Mr. Jignesh M. Agrwal, V. The Dy.CIT., Cent. Circle-1,

ITSSA 82/AHD/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8924 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2004
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K R MEGHWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M BAKSHI ARS; S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Document seized; Documents seized

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL, A M MR. JIGNESH M. AGRAWAL, MAHESHKRUPA, BHAYOLWADI, DALIA SOCIETY, BODELI, DIST. BARODA VS. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, BARODA. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR & M. BAKSHI, ARS RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI K. R. MEGHWAL, CIT, DR O R D E R PER D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RAISING FO LLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) THE LD. CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN INCLUDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.59,465/- BEING THE VALUE OF GOLD AND J EWELLERY FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE, IN THE DETERMINATION OF UND ISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE INCLUSION OF RS.59, 465/- BEING ERRONEOUS IN FACTS AND IN LAW AS DIRECTED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. (2) THE LD. CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND I N FACTS IN INCLUDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.65,000/- BEING THE VAL UE OF GOLD AND JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE, IN THE T ERMINATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE INCL USION OF RS.65,000/- BEING ERRONEOUS IN FACTS AND IN CASE AS DIRECTED IT(SS)A NO.82/AHD/2004 BLOCK PERIOD1/4/1990 TO 23/1/2001 IT(SS)A NO.81/AHD/2004 BLOCK PERIOD 1/4/1990 TO 23/1/2001 2 TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. (3) THE LD. CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND I N FACTS IN INCLUDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.27,200/- IN THE DETERM INATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD. THIS AMO UNT IS ALLEGED TO BE REPRESENTING THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITUR E INCURRED IN THE RENOVATION/REPAIR OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. AO ARE ERRONEOUS IN FACTS AND IN LAW AND THEREFORE, DESERVE TO BE EXCLUDED/DE DUCTED IN THE COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 2. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT A T THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT T HEREOF THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 5/10/2001 DECLARING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.15,49,986/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS THE AO PROPOSED FOLLOWING ADDITIONS:- UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS PER RETURN FILED U/S 158BC RS.15,49,986/- ADD: UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN AC & STABILIZER. UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN GOLD JEWELLERY UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN SILVER UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE RS.28,196/- RS.59,465/- RS.65,000/- RS.27,200/- RS.1,79,861/- TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME RS.17,29,847/- I.E RS.17,29,850/- IT(SS)A NO.81/AHD/2004 BLOCK PERIOD 1/4/1990 TO 23/1/2001 3 THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS HOLDING THAT - - TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND WAS 1619.19 GSM. THE AO HAS GIVEN RELIEF OF 1450 GMS. AND HAS ONLY ADDED THE VALUE OF BALANC E OF 170 GMS. WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.59,465/-. - SIMILARLY THERE IS NO EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF S ILVER ARTICLES VALUING RS.65,000/- - THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.27,000/- AS REFLECTED FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE DISCLOSURE. - THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN AC AND STABILIZER WAS APPARENTLY ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NO GROUND WAS TAKEN UP IN RESPECT OF THIS ADDITION. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES AND RENOVA TION OF HOUSE SHOULD BE TREATED AS COME OUT OF SURPLUS CASH BALANCE AVAILAB LE WITH SHRI MANUBHAI AGRAWAL AS WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF CASH DEFICIT AND CASH OUTFLOW STATEMENT. 4. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DECL INE TO INTERFERE. WHETHER ANY UNACCOUNTED CASH SURPLUS WAS AVAILABLE OR NOT IS A QUESTION OF FACT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AT THE INITIAL STAGE ITSELF. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE O R BY SHRI MANUBHAI AGRAWAL AT ANY STAGE EXCEPT RAISING THIS ARGUMENT F OR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US. SINCE THE CLAIM IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIA L EVIDENCE, WE DECLINE TO ACCEPT IT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ACCOUNTS O F SHRI MANUBHAI IT(SS)A NO.81/AHD/2004 BLOCK PERIOD 1/4/1990 TO 23/1/2001 4 AGRAWAL AND SHRI JIGNESH M. AGRAWAL ARE DIFFERENT. CASH AVAILABLE WITH THEM IS DIFFERENT AND THERE IS NO TRANSACTION SHOWI NG FREQUENT EXCHANGE OF SUCH UNACCOUNTED MONEY BETWEEN THEM. THERE IS NO SUCH RECORD FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. WE ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THIS CLAI M. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15/10/10. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 15/10/10. MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1.DATE OF DICTATION 12/10/2010. 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 13/10/2010 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.. 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . IT(SS)A NO.81/AHD/2004 BLOCK PERIOD 1/4/1990 TO 23/1/2001 5 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..