Smt. Dinaben Harin Shah, Vapi V. The Dy.CIT.,Cent.Circle-3, Surat

ITSSA 609/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9581 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P VAISHNAV
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER SMT. DINABEN HARIN SHAH AJIT NAGAR, DAMAN ROAD, CHALA, VAPI-396191 PAN: AEQPS 7070 E (APPELLANT) VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 SURAT (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SRI O.P. VAISHNAV, CIT-D.R . ASSESSEE BY: SRI HARDIK VORA, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 28-10-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-10-20 13 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II AHMEDABD DATED 22-10-2012. IT(SS)A NO. 609/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 I.T(SS).A NO 609/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE NO DINABEN HARIN SHAH VS. DCIT 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ONLY ONE EFFECTIVE GROUND WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 18,64,200/- AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, GOLD BAR S AND COINS OF 1,242.70 GMS. VALUED AT RS. 18,62,400/- WAS SEIZED FROM LOCK ER NO 1538 AND 1494. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION BEFORE THE AO WAS THAT UN ACCOUNTED INCOME WAS GENERATED IN THE HANDS OF SRI YATIN I SHAH AND M/S. AJIT CORRUGATION AND SUCH INCOME WAS CLAIMED AS APPLICATION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08 WHICH WAS REJEC TED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE A NY EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE GENERATION OF THIS INCOME AND APPLICATION THERE OF. THE ASSESSEE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE ACTUAL VALUE OF GOLD FOUND IN THE L OCKER WAS RS. 7.5 LACS ONLY PURCHASED DURING THE A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2008-09. THI S ARGUMENT WAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO ON THE SAME GROUND THAT AS SESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF THE GOLD BARS AND COINS. THUS THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,62 ,400/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWI NG WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:- '6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, LE ARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SHOW CAUSED THE APPELLANT AS TO WHY VALUE O F GOLD JEWELLERY OF I.T(SS).A NO 609/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE NO DINABEN HARIN SHAH VS. DCIT 3 RS. 18,62, 400/- SHOULD NOT BE TAXED AND IN REPLY THERE TO ON 9-12-201 1 THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED AS UNDER: THIS IS IN CONTINUATION OF ONGOING ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. AS PER ABOVE REFERRED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE YOUR HONOUR HA S ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE GOD FOUND OF THE VALUE O F RS. 18,62,400/- DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD WE SUBMIT A S UNDER: THAT ON 16/7/3009 SEARCH ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF INDRAVADAN G. SHAH END HIS FAMILY MEMBE RS AND AT THEIR BUSINESS PREMISES AT THAT TIME GOLD AND JEWEL LERY AND CASH WAS SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT FROM THE BANK LOC KER IN THE JOINT NAMES OF HARIN I SHAH AND THE ASSESSEE. THAT OUT OF 1242.70 GRAMS OF GOLD BARS, ETC., SEIZE D BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, GOLD OF 186.50 GRAMS WAS RECEIVED BY WAY OF GIFT BY THE FAM ILY MEMBERS ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS LIKE BIRTHDAYS, JAIN F AST OF 8 TO76 DAYS, ETC. REMAINING GOLD ITEMS OF 1,056.20 GR AMS WERE PURCHASED BY AJIT CORRUGATION THROUGH HARIN I. SHAH , HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY YATIN I. SHAH, BROTHER OF HA RIN I. SHAH, FOR FAMILY USE. THE PARTICULARS PURCHASES OF THE GOLD BAR BY AJIT C ORRUGATION THROUGH HARIN I SHAH AND YATIN I. SHAH ARE AS FOLLO WS. NAME OF PURCHASER YEAR OF PURCHASE SOURCE OF PURCHASE S PARTICUL ARS OF GOLD BAR PURCHASE D TOTAL WEIGHT (GRAM S) PURCHASE AMOUNT (RS.) AJIT CORRUGATI ON THROUGH HARIN I. SHAH 2006-07 OUT OF INCOME OF AJIT CORRIUGAT ION & WITHDRAW AL OF 100 GMS 1 BAR = 100 31 GM * 1= 31 GMS 131 99,000 I.T(SS).A NO 609/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE NO DINABEN HARIN SHAH VS. DCIT 4 CAPITAL AND PROFIT AJIT CORRUGATI ON THROUGH HARIN I. SHAH 2007-08 ---DO--- 100 GMS* 3 BARS = 300 GMS 31* 2 BAR= 62 GMS 362 3,07,100 YATIN I. SHAH 2005-06 OUT OF INCOME OF AJIT PHARMA FOIL (PROP. YATIN I. SHAH) 208.60*1 BAR = 208.60 GM 130* 1 BAR = 130 GMS 100*1 BAR- 100GM 31* 4 BAR = 124 GM 562.60 GMS 3,43,900 AJIT CORRUGATION THROUGH HARIN I. SHAH TIED PURCHAS ED GOLD OUT OF INCOME OF RS 4,06,100 DECLARED. HARIN I. SHAH IS ONE OF THE PARTNER IN M/S. AJIT CORRUGATION. YATIN I. SHAH HAD PURCHASED GOLD OUT OF INCOME DECLARED OF RS. 16,19,500. DURING THE COURSE OF POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, IN TH E WRITTEN REPLY OF INDRAVADAN G. SHAH GROUP WAS SUBMITTED ON 3/11/2009 THE ABOVE FACT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND OF GOLD WAS CLARIFIED. COPY OF THE SAID WRITTEN REPLY IS ENCLOS ED. FURTHER, ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 153A/L53CONNE ACT LETTER WAS ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURNS, CLARIFYING AB OVE STATED FACTS. COPY OF THE SAME IS ENCLOSED. AJIT CORRUGATION THROUGH HARIN I. SHAH AND YATIN I SHAH HAD KEPT THE GOLD SO PURCHASED IN THE BANK LOCKER WHICH WAS IN T HE JOINT NAMES OF HARIN I SHAH AND THE ASSESSEE. I.T(SS).A NO 609/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE NO DINABEN HARIN SHAH VS. DCIT 5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS IT IS SUBMITTED T HAT THE GOLD OF RS. 7,50,000 SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE ADDED I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS: (I) SAID GOLD IS NOT PURCHASED BY THE ASSES SES; (II) AS STATED ABOVE SAID GOLD IS PURCHASED BY AJIT CORRUGATION THROUGH HARIN I SHAH & YATIN I. SHAH; (III) THERE IS A PROPER SOURCE FOR THE GOLD SO PURCHASED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THA T GOLD, THE COST OF WHICH IS RS 7,50,000. CANNOT BE FAXED AT THE VALUE , AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH OF RS. 18,62,400 DETERMINED ON THE DATE OF S EARCH. IN THE GIVEN FACTS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IF GOLD ITE MS PURCHASED IS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE THEN IT WILL AMOUNT TO TAXING SUCH INCOME WHICH IS NOT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT WILL AMO UNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION, ONCE IN THE HANDS OF PERSON WHO HAS DISPO SED INCOME AND SECONDLY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS YOUR HONOUR IS RE QUESTED TO NOT TO TAX RS. 18,62,400 IN HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 17/7/2009 THE STA TEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT OF HARIN I SHAH, HUSBAND OF THE APPELLAN T WAS RECORDED WHEREIN HE HAD STATED THE FACT GOLD PURCHASED 3-4 Y EARS BACK IN THE PAST IS LYING IN THE BANK LOCKERS. COPY OF THE STAT EMENT IS ENCLOSED. IN THE LETTER SUBMITTED ON 28/12/2011, THE APPELLANT H AS REITERATED THE FACT THAT SAID GOLD JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AND STATED AS UNDER: COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED ON 28/12/1011 IS ATTAC HED HEREWITH FOR YOUR HONOUR'S READY REFERENCE. 8. THUS, IN HIS DETAILED REPLIES, THE APPELLAN T HAD EXPLAINED THAT: (I) THE BANK LOCKER WAS HELD BY HER JOINTLY WIT H HER HUSBAND, MR HARIN I. SHAH. I.T(SS).A NO 609/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE NO DINABEN HARIN SHAH VS. DCIT 6 (II) 1,242.70 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY INCLUDED G OLD JEWELLERY OF 186.50 GRAMS RECEIVED BY WAY OF GIFT BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS, AND (III) REMAINING GOLD JEWELLERY OF 1,056.20 GRAMS WE RE PURCHASED IN FY 2005-0, F.Y. 2006-07& F.Y. 2007-08 ; (IV) IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT STATED THAT G OLD JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED 3-4 YEARS BACK; (V) GOLD JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED BY HARIN I. SHAH , HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT AND BY YATIN I. SHAH, BROTHER OF H ARIN I. SHAH FOR FAMILY USE, FOR THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS 7 ,50,000. (VI) THUS, THERE IS A PROPER SOURCE FOR THE GOLD J EWELLERY PURCHASED IN THE PRECEDING YEARS FOR TOTAL COST OF RS. 75,000 ARID HENCE MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID GOLD JEWEFLERY CANNOT BE TAXED AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 9. IN THE GIVEN FACTS, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUB MITTED THAT: (I) LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN TA XING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE GOLD JEWELLERY, THOUGH IT WAS PURCHASE D IN THE PRECEDING YEARS, BY IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND IGNORING THE STATEMENT MR. HARIN I. SHAH, RECOR DED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHICH IS CORROBORATIVE EVIDEN CES FOR THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT GOLD JEWELLERY WAS PURC HASED IN A.Y. 2005-06 & A.Y. 2007-08; (II) LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN TA XING THE MARKET VALUE OF GOLD JEWELLERY IN A.Y. 2010-11, THOUGH ACT UAL COST OF THE SAME WAS OF RS.7,50,000 AND THOUGH IT WAS PURCH ASED IN THE PRECEDING YEARS; (III) ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 18,62,400 BEING TH E MARKET VALUE OF GOLD JEWELLERY NEEDS TO BE DELETED.' 5. HOWEVER LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY AO. 6. BEFORE US LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITER ATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HOWE VER NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THESE SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED AS WAS THE CASE BEFORE LOWER I.T(SS).A NO 609/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE NO DINABEN HARIN SHAH VS. DCIT 7 AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE WE FEEL NO NEED TO INTERFE RE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 2.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AND SUBMISSION FILED BY APPELLANT. THE UNDISPUTED FAC TS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, 1242.700 GMS OF GOLD BARS, ETC., AS DESCRIBED IN THE TABLE AT PARA 6 OF APPELL ANT'S SUBMISSION REPRODUCED AT PARA 2.1 HEREIN ABOVE WERE FOUND FROM THE BANK LOCKER NO 1538 AND 1494 BELONGING TO APPELLANT. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS TREATED ENTIRE VALUE OF GOLD BARS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HANDS OF APPELLANT. THE A PPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT OUT OF GOLD OF 1242.70 GMS OF GOLD, GOL D OF 186.500 GMS WERE RECEIVED BY WAY OF GIFT BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND REMAINING GOLD JEWELLERY OF 1056.200 GMS WERE PURCHASED IN F. Y 2005-06 TO 2007-08 AND SAME WERE PURCHASED BY HUSBAND OF APPEL LANT AND BROTHER OF HER HUSBAND FOR RS 7,50,000 AND APPLICAT ION WAS SOUGHT FROM UNACCOUNTED INCOME DECLARED IN THE HANDS OF AP PELLANT'S HUSBAND AND HIS BROTHER. ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS ARG UED THAT VALUE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT CANNOT EXCEED RS 7,50 , 000/- BEING PURCHASE VALUE OF GOLD BARS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ENTIRE DETAILS, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 18,62,400 FOR GOLD BARS AN D COINS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND NOT FOR OTHER GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE APPELLANT IN HIS R EPLY DATED 3 RD NOVEMBER, 2009 TO ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATI ON, VALSAD. AT PARA 6 HAS STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH APART FROM JEWELLERY HELD BY FAMILY MEMBERS, GOLD BARS AND COI NS OF 1242.70 GMS WAS SEIZED AND THESE GOLD BARS AND COINS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HANDS OF APPELLANT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT OUT OF GOLD SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, GOLD OF 186.500 GMS BEING SMALL COINS AN D PIECES OF GOLD WERE RECEIVED BY WAY OF GIFT BUT SUCH ARGUMENT OF A PPELLANT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THIS BEING GENERAL ARGUMENT OF APPELLANT NOT SUPPORTED BY OTHER CORROB ORATIVE EVIDENCES IS THUS REJECTED. REMAINING GOLD BARS OF 1,056.200 GMS WERE CLAIMED T O BE PURCHASED BY APPELLANT'S HUSBAND AND YATIN I SHAH, BROTHER OF I.T(SS).A NO 609/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE NO DINABEN HARIN SHAH VS. DCIT 8 APPELLANT'S HUSBAND IN F.Y. 2005-2006 TO 2007-2008. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO EVIDENCES WERE FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF APPELLANT OR OTHER PLACES WHICH CAN PROVE THAT GOLD BARS WERE PURCHASED IN PERIOD AS STATED BY APPELLANT. EVEN AP PELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY PROOF INCLUDING PURCHASE BILLS, PAYME NT PROOF OF SUCH GOLD BARS WHICH CAN PROVE THAT GOLD BARS WERE NOT P URCHASED IN A.Y. 2010-2011 AS OBSERVED BY ASSESSING OFFICER BUT WERE PURCHASED IN A.Y. 2006-2007 TO 2008-2009. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, ANY GOLD JEWELLERY OR GOLD BARS A RE FOUND AND YEAR OF PURCHASE OF SAME IS NOT PROVED, IT WOULD BE TREA TED AS PURCHASE IN THE SEARCH YEAR. FURTHER, APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THA T GOLD BARS OF 131 GMS WERE PURCHASED IN F,Y. 2006-2007 AND 362 GMS WE RE PURCHASED IN F.Y 2007-2008 BY APPELLANTS HUSBAND AND SOURCE OF SUCH PAYMENT IS OUT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME DECLARED IN RETURN OF INCOME OF HER HUSBAND. FURTHER, GOLD BARS OF 562.600 GMS WERE PUR CHASED BY YATIN I SHAH, BROTHER OF APPELLANT'S HUSBAND IN F.Y. IN 2 005-2006 AND SOURCE OF SUCH PAYMENT WAS CLAIMED FROM UNACCOUNTED INCOME DECLARED IN HIS ACCOUNT. THIS EXPLANATION PROVIDED BY APPELLANT IS VERY VAGUE AS APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVED THAT GOLD FO UND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM LOCKER OF APPELLAN T WAS NOT PURCHASED BY HER WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES NOR PRO VED THAT SUCH PURCHASE WAS NOT IN CURRENT YEAR BUT WAS IN THE YEA R AS CLAIMED BY APPELLANT. THE ARGUMENT OF APPELLANT THAT HER HUSBA ND IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAS STATED THAT GOLD JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED 3-4 YEARS BACK AS SAME IS U NSUBSTANTIATED AS APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY PURCHASE BILL, P AYMENT POOF ETC FOR SUCH GOLD JEWELLERY. THE APPELLANT'S-CLAIM REGARDIN G TELESCOPING OF INCOME DECLARED IN HER HUSBAND AND BROTHER OF HER H USBAND AGAINST INVESTMENT FOUND IN CASE OF HER CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE ANY CO RELATION BETWEEN SOURCE AND ITS APPLICATION OR EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO EVIDENCES WERE FOUND WHICH CAN PROVE THAT GOLD BARS WERE ACQUIRED FROM UNACCOUNTED INCOME DECLARED IN CASE OF HARIN I SHAH OR YATIN I SHAH. E VEN IN CASE OF HARIN I. SHAH (AJIT CORRUGATION) UNACCOUNTED ACCOUN TED INCOME OF RS, 4,06,100 WAS DECLARED AND WAS CLAIMED TO BE UTI LIZED IN ACQUISITION OF GOLD BARS OF 463 GMS IN A.Y 2007-200 8 WHEREAS ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED GOLD INVESTMENT IS MADE IN A.Y. 2010-2011 AND APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVED THAT INCOME EARNED IN A.Y . 2007-2008 WAS AVAILABLE WITH HER HUSBAND TO MAKE INVESTMENT H ENCE, PLEA OF I.T(SS).A NO 609/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE NO DINABEN HARIN SHAH VS. DCIT 9 APPELLANT REGARDING APPLICATION OF INCOME DECLARED IN A,Y. 2007-08 IN CASE OF APPELLANT'S HUSBAND AGAINST INVESTMENT M ADE IN GOLD 463 GMS IS REJECTED. FURTHER, APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT YATIN I. SHAH HAS DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 16,19,500 AND SAME WAS UTILI ZED IN MAKING INVESTMENT OF GOLD OF 562.60 GMS IN A.Y. 2006-07. O N CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF DETAILS SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT YATIN I. SHAH HAS ADMITTED RS. 12,00,000 AS UNACCOU NTED INCOME IN A,Y. 2006-07 UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED LOAN'. IN THE LETTER DATED 3 RD NOVEMBER. 2009 SHRI INDRAVADAN G. SHAH WROTE TO ADI T (LNV) , VALSAD, THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. AJIT PHAR MA FOIL, PROP. ,YATM I, SHAH, SEIZED IN PAGE 24 OF ANNEXURE - BR/3 /B-2 LOANS IN THE NAME OF TWO PERSONS BEING NAVRANGBEN FOR RS. 10,00, 000 AND SHRI MANISH FOR RS. 2.00,000. THIS AMOUNT IS ADMITTED AS UNEXPLAINED LOAN AND OFFERED AS INCOME IN AY. 2006-07. THE SAME UNEX PLAINED LOAN OF RS. 12,00,000 WAS OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME B Y SHRI YATIN I SHAH IN A.Y. 2006-07 WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE DETAILS AS MENTION ED ABOVE, THAT UNACCOUNTED LOAN OF RS. 12,00,000 WAS PART OF BALAN CE SHEET OF M/S. AJIT PHARMA FOIL, PROP. YATIN I SHAH AND UNLESS THE ASSESSEE PROVES THAT AMOUNT OF LOAN OF RS. 12,00,000 WAS WITHDRAWN IN CASH FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S. AJIT PHARMA FOIL OR FROM THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THAT CONCERN AND SHOW THE UTILIZATION OF UNACCOU NTED CASH IN THE INVESTMENT OF GOLD, BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING AGAINST UNDISCLOSED INCOME CANNOT BE ALLOWED. THE APPELLANT OR SHRI YATIN I SH AH OR SHRI INDRAVADAN G. SHAH NOWHERE HAVE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ADIT (INV) OR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR DURING THE APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS THAT THE LOAN AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BOOKS OF M/S . AJIT PHARMA FOIL AND WERE UTILIZED IN INVESTMENT IN GOLD. SIMIL ARLY, UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS 4,19,500 ADMITTED AND DECLARED BY SHRI YATIN I SHAH ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS OF TRANSACTION CONTAINED ON PA GE NO. 8 OF ANNEXURE - B/2 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 RELEVANT TO AY. 200 7-08 ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS UTILIZED IN INVESTMENT IN GOLD BARS BECAUSE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN A.Y. 2006-0 7 WHEREAS DISCLOSURE OF INCOME IS MADE IN A.Y. 2007-08. IN VI EW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SOURCE OF INVESTMENT CLAIMED BY APPELLANT IS EVEN NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY PROPER AND COGENT EVIDENCES AN D APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO CORRELATE THE INCOME ADMITTED BY SHRI YAT IN I SHAH FOR RS. 16,19,500 WITH INVESTMENT MADE IN GOLD BARS. I.T(SS).A NO 609/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE NO DINABEN HARIN SHAH VS. DCIT 10 THE ENTIRE PLEA OF SOURCE AND APPLICATION PROVIDED BY APPELLANT IS IMAGINARY AND NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER CORROBO RATIVE EVIDENCES HENCE, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING PU RCHASE OF RS 18,62,400. THE ALTERNATE PLEA OF APPELLANT THAT ACT UAL PURCHASE VALUE OF SUCH GOLD BARS WAS ONLY RS 7,50,000 IS ALSO REJE CTED AS APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY DOCUMENTARY BILLS REGARDI NG PURCHASE OF GOLD BARS AT RS. 7,50,000 HENCE RATE ADOPTED BY ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING VALUATION OF GOLD BARS AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH IS JUSTIFIED. CONSIDERING THE SAME, ADDITION OF RS. 18,62,400 IS CONFIRMED AND RELATED GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ( D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 31/10/2013 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,