1997. (III) IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION , THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A VALUATION R EPORT DATED 24/10/1998 FROM SH. HARI RAM JEWE L LERS VALUING THE JEWELLERY AT RS.6,31, 630/ - AS ON 15/10/1998 AND AN AFF IDAVIT OF SMT. SARASWATI DEVI, THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE SAYING THAT SHE GIFTED THE JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF THE ASSESSEE. (IV) A COPY OF SAID VALUATION REPORT ALONGWITH THE STATEMEN T OF ASSETS WAS FILED ALONGWITH THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000. 6 ITA NO. 51/DEL/2004 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 11.01.2001 9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DUE TO THE REASONS, WHICH ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: (I) T HAT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SE ARCH UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT, SH. R . P . JAIN ADMITTED THAT NO VALUATION OF THE JEWELLERY WAS MADE BEFORE THE SEARCH AND THE JEWELLERY WAS NEVER DECLARED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. (II) T HE SAID VALUATION REPORT WAS NEITHER FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDING NOR IT WAS MADE AVAILABLE DURING SEARCH PROCEEDING AT RESIDENCE OR LOCKER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE JEWELLERY. (III) IN THE PHOTO COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000 FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ONLY THREE DOCUMENTS WERE SHOWN IN THE LIST OF ENCLOSURES , I.E. , COMPUTATION OF ASSESSABLE INCOME, PHOTOCOPY OF LIC RECEIPTS AND FORM NO. 16 , WH EREAS , IN THE PHOTO COPY OF RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR FILED B EFO RE THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), NEW DELHI , TWO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS , VIZ , AT SERIAL NO. 4 VALUATION REPORT AND AT SERIAL NO. 5 STATEMENT OF ASSETS HAD BEEN CLAIMED TO BE FILED. IN VIEW OF THE INCONSISTENCY IN TWO DOCUMENTS, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE C OPY OF RETURN FILED BEFORE THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I NVESTIGATION) WAS MANIPULATED AND NO SUCH VALUATION REPORT WAS FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE SEARCH. (IV) THE ASSESSEE S BROTHER - IN - LAW, SH. UMESH GUPTA WAS PARTNER IN M/S SRIHARI RAM JEWELLERS WHO MADE THE VALUATION REPORTS. (V) NO EVIDENCE REGARDING RECEIPT OF JEWELLERY AS GIFT ( AFTER MARRIAGE ) WERE PRODUCED AND NO SOURCE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7 ITA NO. 51/DEL/2004 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 11.01.2001 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 1914 AND D ECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, DELHI B ENCHES IN THE CASE OF DR . ( MRS . ) KAMLESH VS. ACIT, 69 ITD 218 ALLOWED CREDIT OF 500 GMS . OF JEWELLERY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, 250 GMS . FOR HER DAUGHTER AND 100 GRAMS FOR HER HUSBAND AND THE BALANCE GOLD JEWELLERY OF 381.900 G MS. HAVING VALUE OF RS.1,59, 901 / - AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF 50 CTS . HAVING VALUE OF RS.5, 52,000 / - WAS HELD AS UNEXPLAINED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPORTED THAT NO COGNIZAN CE OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE SAYING GIFT OF JEWELLERY (THOUGH THE AMOUNT WAS NOT SPECIFIED) ON HER MARRIAGE WAS GIVEN AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY GIVEN CREDIT OF POSSESSION OF 500 G M OF JEWELLERY. OUT OF THE SILVER W EIGHING 17 KGS HAVING V ALUE RS.1, 24,100/ - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED 7KGS AS EXPLAINED AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE AND THE REST I.E 10 KGS HAVING VALUE OF RS. 73,000 WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 11. BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES INCLUDING A COPY OF VALUATION REPORT OF 1997, A COPY OF RELEASE ORDER DATED 27/11/1975 OF THE DEPARTMENT A S CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP/POSSESSION OF THE JEWELLERY IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE S MOTHER, A COPY OF PANCHNAMA DAT ED 28/11/1975 SHOWING THE JEWELLERY BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE S MOTHER, A COPY OF THE FORM FILED UNDER VDIS 1975 BY THE ASSESSEE S MOTHER AND COPY OF RETURN OF HER HUSBAND. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS), AGREED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE JEWELLERY WAS DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER , CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF POSSESSION OF THE JEWELLERY IN THE HANDS OF HER MOTHER AND CONSIDERABLE INCREASE IN VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY SINCE THE MARRIAGE OF THE ASSE SSEE , OUT OF THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY OF RS.7,84,900/ - , HE ALLOWED RELIEF OF 8 ITA NO. 51/DEL/2004 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 11.01.2001 RS.4,84, 900/ - AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY AT RS . 3 LAKH. 12. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT SUSTAINED AGAINST UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY WAS , BY MISTAKE SHOWN AT RS.4, 84,900 / - W HEREAS IT SHOULD BE READ AS RS. 3 LAK H S . THE LEARNED COUNSEL REITERATING THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE SUSTAINED ON ESTIMATION BASIS IN B LOCK ASSESSMENT. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (1) 83 TTJ 566 (JODHPUR) (2) 84 TTJ 165 ( BANGALORE) 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED CIT(DR) RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DETAILED QUANTIFICATION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD JEWELLERY, DIAMONDS AND SILVER AND NO ESTIMATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL WERE NOT APPLICABLE OVER THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS, HE PRAYED THAT ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX( APPEALS) MIGHT BE UPHELD. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. OUT OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND AND VALUED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER A T RS.11,91,928/ - THE ASSESSING OF FICER HELD THE JEWELLERY OF RS.7,84, 900/ - AS UNEXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS: (I) GOLD JEWELLERY ( 381.900 GMS) HAVING VALUE OF RS. 1, 59, 901/ - (II) DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF 50 CTS HAVING VALUE OF RS. 5, 52,000/ - (III) SILVER WEIGHING 10KGS HAVING VALUE OF RS. 73,000/ - 9 ITA NO. 51/DEL/2004 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 11.01.2001 15. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JUSTIFIED HIS DECISION ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE VALUATION REPORT WAS FILED TO THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE SEARCH, COU LD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CREDIT OF 500 GMS FOR MARRIED LADY, 250 GMS FOR UNMARRIED DAUGHTER AND 100 GRAMS FOR MALE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY WAS ALREADY GRANTED BY HIM. ACC ORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS THAT THE JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED AS A GIFT FROM HER MOTHER ON HER MARRIAGE WAS DULY CONSIDERED BY HIM. THE LEARNED CIT (DR) REFERRED TO ANNEXURE - 1 AND ANNEXURE - 2 APPENDED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER INDICATING INCONSISTENCY IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE THAT VALUATION REPORT WAS FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000. ON PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT ANNEXURES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , WE AGREE WITH THE LEARNED CIT(DR) THAT IN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR THE RETURN OF INCO ME OF ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1999 - 2000 , THE VALUATION REPORT IS NOT MENTIONED AS ENCLOSURE. FURTHER , THE FACT THAT SAID VALUATION REPORT DATED 24/10/98 WAS NEITHER FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NOR ANYTHING WAS STATED ABOUT EXISTENCE ANY SUCH VALUATION REPORT DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDING , IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 24/10/ 98 I S NOT FREE FROM DOUBTS. FURTHER, THE LEARNED CIT(DR) REFERRED TO THE VALUATION REPORT ISSUED BY SAME REGISTERED VALUER ON 25 /04/1978 TO THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 18 TO 20 OF THE ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK. ON PERUSAL OF THIS VALUATION REPORT DATED 25/04/1978, WE FIND THAT ON THE PRE - PRINTED FORMAT, REGISTRATION NUMBER OF THE VALUER IS MENTIONED AS REGD . NO. CAT - VII - 136 OF 1994 , WHEREAS THE DATE OF VALUATION REPORT HAS BEEN INSERTED BY HAND AS 25/04/1978. IN OUR VIEW, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRINT REGISTRATION NUMBER WHICH IS ISSUED IN 1994 ON THE VALUATION REPORT ISSUED IN THE YEAR 1978 , THEREFORE, AND AUTHENTICITY OF THIS VALUATION REPORT IS ALSO DOUBTFUL. 10 ITA NO. 51/DEL/2004 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 11.01.2001 16. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BAJRANG T EXTILE VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 83 TTJ 566 (JODHPUR) AND 84 TTJ 165 ( BANGALORE) CONTENDED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINED ON THE ESTIMATE BASIS IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF 83 TTJ 566 (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: 18. THE NEXT GROUND RELATES TO TRADING ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,82,004 AS ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS INCOME FOR ASST. YRS. 1988 - 89 TO 1998 - 99 AS ESTIMATED BY THE AO AS PER ANNEX. P, WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE PURVI EW OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. HE HAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ESTIMATION OF SALES AND ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF APPLICATION OF PROFIT RATE IS NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION AND SURMISE. TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS ARGUMENT, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO LOSS CAN BE MADE IN THE YEARS IN WHICH NO DOCUMENT OR RECORDS HAVE BEEN FOUND AND TO PRESUME UNRECORDED SALES FOR SUCH YEARS IS ALSO BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS. THE ESTIMATION OF SALES FOR FULL YEAR WHERE UNRECORDED SALES FOR PART OF THE YEAR HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE SEARCH, IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED. THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT IF AT ALL THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD TO SUSTAIN ANY ADDITION, IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE ONLY ON THE BASI S OF NET PROFIT EARNED ON UNRECORDED SALES. HE HAS FURTHER CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES, INTEREST, ETC. RECORDED IN SEIZED DIARIES AND DOCUMENTS AND WHEN THE INCOME HAD BEEN ESTIMATED, THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 19. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER AUDIT REPORT, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SALES FOR DIFFERENT YEARS AS PER DETAILS GIVEN THEREIN REGARDING WHICH THE ASSESSEE AND HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAD NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION. ACCORDING TO THE LEAR NED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THE AO HAS ALSO DISCUSSED THE MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FURTHER RELIED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS CERTAIN PARTS OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN THAT RESPECT. 20. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US, WE GIVE THE FINDING AS UNDER : 11 ITA NO. 51/DEL/2004 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 11.01.2001 21. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE IN THE ASST. YRS. 1997 - 98 AND 1998 - 99, AS AGAINST THE NET PROFIT RATE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HERE ALSO NET PR OFIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ESTIMATE SALES BY THE AO IN ASST. YRS. 1988 - 89, 1989 - 90, 1993 - 94, 1994 - 95 AND 1995 - 96, ALTHOUGH NO MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. FOR SOME YEARS THE DETAILS WERE A VAILABLE FOR UNACCOUNTED SALES BUT FOR YEARS 1988 - 89, 1989 - 90, DECEMBER TO MARCH OF ASST. YRS. 1992 - 93, 1993 - 94, 1994 - 95 AND 1995 - 96 THERE WERE NO SUCH DETAILS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AND HE ESTIMATED THE SALES IN THE SAME RATIO AS FOR OTHER DETAILS WHERE DETAILS HAD BEEN FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH. THE DETAILS OF ESTIMATED SALES ARE GIVEN AT P. 22 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH CAN BE LOOKED INTO AND THERE IS NO NEED TO REPRODUCE THE SAME. THE AO APPLIED GROSS PROFIT RATE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES. T HE AO CONCLUDED THAT PROFIT ON UNDISCLOSED SALES SHOULD BE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF GROSS PROFIT RATE AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF PROFIT RATE AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE MIGH T HAVE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF ALL THE EXPENSES IN THE REGULAR RETURN FILED BY HIM AND AGAINST UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS, NO SUCH EXPENSES ARE TO BE ALLOWED. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 28,85,701 AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD HOLDING IT AS UNDISCL OSED INCOME. THE WORKING OF THE SAME IS GIVEN BY THE AO AS ANNEX. P TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: A. Y. ACCOUNTED SALES UNACCOUNTED SALES GP % AS PER ASSESSEE PROFIT AS ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF G.P. % EXP. ON UNACCOUNTED SALES ADDITION MADE BY AO 1988 - 89 46,21,578 46,00,000* 5.30 2,43,800 NIL 243800* 1989 - 90 50,83,425 5,05,030* 5.30 2,67,650 NIL 267650* 1990 - 91 40,93,418 45,49,618 5.31 2,41,585 63660 177925 1991 - 92 56,88,181 53,94,664 5.30 2,85,917 79387 206530 12 ITA NO. 51/DEL/2004 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 11.01.2001 1992 - 93 72,23,922 52,72,875 65,97,000* 5.30 3,49,641 105950 243691 1993 - 94 57,07,834 52,00,000* 5.30 2,75,600 NIL 275600* 1994 - 95 59,53,446 54,00,000* 5.30 2,86,200 NIL 286200* 1995 - 96 60,80,745 54,50,000* 5.50 2,99,750 NIL 299750* 1996 - 97 79,60,619 64,05,953 5.58 3,57,452 NIL 357452 1997 - 98 61,84,110 71,99,449 5.70 4,10,368 33542 376826 1998 - 99 75,64,240 52,78,658 5.70 3,00,883 150606 150277 TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY AO 2885701 (FIGURES MARKED WITH * REPRESENT ESTIMATE MADE BY AO) BUT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT FOR YEARS WHERE ESTIMATE HAD BEEN MADE, THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 2 PER CENT SHOULD BE APPLIED BUT WHERE UNACCOUNTED SALES HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE GROS S PROFIT, THUS THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED A RELIEF OF RS. 9,02,697. ON LEGAL GROUNDS, WE HOLD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THIS ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATE TOWARDS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THIS ESTIMATION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT, IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE AUDITOR AND THE PREPARATION OF THE ACCOUNTS BY THE AUDITOR WHICH ACCORDING TO US CANNOT BE AN EVIDENCE IN THE EYE OF LAW. ON MERITS AGAIN, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO HAS WRON GLY ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF GROSS PROFIT RATE IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES AS AGAINST THE AMOUNT OF NET PROFIT, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN EARNED. TAX IS TO BE LEVIED ONLY ON THE NET INCOME AND NOT ON THE GROSS INCOME. THE REGUL AR RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO SUBJECT - MATTER OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT, AND THE INCOME EARNED THEREIN IS DULY ASSESSED. IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE 13 ITA NO. 51/DEL/2004 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 11.01.2001 EXPENSES FOR MAKING SUCH UNDISCLOSED SALES WOULD HAVE BEEN CLAIMED IN THE REGULAR RETURNS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE. IF INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME, ONLY THE NET INCOME HAS TO BE TAXED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO SHOULD COMPUTE THE NET INCOME AS PER THE NET PROFIT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DIFFERENT YEARS AND ONLY IN THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHERE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND TO INDICATE THE UNDISCLOSED SALES BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SCOPE FOR MAKING BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS VERY CLEAR AND IT SHALL INCLUDE ONLY UNDISCLOSED INCOM E WHICH IS FOUND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SEARCH. WHERE NO EVIDENCE IS FOUND, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE BECAUSE THAT CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT - MATTER OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT. IF THE MATERIAL IS FOUND FOR SOME YEARS ONLY, THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE ONLY FOR THOSE YEARS WHERE SUCH EVIDENCE IS FOUND. WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTION, WE ORDER TO DELETE THE ADDITION IN TOTO AND ONLY THAT MUCH ADDITION SHALL BE SUSTAINED, AS WE HAVE DIRECTED ABOVE. THIS FINDING OF THE BENCH WILL DISPOSE OF THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. 17. IN THE ABOVE CASE , ESTIMATION OF SALES IN SOME YEARS WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE OF UNACCOUNTED SALES IN RESPECT OF FEW Y EARS , WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION FOR U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY AFTER ALLOWING CREDIT FOR POSSESSION OF THE JEWELLERY IN VIEW OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR AND DECISION IN THE CASE OF DR .(MRS) KAMLESH ( SUPRA). THUS , THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF BAJRANG TEXTILE(SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE OV ER THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.11 FURTHER IN THE CASE OF SATYABHUSAN VS DCIT REPORTED IN 84 TTJ 165 , THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 5.4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND RELEVANT FACTS. THE WORD 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS DEFINED IN S. 158B(B) WHIC H READS AS UNDER : 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' INCLUDES ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR ANY INCOME BASED ON ANY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS, WHERE SUCH MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY, VALUABLE A RTICLE, THING, ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENT OR TRANSACTION REPRESENTS WHOLLY OR 14 ITA NO. 51/DEL/2004 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 11.01.2001 PARTLY INCOME OR PROPERTY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OR WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT. THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PINPOINT ANY TRANSACTION OR INCOME FROM ANY SUCH TRANSACTION AS NOT RECORDED IN TOTAL BROKERAGE OFFERED FOR TAXATION. EVEN THE BASIS OF ESTIMATE IS NOT STATED. THE AO HAS NOTED THAT ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE IS NOT CLEAR. THIS FACT IS NOT CORRECT AS THE ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE IS STATED TO BE ON RECEIPT BASIS WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY AO. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT SINCE THE INCOME IS NOT STATED TO HAVE BEEN FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH BASED ON ANY ENTRY IN MATERIAL SEIZED, NO ADDITION ON ESTIMATED BASIS CAN BE MADE UNDER S. 158 BC. THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 ,00,000 IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 18. IN THE ABOVE CASE ALSO THE ADDITION WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF JEWELLERY FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THUS THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE OVER THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE . 19. IN THE BACK GROUND OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) IN SUSTAINING TH E ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3 LAKH S , ACCORDINGLY , WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THUS , THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 LAKH FOR UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY IS UPHELD. 20. IN RESPECT OF SECOND ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CAR, T HE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED ONE PREMIER PADMINI C AR FROM PREM NATH MOTORS FOR RS.1,44, 780 / - . THIS CA R WAS BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER DL - IC - 4242. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SAID INVESTMENT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT OR IN RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND , THEREFORE , HE HELD THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT IN WHICH SALE OF JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 1,22, 254 / - ON 19/01/1991 WAS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE PURCHASE OF CAR. BUT , THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED 15 ITA NO. 51/DEL/2004 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 11.01.2001 THAT NO EVIDENCE IN PROOF OF SUCH CLAIM WAS FILED BEFORE HIM AND THEREFORE HE UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 21. BEFOR E US , LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, REFERRED TO THE SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX A PPEALS, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 5 OF THE ASSESSE E S PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CAR IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AND SO THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF APPEARING THE INVESTMENT IN THE BANK STATEMENT. FURTHER, THE REASON FOR PURCHASING THE CAR OUT OF CASH IN HAND WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE PRICE OF THE CAR AT CHANDIGAR H WAS CHEAPER BY ABOUT RS. 7000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF NON - CHARGI NG OF 4% CST AND THE CAR COULD BE REGISTERED IN DELHI WITHIN ONE MONTH, IT WAS PURCHASED IN CASH. FURTHER , THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO PAGES 39 AND 40 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS A CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AND EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS O PENING B ALANCE OF CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.27, 550/ - ON 01/04/1990, AND THEREAF TER AFTER MAKING PAYMENT OF RS. 3,246 / - FOR LIC PREMIUM O N 28/12/1990 , BALANCE OF RS. 24, 303 / - WAS AVAILABLE. THEREAFTER, ON 19/01/1991 THE AS SESSEE SOLD JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 1,22,254/ - AND THUS MAKING THE TOTAL CASH AVAILABLE OF RS.1,46, 557 / - AND OUT OF THAT ON 22/01/1991, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED CAR FOR RS. 1 , 44,780/ - . THEREFORE , ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL , THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE CAR WAS DULY EXPLAINED. 22. ON THE OTHER H AND, LEARNED CIT(DR) , RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SALE OF JEWELLERY. THE LEARNED CIT(DR) REFERRED TO PAGE 65 OF THE ASSESSE E S PAPER BOOK , WHERE IT IS MENTIONED THAT ON 19/01/1991, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD GOLD JEWELLERY WORTH 485.135 G MS , OUT OF THE JEWELLERY RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF HER MARRIAGE BUT TO WHOM IT WAS SOLD , WAS NOT MENTIONED. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED CIT (DR) , QUANTITY OF JEWELLER Y GIFTED, WAS NOT MENTIONED BY THE MOTHER OF THE 16 ITA NO. 51/DEL/2004 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 11.01.2001 ASSESSEE IN HER AFFIDAVIT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY ALLOWED CREDIT OF JEWELLERY 500 G MS. IN HER HAND, 250 G MS. IN THE HANDS OF DAUGHTER AND 100 GRAMS IN THE HAND OF HUSBAND, A S RECEIVED ON MARRIAGE FROM OTHERS AND THE RELATIVE, THUS , IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OF SALE OF JEWELLERY , SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN CAR WAS NOT EXPLAINED AND CORRECTLY SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS). 23. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SALE OF JEWELLERY ON 19/01/1991 FOR RS.1,22, 254/ - . THE LEARNED C OUNS EL WAS ALSO ASKED BY THE BENCH , WHETHER THE SALE OF JEWELLERY WAS OFFERED FOR CAPITAL GAIN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR, BUT HE EXPRESSED INABILITY IN PRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SALE OF JEWELLERY TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVES TMENT OF CAR AND THUS THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) IS UPHELD. THUS , THE GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE ISSUES OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CAR ARE DISMISSED. 24. IN TH E RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 0 T H NOV. , 2016 . S D / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 0 T H NOVEMBER , 2016 . LAPTOP / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI