Shri Hiren B.Parmar, Rajkot V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 657/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0927 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Rectification of order; Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 153A; 131; 69; 145

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SR. NO. IT(SS)A. NOS./ CO(S) A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 2 3 4 131/2011 132/2011 133/2011 134/2011 2003-04 2004-05 20050-6 2006-07 SHRI HIREN B. PARMAR, TIRTH, 2 MEGHMAYA NAGAR, NANA MAVA ROAD, RAJKOT. (ASSESSEE) PAN AJHPP9521 D ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), AHMEDABAD. (REVENUE) 5. 6. 7. 657/2011 658/2011 659/2011 2002-03 2007-08 2008-09 (BY ASSESSEE) ( BY REVENUE) 8. 9 10 11 241/2011 242/2011 243/2011 244/2011 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 (BY REVENUE) (BY ASSESSEE) 12 13 14 15 16 17. 85/2012 86/2012 87/2012 88/2012 89/2012 90/2012 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2007-08 2008-09 SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. PAN AOHPP 6393 J ( BY ASSESSEE) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), AHMEDABAD. (BY REVENUE) 18. 19. 139/2012 140/2012 2005-06 2006-07 (BY REVENUE) (BY ASSESSEE) 20. C.O.76/ 2012. IN 140/12 2006-07 (BY ASSESSEE) (BY REVENUE) IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 2 BY ASSESSEE : SHRI VARTIK R. CHOKSHI,A.R. BY REVENUE : SHRI R.I. PATEL, CIT (D.R.) / DATE OF HEARING : 13/08/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04/ 09/2015 / O R D E R PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT: IN THIS CASE, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE REVENUE, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, AHMEDABAD DATED 16-12-20 10 & 2-11-2011 IN RESPECT OF APPEALS AT SR. NOS.1 TO 11 FOR ASSESS MENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF SMT. GE ETABEN H. PARMAR APPELLATE ORDER IS DATED 1-12-2011 FOR A.YS. 2002-0 3 TO 2008-09. IT(SS) A NO.131 TO 134/2011 ASSESSEES AS WELL AS R EVENUES APPEALS IN THE CASE OF SHRI HIREN B. PARMAR FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09. 2. THE GROUND NO.1 WHICH IS COMMON IN ALL THE YEARS IN THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSEE I S WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATION OF PROFIT FROM THE SALE OF AUDIO AND VID EO CASSETTES BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT (A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE GROUND AND THEREFORE, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION DELETED W HILE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION SUSTAINED. IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 3 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL WAS SERVING WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS A CONSTAB LE WHO WAS DISMISSED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON 15-4-2000.SUBSEQUENT LY THE ASSESSEE STARTED THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION AND SALE OF AUDI T AND VIDEO CASSETTES. POLICE HAD CONDUCTED A SEARCH ACTION AGA INST THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR ON 10-09-2005 AND SEIZED VARIOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS, CASH AND VALUABLES . THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT SUB SEQUENTLY INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S. 132A OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961. AS CONSEQUENCE OF ACTION U/S.132A CONDUCTED BY THE INV ESTIGATION WING OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NOTICES UNDER SECTION 153A WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2002-03 TO 20 07-08. THE ASSESSEE ESTIMATED THE PROFIT FROM THE PRODUCTION AND SALE O F AUDIO AND VIDEO CASSETTES FOR VARIOUS YEARS. HIS OBSERVATION AND TH E WORKING IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT NEEDS TO BE PLACE ON RECORD T HAT AS STATED EARLIER BY HIS OWN ADMISSION THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODU CED MORE THAN 40 VIDEO ALBUMS AND MORE THAN 100 AUDIO ALBUMS. EVEN T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE SAME SUCH AS NAME OF THE ALBUM, YEAR OF PRODUCTION, NUMBER OF COPIES TAKEN OF EACH ALBUM YEAR-WISE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS OF ALBUMS PRODUCED AND COPIE S SOLD THEREOF, NUMBER OF VIDEO ALBUMS PRODUCED IS TAKEN AT 50 AND NUMBER OF COPIES SOLD THEREOF ARE TAKEN AS 9,00,000 COPIES ON THE BA SIS OF MATERIAL GATHERED AS A RESULT OF ACTION U/S. 132A OF THE I.T . ACT. SIMILARLY PRODUCTION OF AUDIO IS ESTIMATED AT 125 A ND NUMBER OF COPIES SOLD THEREOF ARE TAKEN AS 3,00,000 COPIES ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL GATHERED AS A RESULT OF ACTION U/S. 132A OF THE I.T .ACT. IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 4 ACCORDINGLY, PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SE ACTIVITIES I.E. PRODUCTION OF AUDIO AND VIDEO ALBUMS ARE WORKE D OUT AS UNDER:- AT THE COST OF REPETITION, IT IS REITERATED THAT PR OFIT IS ESTIMATED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY DOCUMENTATION O R BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF THIS ACTIVITY. SO CALLED PRO FIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ENCLOSED WITH RETURN OF INCOME IS NOTHING BUT FABRI CATED AND MANUFACTURED DOCUMENTS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS. ACCORDINGLY THE PROFIT OF RS.81 LACS FOR VARIOUS AS SESSMENT YEARS STANDS AS UNDER ON PRORATA. SR.NO. PERIOD A.Y. PROFIT 1 15 - 01 - 02 TO 31 - 03 - 02. 2002 - 03 2,00,000 2 01-04-02 TO 31-03-03 2003-04 22,57,000 3 01 - 04 - 03 TO 31 - 03 - 04 2004 - 05 22,57,000 4 01 - 04 - 04 TO 31 - 03 - 05 2005 - 06 22,57,000 5 01 - 04 - 05 TO 10 - 09 - 06 2006 - 07 11,29,000 TOTAL. 81,00,000 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT (A) REDUCED THE ESTIMATE OF I NCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIS OBSERVATION AND ESTIMATE OF P ROFIT IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE:- THE A.O. HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DETAILS OF SALE PRICE, COST AND SIMPLY GIVEN ESTIMATE OF PROFIT OF EACH OF THE COPIES. HOW E3VER, HE HAS TO CONSIDER THE COST WHICH IS NARRATED IN REPLY TO QUE STION NUMBER 9 BY THE ALBUM NO. OF COPIES SOLD PROFIT FROM EACH COPY. TOTAL PROFIT VIDEO 9,00,000 RS.8/- RS.72,00,000 AUDIO 3,00,000 RS.3/- RS. 9,00,000 TOTAL RS.81,00,000 IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 5 APPELLANT, WHICH IS RS. 5 TO 8 FOR BLANK COPY, COPY ING CHARGES OF RS.0.50, PACKING AND LABEL CHARGES. THUS COST IS RS .12 AND SALE PRICE IS ABOUT RS.16/-. THIS IS SPECIALLY EXPLAINED IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.4. THUS, THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE A.O. ITSELF IS NOT C ORRECT. HAVING REGARD TO THE POSITION ON FACTS, THE ESTIMAT E MADE BY THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT. HE HAS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERAT ION THE FACT AS RECORDED IN THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT DATED 14 -8-2007 RECORDED U/S. 131 (1A), WHEREIN, IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.9 THE AP PELLANT HAS STARTED THAT HE HAD PRODUCED 5 TO 6 LACS CDS OF VIDEO ALBUM S AND THE COST OF EACH BLANK CD WAS AROUND RS.8 AND COPYING CHARGES W AS ABOUT RS.0.50 AND IT WAS SOLD BY HIM TO SHIV VIDEO AT THE RATE OF ABOUT RS.16 PER COPY. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF THE AUDIO ALBUM, HE HAD SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT HE HAD PRODUCED ABOUT 2 LAKH COPIES AND COST OF EACH BLANK CD WAS ABOUT RS.8 TO 9 AND THAT SUCH CDS WERE SOLD FOR RS.12 PER CD. NOTHING CONTRARY IS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, I DO NOT ACCEPT THE WO RKING OF ESTIMATED PROFIT ON VIDEO AUDIO ALBUMS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. THE NUMBER OF CASSETTES SOLD AND SALE PRICE OF VIDE O AND AUDIO ALBUMS IS STATED BY THE APPELLANT TO BE AS UNDER: VIDEO CASSETTES - 6 LAKH CIOPIES AT THE RATE OF RS.16 PER COPY = RS.96,00,000/- AUDIO CASSETTES - 2 LAKH COPIES AT THE RATE O F RS.12 PER COPY = RS.24,00,000/- AS AGAINST THE ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THE COST OF BLANK CASSETTE AT ABOUT RS.9 AND THAT COPYING CHARGES OF RS.0.50. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT OTHER EXPENSES LI KE PACKING, LABEL ETC. ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AND CONSIDERING THIS IN THE ST ATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT RECORDED ON 27-11-2009, THE APPELLANT HAD STATED THAT THE PROFIT ON EACH VIDEO CASSETTE WAS RS.3.50 AND ON AU DIO CASSETTES OF RS.2/-. IT IS APPRECIABLE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TO INCUR COST OF BLANK CASSETTE AND COPYING CHARGES AND ALSO PACKING AND O THER EXPENSES. HOWEVER, TOTAL EXPENSES SO CLAIMED ARE ONLY ON LUMP SUM BASIS STATED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, I ESTIMATE THE COST OF EACH VIDEO CASSETTE AT RS.11/- AND AUDIO CASSETTE AT RS.9/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT ON EACH VIDEO CASSETTE IS ESTIMATED AT RS .5/- AND AUDIO IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 6 CASSETTE AT RS.3/-.THE PROFIT OVER THE PERIOD THERE FORE IS WORKED OUT AS UNDER: ON 6 LAKH VIDEO CASSETTE AT THE RATE OF 5/- = RS. 30,00,000/- ON 2 LAKH AUDIO CASSETTE AT THE RATE OF 3/- = R S. 6,00,000/- --------------------- RS. 36,00,000/- THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE INCOME FROM SALE OF AUDI O AND VIDEO CASSETTES IN DIFFERENT YEARS AS UNDER:- FINANCIAL YEAR NET INCOME AS PER P & L ACCOUNT 2002 - 03 50,750 2003 - 04 1,54,944 2004 - 05 8,46,238 2005 - 06 19,25,003 AS STATED BY THE APPELLANT AND EVEN ARTIEST FARIDAB EN IN HER STATEMENT THE FIRST VIDEO ALBUM WAS RELEASED IN 200 4 AND THEREFORE, THE SALE IS SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED AFTER THAT PERIOD. THIS FACT IS CONSIDERED IN THE ABOVE DISCLOSURE BY THE APPELLANT. EVEN IN A .Y. 2006-07, THE A.O. HAS BY PASSING RECTIFICATION ORDER, TAKEN THE INCOME FROM THIS ACTIVITY AT RS.19,25,000/- AS SHOWN IN THE RETURN. THEREFORE, OUT OF THE INCOME OF RS.36,00,000/-, AS ESTIMATED HEREINABOVE, RS.19,25,000/- IS TO BE TAXED IN A.Y. 2006-07 AND THE BALANCE INCOME OF RS.16,75,000/- IS TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IN THE EARLI ER YEARS ON THE BASIS OF THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS CARRIED O UT THIS ACTIVITY. AS STATED BY THE A.O. HIMSELF THE BUSINESS WAS STARTED IN JANUARY,2002 AND, THEREFORE, THE INCOME DURING THE A.Y. 2003-04 TO 2004-05 IS TO BE DISTURBED AS UNDER:- ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT (RS.) 2003 - 04 3,73,600/ - 2004 - 05 3,73,600/ - 2005 - 06 8,50,000/ - THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE INCOME AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ABOVE FIGURES. IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 7 5. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, THE CIT (A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.2 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE PRODUCTION AND SALE OF VIDEO AND AUDIO BUSINESS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE STARTED THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION AND SALE OF AUDIO AND VIDEO CASSETTES AFTER 15-01-2002 AND THEREFORE, THE PROBABILITY OF INCOME FROM SUCH BUSINESS IN A.Y. 2002-03 WAS NEGLI GIBLE. CIT (A) THEREFORE, ALLOCATED THE PROFIT FROM THE BUSINESS O F PRODUCTION AND SALE OF AUDIO AND VIDEO CASSETTES BETWEEN THE A.Y. 2003- 04, 2004-05 AND 2005-06. IN A.Y.2002-03 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS E STIMATED THE INCOME OF RS.1 LAC FROM VIDEO SHOOTING BUSINESS WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING OUT AT THE RELEVANT TIME. ASSESSEE HAD DIS CLOSED THE INCOME FROM VIDEO SHOOTING BUSINESS IN THAT YEAR AT RS.50, 912/-. ON APPEAL, THE CIT (A) SUSTAINED THE ESTIMATE OF RS.1 LAC FROM VIDEO SHOOTING BUSINESS IN A.Y. 2002-03. THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APP EAL BUT THE ASSESSEE ALONE IS IN APPEAL IN WHICH HE HAS CHALLENGED THE E STIMATE OF INCOME OF RS.1 LAC AS AGAINST RS.50,910/- DISCLOSED BY THE AS SESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ARGUMENT OF BOTH THE SIDES WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME OF RS.1 LAC FROM VIDEO SHOOTING BUSINESS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AN D THEREFORE, THE DETAILS OF RECEIPT FROM THE VIDEO SHOOTING AS WELL AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AVAILABLE. IN THE A BOVE CIRCUMSTANCES ESTIMATE OF INCOME OF RS.1 LAC FROM VIDEO SHOOTING BUSINESS IS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY UPHELD BY THE CIT (A). IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 8 6. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 TO 2006-07, THE DISP UTE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME FROM PRODUCTION AND SALE OF AUDIO AND VIDEO CASSETTES. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMAT ED THE SALE OF VIDEO CD AT 9 LAC WITH THE PROFIT OF RS.8 PER COPY. SIM ILARLY, HE ESTIMATED THE SALE OF AUDIO CASSETTE AT 3 LAC WITH A PROFIT O F RS.3 PER COPY. THE PROFIT DETERMINED WAS ALLOCATED IN THE 5 ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. RANGING FROM A.Y. 2002-03 TO 2006-07. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN WHICH HE CLAIMED TO HAVE SOLD 6 LAC COPIES OF THE VIDEO CASS ETTE AND 2 LACS COPIES OF THE AUDIO ALBUM BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOU T GIVING ANY BASIS OR MATERIAL ESTIMATED THE SAME AT 9 LACS AND 3 LACS RESPECTIVELY. 7. ON APPEAL, THE CIT (A) ESTIMATED SALE OF VIDEO C ASSETTE AT 6 LAC, AUDIO CASSETTE AT 2 LAC WHICH WAS IN CONFIRMITY WIT H THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. WE AG REE WITH THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) THAT NO JUSTIFICATION WAS GIVEN BY T HE A.O. FOR ENHANCING THE SALE OF VIDEO ALBUM AS WELL AS AUDIO ALBUM. CIT (A) HAS ALSO REDUCED THE ESTIMATE OF PROFIT FROM SALE OF EACH CO PY OF VIDEO AND AUDIO ALBUM. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE PR OFIT FROM SALE OF EACH VIDEO ALBUM AT RS.8 WHILE FROM SALE OF AUDIT A LBUM AT RS.3. THE CIT (A) ESTIMATED THE PROFIT FROM SALE OF VIDEO ALB UM AT RS.5/- AND AUDIO ALBUM AT RS.3/-. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUM ENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. T HE CIT (A) HAS POINTED OUT FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ESTIMATE OF THE PROFIT BY THE A.O. WAS EXCESSIVE. THE A.O. HAS NOT GIVEN ANY PROPER BASIS OR JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT FROM SALE OF EACH IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 9 CASSETTE BY ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS CONSIDERED THE CO ST OF PRODUCTION OF EACH VIDEO/AUDIO CASSETTES, PACKING CHARGES OF EACH CASSETTE AND ALSO THE SALE PRICE AND THEN ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT RS. 5 PER VIDEO CASSETTES AND RS.3 PER AUDIO CASSETTES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES WE ARE OF THE OPINI ON THAT THE ESTIMATE OF INCOME FROM PRODUCTION AND SALE OF VIDEO /AUDIO CASSETTE BY THE CIT (A) IS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE. WE THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE SAME AND REJECT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE ON THIS COUNT. 8. THE NEXT GROUND WHICH IS AGAIN COMMON FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2002-03 TO 2006-07 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL AS WELL AS IN REVENUES APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION FOR LOW WITHDRAWAL O F HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE FIGURES OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE DIS CLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE, ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. AND BY THE CIT (A) ARE AS UNDER:- ASSTT.YEAR HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE ESTIMATED BY A.O. HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE ESTIMATED BY CIT (A). 2002-03 48,000 1,38,000 1,20,000 2003-04 48,000 1,48,000 1,20,000 2004-05 66,500 1,66,500 1,20,000 2005-06 62,000 1,62,000 1,20,000 2006-07 62,000 1,62,000 1,20,000 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE WAS TWOFOLD. IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 10 (1) HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REASONABLE. (2) IF A HIGHER HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE IS ESTIMATED THEN THE SET OFF OF THE ADDITION SUSTAINED IN RESPECT OF THE BUSINESS I NCOME SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 10. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. IS THAT THE HOUS EHOLD ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. WAS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TWO WIVES AND 4 CHILDREN THUS TOTAL 7 MEMBERS IN HIS FAMILY INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. D.R. THEREFO RE, STATED THAT THE ESTIMATION OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE BY THE A.O. WAS REASONABLE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ARG UMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE HOUSEHOLD EXPE NDITURE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUFFICIENT. IN A.Y. 2002-03 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE INCURRED HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE ONLY OF RS.4000 /- PER MONTH WHICH CANNOT BE ADEQUATE CONSIDERING THE SIZE OF TH E FAMILY. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME WE AGREE WITH THE CIT (A) THAT THE ESTIMATE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE BY THE A.O. IS EXCESSIVE. HO WEVER, WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ESTIMATED THE HOUSEHOLD EXPEND ITURE OF THE SAME AMOUNT FOR ALL THE FIVE YEARS I.E. FOR A.Y. 2002-03 TO 2006-07. IN OUR OPINION WITH THE INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING THE EST IMATION OF SAME HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS CANNO T BE SAID TO BE JUSTIFIED. WE THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE C IT (A) SO FAR AS THE ISSUE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE IS CONCERNED FOR A.Y . 2002-03 & 2003- 04. IN OUR OPINION, IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO ESTIMATE THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE AT RS.11,000/- PER MONTH I.E. RS.1,32,000/- PER ANNUM FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AND FOR A.Y. 20 06-07 AT IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 11 RS.12,000/- PER MONTH I.E. RS.1,44,000/- PER ANNUM. WE AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE SET OFF OF T HE ADDITION MADE TO THE BUSINESS INCOME IS TO BE ALLOWED WHILE CONSIDER ING THE ADDITION FOR LESS HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIR ECT THE A.O. TO WORK OUT THE AVAILABILITY OF THE CASH WITH THE ASSE SSEE AND IF THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH IS SUFFICIENT TO INCUR THE HOU SEHOLD EXPENDITURE AS ESTIMATED ABOVE THEN NO ADDITION IS TO BE MADE IN R ESPECT OF THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 11. THERE IS NO OTHER GROUND IN THE ASSESSEES APP EAL FOR A.Y. 2003- 04. HOWEVER, FOR THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2003 -04 THERE IS ONE MORE GROUND WHICH IS WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.1,41,844/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,41,84 4/- FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR AND MANIBEN PARMAR. CIT (A|) DELETED TH E ADDITION WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:- 6.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND TH E ABOVE SUBMISSIONS. THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED COPY OF BAL ANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF GEETABEN PARMAR AND MANI BEN PARMAR, WHEREIN, THE INVESTMENT IN ABOVE PROPERTY IS REFLEC TED. THE P.A. NO. OF THESE LADIES IS AS UNDER: GITABEN PARMAR AOHPP 6393 J MANIBEN PARMAR AWGPP 8582 L IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 12 IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF THESE PER SONS ARE BEING MADE IN THE SAME WARD. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DO N OT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING THIS ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE A.O. MAY VE RIFY THE FACTS STATED ABOVE FROM THE RECORD AND DELETE THE ADDITION AFTER SUCH VERIFICATION. 13. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE CIT (A). ADMITTEDLY THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION I S IN THE NAME OF SMT. GEETABEN PARMAR AND SMT. MANIBEN PARMAR. BOTH ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX. THEREFORE, THE CIT (A) HAS HELD THAT TH E ADDITION FOR THE SAME CANNOT BE MADE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS A DIFFERENT ASSESSEE. HE HAS DIRECTED THE A.O. TO VERIFY THESE FACTS FROM THE RECORD AND DELETE THE ADDITION AFTER VERIFICATION. IN OUR OPINION THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY MODIFICATION AND T HE SAME IS UPHELD AND THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED . 14. THERE IS NO OTHER GROUND IN THE ASSESSEES APPE AL FOR A.Y. 2004- 05. HOWEVER, IN THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2004- 05 THERE ARE TWO MORE GROUNDS ONE IS WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.1,11,111/- MADE BY THE A.O. FOR UNEXPLAINED INVE STMENT IN THE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF SMT. GEETABEN H.PARMAR AND SMT. MANIBEN PARMAR. THIS GROUND IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE IN A.Y. 2003-04 AND FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION IN PARAGRAPH-13 ABOVE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS PO INT AND REJECT THE REVENUES GROUND OF APPEAL. IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 13 15. ANOTHER GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2004-05 IS WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,25,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PAYMENT OF INSURA NCE PREMIUM. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION WITH THE FOLLOWING FIN DING:- 7.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND TH E ABOVE SUBMISSIONS. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS SUBMITTED AL ONG WITH THE SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS NOTICED THAT TH E FOLLOWING AMOUNTS ARE REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF GITABEN, WIFE OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF P OLICY OF THE APPELLANTS SONS. POLICY NO. AMOUNT. 00777446 RS. 45,000/- 00778503 RS. 4 5,000/- THUS, THESE AMOUNTS ARE REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE S HEET OF GITABEN, APPELLANTS WIFE AND HENCE THERE IS NO REASON FOR C ONSIDERING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLAN T, PARTICULARLY WHEN GITABEN HAS REFLECTED SUCH PAYMENTS IN HER BOO KS AND THAT SHE IS BEING ASSESSED WITH THE SAME WARD. THE ADDITION OF THESE TWO AMOUNTS IS, THEREFORE, NOT JUSTIFIED AND IS DELETED. THE A. O. MAY CONSIDER THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF GITABEN IF HE FINDS IT NECESSA RY. THE P.A. NO. OF GITABEN IS ALREADY STATED IN THE EARLIER PARA. FURTHER, THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS ARE NOT REFLECTING ANY PAYMENT BUT IT IS IN THE NATURE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/WELCOME LETTER OF THE ABOVE SAID TWO POLICIES AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE COPIES TH EREOF SUBMITTED WITH THE APPELLANTS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. AS SUCH, THE S AME BEING NOT PAYMENT AND ONLY FORMAL FORWARDING LETTER OF POLICI ES REFERRED TO EARLIER AND THE SAME ARE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. POLICY NO. AMOUNT REMARKS 51102594 R S.45,000/ - IT A WELCOME LETTER IN RESPECT OF POLICY NO.00777446 OF SAMARTH H. PARMAR WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF GITABEN AS DISCUSSED EARLIER. 51102592 RS.45,000/ - IT A WELCOME LETTER IN RESPECT OF POLICY IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 14 NO.778503 OF TIRTH H. PARMAR WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF GITABEN AS DISCUSSED EARLIER. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAID TWO AMOUNTS IS ALSO DELETED. THE LAST AMOUNT OF POLICY NO.50728168 STATED IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING PAYMENT OF RS.45,000/- IS ALSO A WELCOM E LETTER IN RESPECT OF POLICY NO.00782236 IN THE NAME OF RUTHVI HIRENBHAI PARMAR AND IT IS STATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAID PAYMENT IS RE FLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF MANIBEN PARMAR, APPELLANTS SECOND WIFE. THE ADDITI ON IS THEREFORE, NOT ACTUAL PAYMENT AND THAT THE ACTUAL PAYMENT IN RESPE CT OF THE POLICY FOR WHICH THIS LETTER IS ISSUED AND REFLECTED IN THE BO OKS OF MANIBEN PARMAR. THE A.O. IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO DELETE THIS ADDITION. HE MAY CONSIDER THE DETAILS AND FACTS IN CASE OF MANIBEN P ARMAR, WHOSE P.A. NO. IS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT AS STATED IN THE EARLIER PARA. 16. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE A.O. HAS RECORDED THAT OUT OF 5 AMOUNTS OF RS.45,000/- CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. FOR MAKING THE ADDITION, THERE WERE ONLY 2 PAYMENTS OF RS.45,000/- EACH AS THE INSURANCE PREMIUM. THE OTHER THREE WERE WELCOME LET TER IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN POLICIES. HE HAS ALSO RECORDED THE FINDING THAT THESE TWO PAYMENTS OF RS.45,000/- EACH WERE ALREADY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF SMT. GITABEN. HERE ALSO THE CIT (A) HAS DIRECTED T HE A. O. TO VERIFY THESE FACTS AND THEN DELETE THE ADDITION. 17. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ABOVE DIREC TIONS OF THE CIT (A) THE SAME IS SUSTAINED AND THIS GROUND OF THE RE VENUE IS REJECTED. 18. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN THE ASSESSEES A PPEAL ONE MORE GROUND IS RAISED THAT IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIO N OF RS.5,88,355/- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT (A) IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 15 MOVABLE ASSETS. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.5,88,355/- IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES O F FOLLOWING MOVABLE ASSETS:- NATURE OF ASSETS DATE OF ACQUISITION COST/INVESTMEN T CAMERA 29-10-2004 RS. 2,75,000/- COMPUTER 26-02-2005 RS. 8,000/- COMPUTER 30-03-2005 RS. 40,900/- FURNITURE 01-08-2004 RS. 2,61,000/- FURNITURE 29-01-2005 RS. 3,455/- TOTAL COST/INVESTMENT RS. 5,88,355/- 19. THE CIT (A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUN D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITIO N OF EACH AND EVERY ASSET. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE CONTEN TION OF THE LD. COUNSEL WAS LIMITED TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE CANNOT BE SEPARATE ADDITION FOR THE INCOME AS WELL AS THE APPLICATION OF INCOME. HE STATED THAT YEAR AFTER YEAR SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS INCOME IS ESTIMATED AND THE ACQUISITION OF THESE BUSINESS ASSETS WERE ONLY THE APPLICATION OF THOSE INCOME BY ACQUIRING ASSETS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSIN ESS. HE THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT IF THE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE OUT OF TH E BUSINESS INCOME AS FINALLY ASSESSED IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AND IN THIS YEAR IS SUFFICIENT TO FINANCE THE ASSET THEN NO SEPARATE ADDITION CAN BE MADE. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW AND HE STATED THAT WHEN THE ACQUISITION OF THESE ASSETS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SPECIFI C SOURCE FOR ACQUISITION OF EACH AND EVERY ASSET, THE CIT (A) WA S FULLY JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FAC TS OF THE CASE AND THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES WE AGREE WITH THE CONTE NTION OF THE LD. IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 16 COUNSEL THAT THE SEPARATE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE F OR THE INCOME AND APPLICATION OF SUCH INCOME. HOWEVER, WHETHER THE EN OUGH CASH IS AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT IN THOSE ASSETS NEEDS VERI FICATION AT THE HAND OF THE A.O. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS POINT AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE A.O. WE DIRECT HIM TO VERIFY THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH WITH THE ASSESSEE AND IF CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN THE A SSETS FOUND THEN NO ADDITION WOULD BE MADE FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT I N ASSETS. WE ALSO DIRECT HIM TO ALLOW ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE RE-ADJUDICATING THIS ISSUE. 20. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 THERE ARE TWO MORE GROUNDS ONE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF THE A DDITION OF RS.3 LAC WHICH WAS MADE BY THE A.O. U/S. 69 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY OF SMT. MAN IBEN PARMAR AND SMT. GITABEN PARMAR. THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IS CONSID ERED BY US FOR A.Y. 2003-04 AND FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION IN PARAGRAP H -13 THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS POINT IS SUSTAINED. 21. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND IN THE REVENUES APPEAL O R A.Y. 2005-06 IS WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.3, 95,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PAYMENT OF I NSURANCE PREMIUM. THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IS CONSIDERED BY US WH ILE DECIDING THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2004-05.IN THIS YEAR ALSO THE CIT (A) HAS RECORDED THE FINDING THAT ACTUAL PAYMENT IS ONLY RS .1,95,000/- WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF SMT. MANIBEN H. IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 17 PARMAR. HE HAS OBSERVED THAT SMT. MANIBEN PARMAR IS ASSESSED TO TAX SEPARATELY AND A.O. MAY CONSIDER THIS INVESTMENT IN THE CASE OF SMT./ MANIBEN, IF HE FINDS IT NECESSARY. IN RESPECT OF OT HER PAYMENT HE HAS RECORDED THE FINDING THAT IT IS ONLY THE WELCOME LE TTER IN RESPECT OF OTHER POLICIES. IN THIS REGARD ALSO HE HAS DIRECTE D THE A.O. TO CONSIDER THE DETAILS AND AFTER VERIFICATION DELETE THE ADDIT ION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THIS DIRECTION OF THE CIT (A). THE REFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD AND REJECT THE REVENUES GROUND AGAINST THE DELETION OF RS.3,95,000/- IN RESPECT OF INSURANCE PREMIUM. 22. THERE IS NO OTHER GROUND IN ASSESSEES APPEAL F OR A.Y. 2006-07. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST TH E DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 31,50,609/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE A .O. U/S. 69 OF THE ACT FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH AND JEWELLERY. THE RELEVAN T FINDING OF THE A.O. READS AS UNDER:- CASH AND JEWELLERY SEIZED ON 10-09-2005. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, POLICE DEPARTMENT RAJKOT HAS CONDUCTED SEARCH ACTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE SM T. GEETABEN H. PARMAR ON 10-09-2005 AND SEIZED CASH OF RS.23,00,00 0/- AND GOLD JEWELLERY WORTH RS.8,50,609/-. THE ASSESSEE VIDE SH OW CAUSE NOTICE WAS REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SEIZED CASH AND GOLD JEWELLERY. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, M/S. Y.C. ANARKAT & ASSOCI ATES, CAS., AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DT. 27-11-2009 HAVE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE JEWELLERY SEIZED BY QUOTI NG CBDTS INSTRUCTION NO.1916 DT. 11-05-1994. IN THIS CONTEXT , IT NEEDS TO BE MENTIONED THAT THOUGH IN THIS INSTRUCTION CBDT HAS TAKEN SYMPATHETIC VIEW TOWARDS THE SEIZURE OF JEWELLERY CONSIDERING T HE STATUS OF FAMILY, CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES OF THEIR COMMUNITY ETC. HOWEV ER, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT AN ELEMENT OF CONCEALED INCOME INVOLVED T HEREIN NOT TO BE IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 18 TAXED AND NEITHER THE CBDT HAS PROVIDED SUCH EXPLAN ATION IN THIS CIRCULAR. THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SU STAINABLE AND THEREFORE, REJECTED. ACCORDINGLY, VALUE OF JEWELLER Y SEIZED IS BROUGHT TO TAX IN ASSESSEES HAND AMOUNTING TO RS.8,50,609/- U /S. 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271( 1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARE INITIATED FOR DEFAULT COM MITTED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT SECTION. AS REGARDS TO CASH SEIZED THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED T HAT THE TOTAL CASH BALANCE IS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF HIMSELF , HIS WIFE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ETC. AS MENTIONED EARLIER THE RESULT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ARE TOTALLY REJ ECTED BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,196 1. AS STATED EARLIER, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FABRICATED, N OT RELIABLE AND THEREFORE, RESULTS THEREOF ARE REJECTED. ACCORDINGL Y, CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.23,00,000/- SEIZED IS BROUGHT TO TAX IN ASSESSEE S HAND U/S. 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 2 71(1)(C ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961, ARE INITIATED FOR DEFAULT COMM ITTED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT SECTION. 23. ON APPEAL, THE CIT (A) SET ASIDE THE ISSUE OF A DDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION: 6.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND TH E ABOVE SUBMISSIONS. IN SO FAR AS THE JEWELLERY FOUND IS CO NCERNED, THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY FOUND WA S 1064.650 GMS. AS AGAINST WHICH THE JEWELLERY AS PER THE CIRCULAR, WH ICH COULD BE CONSIDERED WAS 1400 GMS. THE VARIOUS BENCHES OF ITA T, AHMEDABAD HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E SHOULD BE GIVEN CREDIT FOR THE JEWELLERY HELD AS PER THE CIRCULAR . ACCORDINGLY, AS THE JEWELLERY FOUND IS LESS THAN THE WEIGHT ENVISAGED I N INSTRUCTION NO.1916, THE ADDITION OF RS.8,50,609/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 24. THUS WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS NOT DELETED T HE ADDITION OF RS.23,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF CASH FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BUT HAS ONLY DIRECTED T HE A.O. TO CONSIDER THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH WITH THE ASSESSEE, AFTER C ONSIDERING THE INCOME IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 19 IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ABOVE DIRECTION OF THE CIT (A). IN FACT, WHILE CONSIDERIN G THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE MOVABLE ASSET FOR A.Y. 2005-06 WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE WITH A SIMILAR DIRECTION. WE THEREFORE, UPHOL D THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT (A) WITH REGARD TO CASH FOUND AND SEIZED DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 25. WITH REGARD TO THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN J EWELLERY CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6.3. IN SO FAR AS CASH FOUND IS CONCERNED, IT IS N OTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT . THE QUANTUM OF UNACCOUNTED CASH COULD BE DETERMINED ONLY WHEN CASH FLOW STATEMENT, ON THE BASIS OF INCOME RETURNED/ASSESSED IS PREPARE D. IN THE EARLIER PARAS OF THE INSTANT APPELLATE ORDER, THE INCOME FR OM THE VIDEO AND AUDIO ALBUM ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN DE TERMINED AT RS.36.00 LACS FOR A.Y. 2002-03 TO 2006-07. IN A.Y. 2006-07, THE APPELLANT HAS DECLARED RS.19,25,000/- FROM VIDEO AND AUDIT ALBUM ACTIVITIES. BASED ON SUCH ESTIMATES AND CONSIDERING THE CASH INCOMING /OUTGOING AND INVESTMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED THAT WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE INSTANT APPELLATE ORDER, TO PREPARE CASH FLOW S TATEMENT AND THEN DETERMINE THE UNACCOUNTED CASH, IF ANY. THE CASH AV AILABLE WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF REC ORDS SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE DOING TH IS EXERCISE. THIS ISSUE IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. 26. THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS 1064.650 GMS. AS PER THE INSTRUCTION OF THE CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.191 6, CONSIDERING THE MEMBERS IN THE FAMILY JEWELER UPTO 1400 GMS SHOULD NOT BE SEIZED. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. BUT THE ONLY ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD. D.R. WAS THAT ABOVE INSTRUCTION OF THE CBDT WAS WITH REGARD TO THE SEIZURE OF THE GOLD ORNAMENTS AND NOT WITH REGARD TO THE IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 20 EXPLANATION OF THE GOLD ORNAMENTS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE AGREE WITH THE LD. D.R. THAT THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS WI TH REGARD TO THE SEIZURE OF THE GOLD ORNAMENT BUT A CONSISTENT VIEW IS TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT SUCH INSTRUCTION SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED WHILE CONSIDE RING WHETHER THE ORNAMENT IS UNEXPLAINED OR NOT. THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION OF THE CBDT IS BASED UPON THE PROBABILITY OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE GOLD ORNAMEN T WITH A MARRIED LADY AND UNMARRIED LADY CONSIDERING CUSTOMS PREVAILING IN OU R COUNTRY. SUCH PROBABILITY WOULD BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE WHILE CONSI DERING SUCH GOLD ORNAMENTS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE CIRCULAR AND DELET ED THE ABOVE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 27. THE ANOTHER GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE FOR A. ,Y. 2006-07 IS WITH REGARD TO REDUCTION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.13,6 1,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPER TY TO RS.2,61,000/-. A.O. MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.13,61,0 00/- WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER: INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESS EE WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED TO FURNISH DETAILS OF VARIOUS IMMOVABLE ASSETS PURCHASED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN RESPONSE TO THIS SPECIFIC QUERY, ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 25-08-2009 PROVIDED THE DETAILS OF ASSETS ACQ UIRED DURING THE VARIOUS YEARS. THESE DETAILS REVEAL THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES OF IMMOV ABLE ASSETS AS DETAILED HEREIN UNDER:- NATURE OF ASSETS PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF DATE OF ACQUISITION. A.Y. COST/INVESTMENT. SHOP SHRI HAREN IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 21 NO.19, RAJKOT. BECHARBHAI PARMAR. 13 - 06 - 2005 2006 - 07 RS. 5,50,000/ - TOTAL COST/ INVESTMENT RS.5,50,000/- FURTHER AS PER PAGE-76 OF ANNEXURE A-2 SEIZED U/S. 132A OF THE I.T. ACT, IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,11,000/- IN CASH TO SHRI P.D. BHOJANI FOR THE PURCHASE OF ABOVE MENTIONED SHOP. SINCE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF PAYMENTS FOR ACQUI SITION OF ABOVE ASSETS AND REGARDING CASH PAYMENT, THE ENTIRE INVES TMENT OF RS. 13,61,000/- IN THE AFORESAID ASSETS IS BROUGHT TO T AX IN THE ASSESSEES HANDS U/S.69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961, ARE INITIA TED FOR DEFAULT COMMITTED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT SECTION. 28. THE CIT (A) SET ASIDE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE F ILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING:- 7.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND T HE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOTICED THAT PAYMENT OF RS.13,61 ,000/- COMPRISES OF 2 FIGURES. THE FIRST AMOUNT IS OF RS.5,50,000/- FOR INVESTMENT IN SHOP AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN TO THE A.O. BY THE APPELLANT AND THE SECOND AMOUNT IS OF RS.8,11,000/- IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE INV ESTMENT ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT TH E AMOUNT OF RS.5,50,000/- IS ACCOUNTED IN HIS BOOKS AND REFLECT ED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE SOURCE THEREOF IS INCOME DISCLOSED/TAXED OVER THE PERIOD. IT HAS BEEN REPRESENTED BEFORE ME THAT THE FIGURE OF R S.8,11,000/- INCLUDED INVESTMENT OF RS.5,50,000/- AND SEIZED DOCUMENT REL ATES TO THE SAME SHOP PREMISES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TH AT WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE INSTANT APPELLATE ORDER, VERIFY THIS POINT A ND IF IT SO, THEN RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS.2,61,000/- (RS.8,11,000 RS.5,5 0,000).THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO PASS A SPEAKING OR DER ON THIS POINT. 29. THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS MISCONCEIVED WHERE IN THEY HAVE MENTIONED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS REDUCED THE ADDITION FROM IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 22 RS.13,61,000/- TO RS.2,61,000/-. THE CIT (A) HAS ON LY SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF A.O. TO VERIFY THE ASSES SEES CONTENTION THAT THE SUM OF RS.5,50,000/- IS ALREADY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THAT THE FIGURE OF RS.8,11,000/- WRITTEN ON A P APER IS INCLUSIVE OF RS.5,50,000/-. WE THEREFORE, FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS POINT. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 2008-09. 30. THE FIRST COMMON GROUND IN BOTH THE YEAR IS AGA INST THE ESTIMATION OF THE INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF PRODU CTION AND SALE OF AUDIO/VIDEO CASSETTES AND VIDEO SHOOTING. FOR A.Y. 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE INCOME OF RS.1,04,423/-AND F OR A.Y. 2008-09 AT RS.2,07,550/-. ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE TRADI NG RESULT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NO T PRODUCE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ACCORDINGLY HE ESTIMATED THE P ROFIT AT RS.3 LAC AND RS.5 LAC RESPECTIVELY FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND 2008 -09. 31. ON APPEAL, THE CIT (A) UPHELD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT HE REDUCED THE ESTIMATE OF PROFIT MADE BY THE A.O. HE ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF RS.2 LAC FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND RS.3 LA C FOR A.Y. 2008- 09.THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A ), WHILE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION SUSTAINE D BY THE CIT (A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ARG UMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT BY HIM IS QUITE REASONABLE AND THEREFORE, NO RELIEF IS DUE TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS THIS GROUND OF THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 23 32. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS AGAINST THE ESTIMATION OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITUR E OF RS.96,000/- FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND RS.95,000/- FOR A.Y. 2008-09. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,25,000/- FOR LOW WITH DRAWAL OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE IN A.Y. 2007-08 AND RS.1,50,0 00/- IN A.Y. 2008- 09. ON APPEAL, THE CIT (A) ESTIMATED THE HOUSEHOL D EXPENDITURE OF RS.10,000/- PER MONTH. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MAD E WAS REDUCED. THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A) WHILE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION SUSTAINED. WE HAVE ALRE ADY DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2002-03 TO 20 06-07. FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION THEREIN WE HOLD THAT THE HOUSEH OLD EXPENDITURE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND NUMBER OF FAMILY MEMBERS. IN FACT WE HAVE ESTIMATED THE HIGHER HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE THAN WHAT IS ESTIMATED BY THE CIT (A) IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. HOWEVER, AS THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL, THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT (A) I N THIS REGARD AND REJECT ASSESSEES GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH WAS AGAINS T THE ADDITION SUSTAINED FOR LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. A.Y. 2002-03 TO 2008-09. 33. THE ONLY GROUND IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL/C.O. F OR ALL THE YEARS IS AGAINST ESTIMATION OF INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF P RODUCTION AND SALE OF AUDIOVIDEO CASSETTES AS WELL AS VIDEO SHOOTING. THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN ALL THE YEARS EXCEPT A.Y. 2005-06 AND 2006-07. IN THESE TWO YEARS THE REVENUE HAS CHA LLENGED THE IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 24 REDUCTION OF ESTIMATION BY THE CIT (A) IN RESPECT O F INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE YEAR-WISE POSITION OF THE INCOME DISC LOSED BY THE ASSESSEE, ESTIMATE MADE BY THE A.O. AND THE CITA (A ) IS AS UNDER:- ASSTT.YEAR INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. INCOME ESTIMATED BY A.O. INCOME ESTIMATED BY CIT (A). 2002-03 79,256 1,50,000 1,20,000 2003-04 80,077 1,75,000 1,20,000 2004-05 1,43,925 2,50,000 2,00,000 2005-06 2,40,718 3,50,000 3,00,000 2006-07 2,40,539 4,00,000 3,00,000 2007-08 2,10,824 4,00,000 3,00,000 2008-09 2,28,008 4,50,000 3,00,000 34. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION SUSTAI NED BY THE CIT (A) IN ALL THE YEARS EITHER BY WAY OF APPEAL OR BY WAY OF CROSS OBJECTION. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE REDUCTIO N IN THE ESTIMATE OF INCOME BY THE CIT (A) ONLY IN A.Y. 2005-06 AND 2006 -07. 35. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAIN ED THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. THEREFORE, THE BUSINESS PROFIT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION OF AUDIO-VIDEO CASSETTES AND THE VIDEO SHOOTING IS NOT VERIFIABLE AND THEREFORE, RESULT SHOWN BY THE ASSES SEE AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE A.O. BY INV OKING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145 OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ARGUMENT OF THE SIDES IN OUR OPINION THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT BY THE CIT (A) IS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 25 JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. ACCORDING LY THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2002-03 TO 2005-06 C.O. FOR A.Y. 20 06-07 AND APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 ARE REJECTED. THE REVENUES GROUND NO.,1 IN BOTH THE YEARS I.E. A.Y. 2005-06 AND 2006-07 ARE AL SO REJECTED. 36. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND IN THE REVENUES APPEAL F OR A.Y. 2005-06 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OFRS.11,01, 000/- MADE BY THE A.O. FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN RESPECT OF IMMOV ABLE PROPERTY. THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDI NG IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY SATISFACTO RY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF PAYMENTS FOR ACQUISITION OF ABOVE ASSETS, THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT OF RS.1,00,000/- IN THE AFORESAID ASSETS IS BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE ASSESSEES HANDS U/S. 69 OF THE INCOME T AXC ACT,1961. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1) (C) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 ARE INITIATED FOR DEFAULT COMMITTED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT SECTION. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AS WELL A S CLARIFICATION IN RESPECT OF SOME CALCULATION APPEARING ON PAGE NO.130 OF THE ANNEXURE A-5 SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THE JOINT NAMES OFSAMT. MANIBEN H. PARMAR AND SM T. GEETABEN H. PARMAR ACCORDING TO WHICH THE COST OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS.10,01,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION TILL DATE THEREFORE THE ABOVE TRANSACTION IS CONSIDERED AS UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 ARE INITIATED FOR COMMITTING DE FAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT SECTION. 37. THE CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION WITH THE FOLLO WING FINDING:- IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 26 5.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND TH E CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT. SO FAR AS ADDITION OFRS.1,00,000/- IS CO NCERNED, IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT IS REFLECTED IN BALANCE SHEET AND THAT THEREFORE, THE SOURCE THEREOF IS REFLECTED IN THE B OOKS. APART FROM THIS, THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT FROM YEAR TO YEAR IS ADEQUATE TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN SUCH PROPERTY. HENCE, THE ADDITI ON OF RS.1,00,000/- IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE SAME IS DELETED. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OFRS.10,01,000/- IS CONCERN ED, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE SAID LOOSE PAPER DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY DATE AND IT WAS A ROUGH CALCULATION AND THAT NO SUCH PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED FOR RS.10,01,000/-. ON PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF SEIZED PAPERS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, I FIND THAT NO SUCH SPE CIFIC CALCULATION APPEAR AND NO SPECIFIC ASSET IS REFERRED TO IN SUCH CALCULATION SO AS TO PRESUME THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR TO THAT EXTENT OF RS.10,01,000/-. T HE ADDITION IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 38. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ARG UMENTS BY BOTH THE SIDES WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A). SO FAR AS INVESTMENT OF RS.1 LAC IS CONCERNED IT WAS EXPLAINE D BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE SAME IS ALREADY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE S HEET. MOREVOER, THE ASSESSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS YEAR AND IN THE PREC EDING YEAR IS MUCH MORE THAN TO FINANCE FOR THE INVESTMENT OF RS.1 LAC. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.10,01,000/- IS CONCERNED IT WAS REITERATED BY TH E LD. COUNSEL THAT NO ASSET WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE QUES TION OF ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT DOES NOT ARISE. THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LOO SE PAPER WAS ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE US AND FROM THE SAID LOOSE PAPER WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE A.O. THAT THERE WAS ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.10,01,000/-. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE AB OVE LOOSE PAPER ONLY REFLECTED THE TOTAL OF RS.73,000/-. HOW THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT THE INVESTMENT OF RS.10,01,000/- FROM THE SAID LOOS E PAPER IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR. IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 27 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD AND REJECT THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 39. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND RAISED IN THE REVENUES A PPEAL FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.8,50,609/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE A.O. FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE SIMILAR ADD ITION IS MADE BY THE A.O. AT TWO PLACES ONCE IN THE CASE OF SHRI HIR EN B. PARMAR AND AGAIN IN RESPECT OF HIS WIFE I.E. THE PRESENT ASSES SEE. HE STATED THAT THE SAME JEWELLERY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TWICE. THE LD. D.R. WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL. 40. WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE WHILE CON SIDERING THE REVENUES APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI HIREN B. PARMA R FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. SINCE THE JEWELLERY HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN HIS CASE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ONCE AGAIN IN THE CAS E OF HIS WIFE SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. MOREOVER WHILE DECIDING THE APP EAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI HIREN B. PARMAR WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT T HE JEWELLERY FOUND WITH THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED IN THE LIGHT OF INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE CBDT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). IN THE RESULT, BOTH TH E APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. /- / SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGRAWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD; DATED 04/09/2015 PATKI IT(SS)A NO.131,132,133,134,657,658,659,241,242,243/2011 85 TO 902012 & 139,140/2012 & CO.76/2012. SHRI HREN B. PARMAR & SMT. GEETABEN H. PARMAR. FOR AYS 2002- 03 TO 2008-09. 28 ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! / CONCERNED CIT 4. ! ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. $%& '' , , )*++ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &,- . / GUARD FILE. ' # $ / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY %/$ &' ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD