Shri Ashok Gupta, Bhopal V. The DCIT (CENTRAL), Bhopal

ITSSA 62/IND/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7156 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S MANTRI
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DES
• Keywords: Loose papers; Set aside
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 153A; 69B; 139(1); 69

Judgement Text

ASHOK GUPTA IT(SS)NOS.59 TO 63 /IND/17 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HONBLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HONBLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS) NOS.59 TO 63/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2010-11 REVENUE BY SHRI S.S.MANTRI , CIT ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.S. DESPANDE, CA DATE OF HEARING 1 5 . 1 0.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24 . 1 0.2019 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM THE ABOVE CAPTIONED BUNCH OF APPEALS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2010-11 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3 (IN SHORT LD.CIT(A)], BHOPAL DATED 20 .01.2017 WHICH ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 153A R.W.S 143(3) OF THE INCOME DR. ASHOK GUPTA, B-253, SHAHPURA BHOPAL VS. DCIT ( CENTRAL ) , BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO.AEKPG3970P ASHOK GUPTA IT(SS)NOS.59 TO 63 /IND/17 2 TAX ACT 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 14.03.2014 F RAMED BY DCIT(CENTRAL), BHOPAL. 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEALS ; IT(SS) NO.59/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND BE QU ASHED. 2. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.13,00,000/- MAINTAINED AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH RECEIVED AS D ISCUSSED BY THE LEARNED DCIT IN PARA NO. 16.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER BE HELD TO BE BAD AND UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE AND BE QUASHED AND DELETED. 3. THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO TH E GROUNDS STATED ABOVE THE ADDITIONS MADE BE HELD TO BE HIGHLY UNREA SONABLE AND EXCESSIVE AND BE REDUCED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROU ND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE CASE. IT(SS) NO.60/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND BE QU ASHED. 2. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.68,763/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED FOREIGN EXPENDITURE U/S 69C AS DISCUSSED BY THE LD. DCIT IN PARA NO. 11.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BE HELD TO BE BAD AND UNJUSTIF IED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BE QUASHED AND DELETED. 3. THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO TH E GROUNDS STATED ABOVE THE ADDITIONS MADE BE HELD TO BE HIGHLY UNREA SONABLE AND EXCESSIVE AND BE REDUCED. ASHOK GUPTA IT(SS)NOS.59 TO 63 /IND/17 3 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROU ND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE CASE. IT(SS) NO.61/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND BE QU ASHED. 2. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.1,12,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED FOREIGN EXPENDITURE U/S 69C AS DISCUSSED BY THE LD. DCIT IN PARA NO. 11.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BE HELD TO BE BAD AND UNJUSTIF IED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BE QUASHED AND DELETED. 3. THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO TH E GROUNDS STATED ABOVE THE ADDITIONS MADE BE HELD TO BE HIGHLY UNREA SONABLE AND EXCESSIVE AND BE REDUCED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROU ND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE CASE. IT(SS) NO.61/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND BE QU ASHED. 2. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED FOREIGN EXPENDITURE U/S 69C AS DISCUSSED BY THE LD. DCIT IN PARA NO. 11.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BE HELD TO BE BAD AND UNJUSTIF IED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BE QUASHED AND DELETED. 3. THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO TH E GROUNDS STATED ABOVE THE ADDITIONS MADE BE HELD TO BE HIGHLY UNREA SONABLE AND EXCESSIVE AND BE REDUCED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROU ND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE CASE. ASHOK GUPTA IT(SS)NOS.59 TO 63 /IND/17 4 IT(SS) NO.63/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND BE QU ASHED. 2. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.72,737/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED FOREIGN EXPENDITURE U/S 69C AS DISCUSSED BY THE LD. DCIT IN PARA NO. 11.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BE HELD TO BE BAD AND UNJUSTIF IED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BE QUASHED AND DELETED. 3. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.10,27,060/- ON ACCOUNT OF U NDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S 69B AS DISCUSSED BY THE LEARNED DCIT IN PARA NO.19.8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BE HELD TO BE BAD AND UNJUS TIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BE QUASHED AND DELETED. 4. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.3,11,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED CASH RECEIVED AS DISCUSSED BY THE LEARNED DCIT IN PARA N O. 15.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BE HELD TO BE BAD AND UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BE QUASHED AND DE LETED. 5. THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO TH E GROUNDS STATED ABOVE THE ADDITIONS MADE BE HELD TO BE HIGHLY UNREA SONABLE AND EXCESSIVE AND BE REDUCED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROU ND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE CASE. 3. AS MOST OF THE ISSUES RAISED ARE COMMON THESE WE RE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DOCTOR DERIVING INCOME FROM MEDICAL P ROFESSION AND ASHOK GUPTA IT(SS)NOS.59 TO 63 /IND/17 5 DRAWING SALARY FROM M/S AYUSHMAN MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC PRIVATE LIMITED. THE HOSPITAL IS RUN BY THROUGH THE DIRECTO RS VIZ, DR. ASHOK GUPTA, DR. GOPAL BATNI AND DR. NEERAJ KUMAR. RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2010-11 WERE FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON BANSAL GROUP OF BUSI NESS AND SIMULTANEOUSLY ON AYUSHMAN GROUP AND ALSO THE RESID ENTIAL PREMISES OF ASSESSEE ON 2.6.2011. SOME LOOSE PAPER S WERE SEIZED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S 153A OF THE ACT ASSESSEE DECLARED ITS INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2010-11 BY OFFERING ADDITIONAL INCOME. ASSESSMENT FOR THE ABOVE YEARS W ERE COMPLETED U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AFTER MAKING VARI OUS ADDITIONS. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE LD. CIT (A) BUT PARTLY SUCCEEDED. 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L RAISING VARIOUS GROUNDS OF WHICH SOME ARE COMMON FOR VARIOU S YEARS. 6. FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHEREIN FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE RAISED. HOWEVER SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.2 FOR T HE ADDITION OF RS.13,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LOOSE PAPER BEARING NO. LPS-3 WAS ASHOK GUPTA IT(SS)NOS.59 TO 63 /IND/17 6 SEIZED AND IN PAGE-122 OF THE PAPER BOOK THERE IS A CALCULATION OF INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE GROUP DIRECTORS WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE MENTION OF DIVIDEND OF RS.3,993,580/-. ON THIS SEI ZED DOCUMENT THE DATES ARE MENTIONED AGAINST THE AMOUNTS. THE FI RST COLUMN OF THIS PAGE RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRANSACTI ONS MENTIONED THEREIN PERTAINS TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. SINCE THESE TRANSACTIONS DO NOT RELA TES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE. EVEN OTHERWISE THE ALLEGED ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE LOOS E PAPERS ARE THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. AYUSHMAN MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC P RIVATE LIMITED AND ARE DULY ENTERED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS. 7. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEM ENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. LD. A.O MADE THE ALLEGED ADDITIO N OF RS.13,00,000/- ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER LPS-3 PA GE-122. FROM PERUSAL OF THESE LOOSE PAPERS PLACED ON PAGE 122 OF PAPER BOOK FILED ON 6.3.2019, WE OBSERVE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN AMOU NTS MENTIONED AGAINST THE DATES. THREE COLUMNS ARE MADE, ONE EAC H FOR THE DIRECTORS OF AYUSHMAN MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC PRIVATE LI MITED. ASHOK GUPTA IT(SS)NOS.59 TO 63 /IND/17 7 ASSESSEE IS ALSO ONE OF THE DIRECTOR. COLUMN NO.1 RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS COLUMN AGAINST VARIOUS DATES WHI CH ARE FALLING IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 AND EARLIER PERIOD, 6 AMOUNT S ARE MENTIONED WHICH ARE TOTALING TO RS.13,00,000/-. TH ERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THIS FACT THAT THE DATES MENTIONED AGAIN ST THE AMOUNT SHOWN DO NOT PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. I T IS AN ESTABLISHED RULE THAT IF ADDITION IS MADE ON THE BA SIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT AND THERE IS A REFERENCE OF A DATE AGAINST THE AMOUNT, THEN THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CAN MAKE THE ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THESE DATE FALL. IN THE I NSTANT CASE THE ALLEGED ENTRIES TOTALING TO RS.13,00,000/- FALL IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 AND PRECEDING PERIOD. THEREFORE THE LD. A. O ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. F URTHER ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS PLACED ON THE PAPER BOOK WE FIND THAT THE ALLEGED ENTRIES OF RS.5,00,000/-, RS.5,00,000/-, RS .50,000/-, RS.50,000/-, RS.50,000/- AND RS.1,50,000/- TOTALING TO RS. 13,00,000/- ARE PAYMENT BY CHEQUE GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE TO AYUSHMAN MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC PRIVATE LIMITED. THIS FACT IS PROVED WITH THE BANK STATEMENT PLACED ON RECORD. WE CAN THEREFORE SAFELY CONCLUDE THAT LD. A.O GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING THE A DDITION OF ASHOK GUPTA IT(SS)NOS.59 TO 63 /IND/17 8 RS.13,00,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSE E FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS ALLOWED. THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE GEN ERAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED VIDE IT(SS)NO.59/IND/2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ST ANDS ALLOWED. 10. NOW WE TAKE UP ISSUE FOR THE ADDITION FOR UNEXP LAINED FOREIGN EXPENDITURE U/S 69C OF THE ACT. ON THIS ISSUE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 20 09-10 WHEREIN THE ADDITION OF RS.68,763/-, RS. 1,12,500/- AND RS.1,50,000/- RESPECTIVELY HAS BEEN MADE. IN ASSES SMENT YEARS I.E. 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 NO OTHER ISSUES HAS BE EN RAISED. HOWEVER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 APART FROM THIS ISSUES ASSESSEE HAS RAISED OTHER GROUNDS ALSO. 11. IN GROUND NO.2 ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDI TION OF UNEXPLAINED FOREIGN EXPENDITURE U/S 69C OF THE ACT AT RS.72,737/-. 12. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THIS COMMON ISSUES ARE THAT THE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FOREIGN CURRENCY IN US DOLLAR AND THAILAND CURRENCY WAS FOUND. ON BEING CONFRONTED IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT THE ASHOK GUPTA IT(SS)NOS.59 TO 63 /IND/17 9 ASSESSEE MADE VARIOUS FOREIGN TOURS IN THE PAST. I T WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR AND RUNNI NG AYUSHMAN MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC PRIVATE LIMITED. PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING COMPANIES SPONSORS SUCH TOURS AS ADVERTISEMENT. HO WEVER ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY CERTIFICATE OF THE SPON SORSHIP OF THE TOURS. LD. A.O ESTIMATED THE EXPENSES TAKING THE P ACKAGE RATES AS ON 21.2.2014. LD. A.O ASSESSED THE EXPENDITURE TAK ING THE PACKAGE RATE OF 21.1.2014 AND MADE THE ADDITIONS. 13. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE FO REIGN TOURS ARE NORMALLY SPONSORED BY THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND THE ADDITIONS ARE UN CALLED FOR AND MAY BE DELETED. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THE NON ABATED ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 14. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHE MENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 15. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED FOR 2007 -08, 2008-09, ASHOK GUPTA IT(SS)NOS.59 TO 63 /IND/17 10 2009-10 AND 2010-11 RELATES TO ADDITION OF FOREIGN TOURS EXPENDITURE OF FOLLOWING AMOUNTS; ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT 2007-08 RS. 68,763/- 2008-09 RS.1,12,500/- 2009-10 RS.1,50,000/- 2010-11 RS. 72,737/- 16. THE ENQUIRY ABOUT THE FOREIGN TOUR EXPENSES WAS INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS FOREIGN CURRENCY IN US DOLLAR AND THAILAND CURRENCY WAS FOU ND AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES. THEREFORE THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND RELATING TO THI S ADDITION IS UNCALLED FOR BECAUSE POSSESSION OF FOREIGN CURRENCY ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAS UNDERTA KEN SOME FOREIGN TOURS AND THUS THE NATURE AND ACCOUNT OF F OREIGN TOURS NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASE THE S AME IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE REGULAR RETURNS OF INCOME. THEREF ORE THE LEGAL GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT STAND AND WE PROCEE D TO DEAL WITH THE MERITS OF THE CASE. ASHOK GUPTA IT(SS)NOS.59 TO 63 /IND/17 11 17. FROM GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE OBSE RVE THAT ON PAGE-15 OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS MENT IONED THAT VIDE REPLY DATED 21.2.2014 ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ALLE GED FOREIGN EXPENDITURE WAS NEITHER RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF AC COUNTS NOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AGAINST FAMILY MEMBERS. HE I S ALSO NOT HAVING ANY CONFIRMATION REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT TH E FOREIGN TRIP WAS SPONSORED BY THE COMPANIES. SUCH EXPENDITURE WA S ALSO NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT NOR IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER TH E ASSESSEE IN ITS SUBMISSION HAS ADMITTED THIS AMOUNT TO BE ADDED AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME THEREFORE THE A.O MADE THE ADDIT ION. 18. WHEN THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP WITH LD. CIT(A), I N ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION THE ASSESSEE ONLY CLAIMED THE RELIEF OF THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS; ASSESSMENT YEAR PACKAGE RATE ON 21.02.2014 TOTAL EXPENDITURE AT TIME OF VISIT RE LIEF REQUESTED 2007 - 08 68763 66000 2763 2008 - 09 112500 84000 28500 2009 - 10 150000 112000 38000 2010 - 11 72737 62400 10337 2011 - 12 75000 75000 NIL ASHOK GUPTA IT(SS)NOS.59 TO 63 /IND/17 12 19. THE ABOVE STATED RELIEF WAS REQUESTED BECAUSE T HE LD. A.O APPLIED THE RATES AS OF 21.02.2014 FOR ALL THE YEAR S WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE RATES WERE LOWER IN T HE PREVIOUS YEARS. LOOKING TO THESE SERIES OF FACTS THERE IS NO DISPUT E TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VERY MUCH ACCEPTED TO OFFER UNACCO UNTED FOREIGN EXPENDITURE. HE HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THAT THE AMOUNT O F RS.66,000/-, RS.84,000/-, RS.1,12,000/- AND RS.62,400/- WAS INCU RRED ON HIS FOREIGN TOUR WHICH IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOR OFFERED AS INCOME IN THE RETURNS FILED. RELIEF HAS ONLY BEEN CLAIMED FOR THE PACKAGE RATES WRONGLY APPLIED BY THE LD. A. O FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS. WE FIND MERITS IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD. A.O OUGHT TO HAVE APPLIED LOWER PACKAGE RATES FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS AND SHO ULD NOT HAVE UNIFORMLY APPLIED THE PACKAGE RATE AS ON 21.02.2014 . THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE DESERVES THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY HIM BEFOR E THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. WE ACCORDINGLY DELETE THE ADD ITION OF RS.2763/-, RS.28,500/-, RS.38,000/- AND RS.10,337/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010 -11. THUS THIS COMMON ISSUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ASHOK GUPTA IT(SS)NOS.59 TO 63 /IND/17 13 20. NOW WE TAKE UP THE REMAINING GROUNDS FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010-11. 21. IN GROUND NO.3 FOR ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.10,27,060/- MADE BY THE LD. A.O ON ACCOUNT OF U NDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE ACT WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIR MED BY THE LD. CIT(A). LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED AND RELIED ON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION PLACED ON RECORD. 22. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY ARGU ED SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 23. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THROUGH GROUND NO.3 ASSESSEE HA S CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.10,07,060/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF U NDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE ACT. THE SOURCE OF THIS ADDITION WAS SEIZED DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH R ELATING TO PURCHASE OF IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY. THIS LOOSE PAPER B EARING A-4 PAGE 1 TO 14 IS A PHOTO COPY OF THE PURCHASE DEED REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF SMT. SUDHA JAIN (MOTHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSES SEE). FROM PERUSAL OF THE ALLEGED SEIZED MATERIAL WE OBSERVE T HAT THIS IS NOT A HAND WRITTEN DOCUMENT. IT IS A PHOTO COPY OF A REG ISTERED DOCUMENT OF PURCHASE DEED. IT CONTAINED DETAILS OF TWO PAYME NTS THROUGH ASHOK GUPTA IT(SS)NOS.59 TO 63 /IND/17 14 BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT. SUDHA JAIN. THE DOCUMENT IS I N THE NAME OF ASSESSEES RELATIVE. THE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF T HE PROPERTY WAS MADE OUT OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM SALE OF THE AGRICULTURE LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE DAMKHEDA. IN OUR CONSIDER ED VIEW SINCE THE ALLEGED SEIZED DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY EXPLAINED SINCE THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT DISPUTED, THEN NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE WELL WITHIN THEIR POWERS T O INVOKE PROVISIONS OF 153C OF THE ACT IN ORDER TO ASSESS SM T. SUDHA JAIN. HOWEVER SINCE BEFORE US THE ALLEGED DOCUMENT HAS BE EN DULY EXPLAINED THE SAME CANNOT BE AN INCRIMINATING MATER IAL AND THUS NO ADDITION OF RS.10,27,060/- WAS CALLED FOR U/S 69 B OF THE ACT AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) AND ALLOW ASSESSEES GROUND N O.3. 24. APROPOS GROUND NO.4 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.3,11,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH RECEIVED, BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH LOOSE PAPER A-1/5 PAGE NO. 3 TO 6 WAS SEIZED. THIS IS A DAILY REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT OF M/S. AYUSHMAN HOSPITAL. NAM E OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INDICATED. THIS PAPER CONTAINS THE TRANSACTIONS OF ASHOK GUPTA IT(SS)NOS.59 TO 63 /IND/17 15 THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE HOSPITAL. LD. A.O WAS O F THE VIEW THAT THIS AMOUNT IS THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE AND THE SAME WAS ADDED. NO RELIEF WAS GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A). NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND PRAYED FOR DELETING THE ADD ITION. 25. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHE MENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES. 26. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THOUGH GROUND NO.4 ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH OF RS. 3,11,000/-. THIS AMOUNT IS A TOTAL OF CASH RECEIPTS APPEARING ON THE LOOSE PA PER A-1/5 PAGE 3 TO 6. WE FIND THAT THIS PAPER IS A DAILY REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT OF AYUSHMAN HOSPITAL AND SEEMS TO BE A R EPORT OF TRANSACTIONS OF THE HOSPITAL RECEIVED FROM THE ACCO UNTS DEPARTMENT. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INDICATED ON THIS PAPER NOR IT IS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT IS PAID TO THE ASS ESSEE. IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THE LD. A.O CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT T HE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM DR. GOPAL BATNI. SUCH ADDITION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN MADE ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ADDIT ION IN THE HANDS ASHOK GUPTA IT(SS)NOS.59 TO 63 /IND/17 16 OF THE ASSESSEE FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH OF RS.3,11,000 /- WAS UNCALLED FOR SINCE THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION RELATED TO THE RE CEIPTS OF THE AYUSHMAN HOSPITAL AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXP LAINED CASH RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE ADDITION OF RS.3, 11,000/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE FINDIN G OF LD. CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY AD JUDICATION. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2010-11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 27. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006- 07 IS ALLOWED AND REMAINING APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.10.20 19. SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BOR AD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : 24 OCTOBER, 2019 /DEV COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE