Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3548 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
11 year(s) 8 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date
20-12-2017
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
01-05-2017
Assessment Year
misc
Appeal Filed On
05-04-2006
Judgement Text
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.:- 305/DEL /2005 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1995 T O 8.11.2001 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI. VS. LATE DR. A.H. RIZVI, THROUGH L.H. SMT. AFRIN RIZVI, A-232, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.:- 306/DEL /2005 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1995 T O 8.11.2001 LATE DR. A.H. RIZVI, THROUGH L.H. SMT. AFRIN RIZVI, A-232, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT (SS) A NO.:- 40/DEL/2006 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1995 T O 8.11.2001 MRS. AFRIN RIZVI, A-232, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI . VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SMT. APARNA KARAN, CIT(DR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. SAMPAT. ADVOCATE SHRI V. RAJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 10/10/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT /12/2017 ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 2 IT (SS)A NO.:- 93/DEL/2006 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1995 T O 8.11.2001 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI. VS. MRS. AFRIN RIZVI, A-232, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. THE AFORESAID CROSS APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE R EVENUE AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE IMPUGNED ORD ER DATED 31.3.2005 IN THE CASE OF LATE DR A.H. RIZVI, THROUG H LEGAL HEIR, SMT. AFRIN RIZVI; AND ORDER DATED 12.1.2006 IN THE CASE OF SMT. AFRIN RIZVI, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)III, NEW DELHI FOR TH E QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 158BC FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4. 95 TO 8.11.2001. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPE ALS ARE COMMON ARISING OUT OF IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THEREFORE, THE SAM E WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONS OLIDATED ORDER. 2. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP THE CROSS APPEALS OF LATE DR. A.H. RIZVI. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN REDUCING THE ADDITION FROM RS.94,52,393/- TO RS.33,15,399/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVES TMENT IN DEPARTMENT BY: SMT. APARNA KARAN, CIT(DR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. SAMPAT. ADVOCATE SHRI V. RAJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 12/10/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/12/2017 ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 3 AGRICULTURE LAND & FARM HOUSE AT VILLAGE BHAGOOWALA SAHARANPUR. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,64,59,981/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. C.I.T. (A) HAS ERRED IN REDUCING THE ADDITION OF RS.44,99.006'- TO RS.27,99,954/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN FARM HOUSE AT VILLAGE FATEHPUR BERI. CHATTARPUR, MEHRAULI, NEW DE LHI ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C.I.T. (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,40,100/- MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BEING PERQUISITE VALUE OF RE NT FREE ACCOMMODATION ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MEDICAL PROFESSION (DERMA DOCTOR/SKIN SPECIALIST). A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132(1) WAS CARRIED OUT AT HIS RESIDENTIAL, B USINESS PREMISES, AS WELL AS HIS FARM HOUSE AND BANK LOCKER S ON 8.11.2001. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 158BC, ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN UND ISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.14,30,000/- FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. ON SC RUTINY OF VARIOUS SEIZED DOCUMENTS, IT WAS REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS WIFE; SMT. AFRIN RIZVI HAD MADE INVESTMENTS IN PURCHASE OF A GRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF THEIR SON, MR SAIF RIZVI AND DAUG HTER, MS. SOHEER RIZVI; AND SMT. JAMILA BEGAM AND SMT. AQUILA BEGUM WH O WERE THEIR RELATIVES. AS MANY AS 16 SALE DEEDS WERE FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AT VILLAGE BHAGUWALA, DISTRICT SAHARANPUR. THE DETAILS OF THESE S ALE DEEDS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AT PAGE 3 AND 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 4 REF. O F SEIZED ANNEXURES DATE OF PURCHASE AREA PURCHASE PRICE AS PER DEED (RS.) STAMP DUTY PAID (RS.) VALUE AS PER CIRCLE RATE (RS.) IN THE NAME OF A - 10/129 13.8.97 12 BIGHA 14 BISWA 152400 23000 287200 DR. A.H. RIZVI A - 26/1 - 12 25.7.97 2 BIGHA 13 BISWA 24075 4760 59205 - DO - A - 35/1 - 29 - DO - 8 BIGHA 6 BISWA 74925 14000 174825 - DO - A-35/50-51 29.7.97 5 BIGHA 11 BISWA 50100 9360 116920 - DO - A - 26/13 - 14 22.9.98 6 BISWA 5000 880 10130 MRS. AFRIN RIZVI A - 26/17 - 25 7.10.97 2 BIGHA 7 BISWA 32100 6250 81500 - DO - A - 26/26 - 37 7.9.98 4 BIGHA 4 BIS WA 53100 9040 112050 - DO - A - 26/46 - 52 7.10.97 11 BISWA 8000 1640 20375 - DO - A - 12/18 - 20 8.8.97 4 BIGHA 3 BISWA 37465 7040 87675 - DO A - 29/1 - 2 29.8.97 5 BIGHA 11 BISWA 51000 9360 116970 - DO - A - 29/3 - 11 13.8.97 13 BIGHA 3 BISWA 159150 22120 273150 SAIF RIZVI A - 32/1 - 16 13.6.97 11 BIGHA 16 BISWA 141600 20720 258785 - DO - A-32/17-31 13.8.97 4 BIGHA 8 BISWA 54000 7480 93030 SOHEER RIZVI A - 32/32 - 41 - DO - 19 BIGHA 2 BISWA 228450 32160 401914 - DO - A - 10/10 - 31 25.7.97 5 BIGHA 10 BISWA 49650 9280 115850 ZAMILA BEGUM & AKILA BEGUMK A-35/30-32 - DO - 4 BIGHA 36075 8720 108675 -DO- ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 5 A 4. BEFORE THE AO IT WAS CONTENDED THAT INVESTMENT I N THE LANDS WERE MADE BY THE RESPECTIVE OWNERS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND, ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEES SON, MR SAIF RIZVI AND HIS DAUGHTER, M S. SOHEER RIZVI WERE NOT INCOME TAX ASSESSEES ON THE DATE OF SEARCH A ND THEY WERE ALSO NOT FILING THEIR RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE AS SESSEE HAD PREPARED A BALANCE SHEET OF HIS CHILDREN AS ON 31.3 .98 AND 31.3.1999 WHICH WAS FILED DURING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS TO JUSTIFY THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THEM IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE OPENING CAPITAL IN THE CASE OF HIS SON WAS SHOWN AT RS. 7,14 ,425/- AND IN THE CASE OF DAUGHTER AT RS. 6,23,260/-. APART FROM THAT, AO NOTED THAT NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER COULD BE FILED TO JUSTIFY SUCH A H UGE CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND ALSO SOURCES OF INCOME AND SAVINGS. TH US, AO HELD THAT INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF THE C HILDREN WERE ASSESSEES OWN UNDISCLOSED INCOME. AS REGARDS THE LA ND STANDING IN THE NAME OF THE TWO RELATIVES, SMT. JAMILA BEGUM AND SM T. AQUILA BEGUM, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THEY WERE THE REAL OWNERS O F THE LAND AND IN SUPPORT; SWORN AFFIDAVITS OF THESE TWO LADIES WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO AFFIRMING THAT THEY HAVE BOUGHT THE LANDS. HOWEV ER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THEY HAVE NOT MENTIONED THEIR SOURCE OF INC OME, AMOUNT OF INCOME EARNED, EXPENSES INCURRED AND SAVINGS MAD E FOR INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IN THE FARM HOUSE AT SAHARAN PUR. HENCE THESE AFFIDAVITS DO NOT CONSTITUTE MUCH EVIDENTIARY VALU E TO PROVE THAT THESE LADIES HAVE BOUGHT THE LAND FROM THEIR OWN SOUR CES OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE INVESTMENT IN THE LAND WHICH STOOD IN THE NAME OF THESE TWO LADIES WAS ALSO HELD TO BE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE PURCHASE VALUE WAS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE. DURING THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO ALSO C ARRIED OUT INQUIRY THROUGH INVESTIGATION WING, SAHARANPUR TO ASCE RTAIN FROM THE LOCAL REVENUE OFFICE ABOUT THE EXACT AREA OF LAND OWNE D BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 6 AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THE DETAILS OBTAINED FROM PAT WARI (LAND REVENUE OFFICER) OF THE TEHSIL GAVE THE FOLLOWING RE PORT:- DATE OF PURCHASE / KHATA NO. AREA VALUE AS PER CIRCLE RATE (RS.) IN THE NAME OF 12.5.2000 40 BIGHA 840000 DR. A.H, RIZVI 12.11.1997 51 BIGHA 1071000 -DO- /51 10 BIGHA 210000 -DO- /163 22 BIGHA 462000 -DO- /198 70 BIGHA 1470000 -DO- /200 7 BIGHA 147000 -DO- 24.1.2000 50 BIGHA 1050000 SAIF RIZVI 3.11.1997 15 BIGHA 315000 JAMILA BEGUM & AQUILA BEGUM 12.11.1997 12 BIGHA 252000 -DO- -DO- 3 BIGHA 63000 -DO- TOTAL: 280 BIGHAS 58,23,300/- 5. THE INVESTIGATION WING HAD ALSO EXAMINED ONE S HRI M.A KHAN THROUGH WHOM THE DEAL OF PURCHASE OF LAND WAS CARRIE D OUT AND IN HIS STATEMENT ON OATH HE STATED THAT THE CONSIDERATION OF PURC HASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE THAN CIRCL E RATE. WHEN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI M.A. KHAN WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESS EE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI M.A. KHAN APPEARS TO HAVE MISUNDERSTO OD THE QUESTION AND HE LATER ON HAS CLARIFIED BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT THAT TRANSACTIONS WERE DONE AT LOWER THAN CIRCLE RATE AND NO T ABOVE IT. HOWEVER, THE AO REJECTED SUCH AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY S HRI M.A. KHAN. THE AO NOTED THAT TRANSACTION OF THE PURCHASE OF LAND HAS TAKEN PLACE ABOVE THE CIRCLE RATE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE CONTENTS AND SEIZED ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 7 PAPERS A-20/40 AND A-12/41 WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO REBUT. ON THE BASIS OF THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AO CONCLUDED TH AT RS. 33 LACS WAS INVESTED IN AGRICULTURAL LAND OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES HAD GIVEN DETAILED EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS AND THE VALUE O N WHICH THESE AGRICULTURAL LANDS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED. THE AO HELD THAT, SINCE THE PURCHASE DEED AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN F OUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE BURDEN O F PROOF WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE WHICH COULD NOT BE DISCHARGED AT ALL AND THUS, HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATIO N TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4A). B EFORE THE AO, ON THE ISSUE OF INVESTMENT IN THE FARM HOUSE, ASSESSE E HAD ADMITTED INVESTMENT OF RS. 10,86,910/- IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF F ARM HOUSE BUILDINGS AT RS. 9,81,910/- AND INVESTMENT IN DEEP TUBE WELL AT RS. 1,05,000/-. OUT OF THIS SUM IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE THAT RS. 4,22,011/- HAS BEEN INVESTED BY HIM AND RS. 3,49,50 0/- BY HIS WIFE; AND RS. 3,15,399/- BY SMT. JAMILA BEGUM AND SMT. AQUI LA BEGUM. SO FAR AS THE INVESTMENT CLAIMED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSE ES WIFE SMT. AFRIN RIZVI THE SAME HAS BEEN ALREADY CONSIDERED IN HER BLOCK ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS. 7,37,410/- WAS MADE. AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION AND ANALYSING THE VARIOUS DOCUMEN TS AND THE INQUIRY REPORT, THE AO HAD MADE AGGREGATE ADDITION OF RS. 94,52,393/- THE BREAKUP OF WHICH CAN BE SUMMARISED IN THE FOLLOWI NG MANNER:- I. ADDITION OF RS. 20,83,994/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE BHAGOOWALA, SAHARANPUR MADE ON THE BASIS OF 16 SALE DEEDS SEIZED AT THE PREMISES OF TH E APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 8 II. ADDITION OF RS. 30,00,000/- FOR INVESTMENT IN AGRICULT URAL LAND AT VILLAGE BHAGOOWALA AT SAHARANPUR MADE ON THE B ASIS OF DOCUMENT OF SHRI M.A. KHAN, SEIZED AT THE TIME OF S EARCH NUMBERED AS A-20140 AND A-12141 OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND INCORPORATED AT PAGES 10 & 11 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. III. ADDITION OF RS. 40,53,000/- FOR INVESTMENT IN AGRICULT URAL LAND AT VILLAGE BHAGOOWALA AT SAHARANPUR MADE ON BA SIS OF PATWARI'S INFORMATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDINGS OF ASSESSEES FAMILY AT BHAGOOWALA, SAHARANPUR. IV. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE FOR CONSTRUCTION O F FARM HOUSE AND DEEP TUBE WELL OF RS.7,37,410/-. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ITEMS OF (I), (I I) AND (III) RELATE TO INVESTMENTS IN THE SAME PARCELS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT BHAGOOWALA VILLAGE AT SAHARANPUR. 6. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), ASSESSEE GAVE DETAILE D SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO FILED CERTAIN EVIDENCES WHICH WERE CONFRON TED TO THE AO BY THE LD. CIT (A) BY CALLING FOR THE REMAND REPORT. ASSE SSEES EXPLANATION ON THE VARIOUS ASPECTS HAS BEEN DEALT BY HIM FROM PA GES 9 TO 17 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER AND AOS REMAND REPORT HAS BEEN DEAL T BY HIM FROM PAGES 18 TO 23 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. ONE OF THE MAJOR CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT, AS PER THE PATWARI RE PORT, THE MEASUREMENT OF THE LANDS HAD BEEN GIVEN AT 280 BIGHAS, WHICH IN FACT IS IN THE FORM OF KUCCHA BIGHA, WHEREAS THE PUCCA BI GHA IS ONLY 93. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE SALE DEED AND ALSO THE CERTIFI CATE FROM THE PATWARI WHICH CERTIFIES THAT, ONE PUCCA BIGHA IS EQUAL TO 3 KUCCHA BIGHAS. THE DETAILS OF SUCH RECONCILIATION OF PUCCA B IGHA INTO KUCCHA BIGHA IS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 9 NAME OF THE OWNER BIGHA BISWA DR. RIZVI 23 12 AFRIN RIZVI 21 12 SAIF RIZVI 15 09 SOHER RIZVI 23 10 ZAMILA & ALKILA 9 10 _________________________ 93 13 PATWARIS INFORMATION TOTAL LAND OWNED BY PUCCA BIGHA KUCCHA BIGHA DR. RIZVIS FAMILY 84-3-0 250 ZAMILA & ALKILA 9-10-0 30 -------------- ---------------- 93-13-0 280 1 PUCCA BIGHA = 3 KUCHCHA BIGHA 93.65 * 3 = 280.95 7. REGARDING VARIOUS SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL LAND ETC., THE ASSESSEE HAS JUSTIFIED THE SAME BY VARIO US EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS WHICH HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE LD. CIT (A) I N HIS CONCLUSION PART ALSO. LD. CIT (A) SO FAR AS THE LAND STANDING I N THE NAME OF ASSESSEES CHILDREN, I.E., MR. SAIF RIZVI (SON), MS . SOHEER RIZVI (DAUGHTER), HELD THAT SINCE THESE CHILDREN HAVE NOT FIL ED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME AND DID NOT HAD ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, THEREFOR E, SAME HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS R EGARDS THE SALE DEED/ LAND RECORDS IN THE NAME OF TWO RELATIVES, I.E. , SMT. JAMILA BEGUM AND SMT. AQUILA BEGUM, HE HELD THAT MERE FILING OF AFFIDAVIT DOES NOT PROVE THAT INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THESE T WO PERSON, THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE INVESTMENT OF PURCHASE OF A GRICULTURAL LAND ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 10 IN THE NAME OF THESE TWO LADIES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. SO FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONE PUCCA BIGHA IS EQUIVALENT TO THREE KUCCHA BIGHAS, LD. CIT (APPEALS) TO OK NOTE OF LETTER/CERTIFICATE FROM PATWARI WHICH CLEARLY STATED THAT , ONE PUCCA BIGHA IS IN FACT EQUIVALENT TO THREE KUCCHA BIGHAS. PAT WARI HAS ALSO GIVEN THE DETAILS OF LAND HOLDING AND ALSO A CERTIFICA TE ASCERTAINING THE AREA OF LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY M EMBERS. ADMITTING THE SAID CERTIFICATE, LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT AO IS NOT JUS TIFIED IN REJECTING SUCH A CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE LAND REVENUE AUTHORITY. LD. CIT (A) ALSO MADE HIS OWN RESEARCH AND INQUIRY THROUGH AN IN TERNET SITE OF KRISHI SEWA, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT, ONE PUCCA BIGHA IS ACTUALLY EQUIVALENT TO 3 KUCCHA BIGHA. THE PRINTOUT FROM THE GOVT. SITE HAS ALSO BEEN ANNEXED WITH THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORD ER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING TH E SALE DEED, LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT IT STANDS ESTABLISHED THAT ASSESSEES C ONTENTION IN THIS REGARD IS CORRECT. HE HAD ALSO NOTED THAT DETAILS F ILED BY THE LOCAL REVENUE AUTHORITIES BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WING CLEARL Y MENTIONS THE DATE OF MUTATION, I.E., AS TO WHEN THE LAND HAS BEEN TRAN SFERRED IN THE NAME OF DIFFERENT PURCHASERS AND THE SALE DEED SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROVIDES THE DATE OF REGISTRATION. BA SED ON THESE MATERIALS, HE HELD THAT FOR ASCERTAINING THE INVESTMENT M ADE IN THE LAND, THE AREA AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED SHOULD BE ADOPTED. 9. REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 30 LACS MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS A-20/40 AND A-12/41, THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF CASH, THE RELEVAN T OBSERVATION AND FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 11 SUBMISSIONS, SEIZED DOCUMENTS, FINDING OF THE AO IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS REMAND REPORT HELD AS UNDER:- 5.8. THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS THE ADDITION O F RS. 30,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF SEIZE D DOCUMENTS I.E. A-20/40 AND A-12/41 WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE A PAR T OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE A.O. THOUGH THE BOTTOM LINE OF PAGE 13 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER STATES, 'FURTHER IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE DISCUSSION AND AS PER NOTINGS ON PAPERS SEIZED VIDE ANNEXURE A- 12/41 AND A-20/40 INVESTMENT IN LAND NOT RECORDED I N BOOKS OF ACCOUNT (AND PAID OVER AND ABOVE MENTIONED IN THE P URCHASE DEED) AMOUNTING TO RS. 33,00,000/- IS INCLUDED IN T OTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME.' HOWEVER, WHILE MAKING THE ADDI TION ON PAGE 14 OF THE ORDER WHICH GIVES A BREAKUP OF THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 94,52,393/- THE A.O. HAS ADDED ONLY A SUM OF RS. 30 ,00,000/-. I HAVE PERUSED THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND BOTH THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION. PAGE 40 OF ANN. A-2 0 GIVES THE GRAPHIC DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT BROUGHT AND AS TO HOW IT HAS BEEN SPENT. THE A.O. VIDE HIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 12 .12.04 HAS WORKED OUT THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENTS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF LAND AT VILL. BHAGUWALA. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF TH IS SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 12.12.04 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- ANNEXURE A-20 PAGE NO. 40 IS ALSO WRITTEN DOCUMENT IN WHICH DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF L AND AT VILL. BHAGOOWALA, DISTT. SAHARANPUR IS RECORDED. THIS DOC UMENT HAS RECORDED THAT DR. A.H. RIZVI HAS BROUGHT CASH FROM DELHI. THIS DOCUMENT HAS FURTHER RECORDED THE OUTGOINGS. THE DE TAILS ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 12 DATE RECEIPT OUTGOINGS 8.7 LAND FROM VINOD GUPTA 1,00,000/- PAPER WORK 10,625/- DRAFT (PREPARED FROM CASH) 7,36,400 /- _____________ 8,47,025/- 13.7 11,00,000/- LAND 7,1 7,340/- (CASH BROUGHT FROM DEL HI 18,000/- BY DR. RIZVI) ADVANCE 10,000/- __________ 7,45,340/- 16.7 G.P. (GANGA PD.) 10,00,000/- (CASH BROUGHT FROM DELHI BY DR. RIZVI) 5,70,000/- MUZAFFAR (DEED WRITTEN) 61,000/- COURT FEE 13,000/- EXP. 350/- ADV. MD. KHAN 1,00,000/- DRAFT 1,58,000/- PAY ORDER 83,000/- ADV. TO ARCHITECT 2,000/- ________ ________ 9,87,450/- 25.7 CASH RS. G.P.(GANGAPD.) 12,00,000/- (CASH BROUGHT FROM DELHI DR. RIZVI) 5,00,000/- ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 13 COURT FEE 11,250/- STAMP PAPER 48,500/- -DO- 10 ,480/- PEON 50/- MUZAFFAR 7,960/- ____________ 5,78,240/- 29.7 LAND SHAKEEL 92,000/- STAMP 9, 360/- PAPER 25/- FORM 2,350/- PEON 20/- 50/- TYPE 60/- - 400/- OFFICE CHARGES 1,200/- PATWARI 500/- 300/- ARCHITECT 2,000/- COMMON 2,000/- _______________ 1,10,36 0/- TOTAL RS. 32,68,415/- 5.9 THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT RE GARDING THE SOURCE OF CASH WAS AS UNDER:- RS.3,70,000/- DECLARED IN BLOCK RETURN OF DR. A. H. RIZVI RS. 1,60,000/- DECLARED IN BLOCK RETURN OF AFRIN RI ZVI RS. 5,35,720/- AGRL. INCOME AS PER DOCUMENTS SEIZED ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 14 RS. 8,00,000/- JAMILA BEGUM RS. 5,34,280/- AQUILA BEGUM RS. 5,00,000/- RAM JIYAWAN PANDEY RS.4,00,000/- VINDESHWARI PRASAD DWIVEDI APPROX. RS. 33,00,000/- AS FAR AS THE SUM OF RS. 3,70,000/- AND RS. 1,60,00 0/- IS CONCERNED, THE SAME HAS BEEN ADMITTED AS UNDISCLOSE D INCOME BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE IN THEIR BLOCK RETURNS. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS THE MONEY CLAIMED TO BE BELONGING TO MS. JAMILA BEGUM AND MS. AQUILA BEGUM, RAM JIYAWAN PANDEY AND VINDESHWAR I PRASAD DWIVEDI OF RS.8,00,000/-, RS. 5,34,280/-, RS . 5,00,000/- AND RS. 4,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY ARE CONCERNED, ONLY AFFIDAVITS HAVE BEEN FILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE AP PELLANT. HOWEVER, THESE AFFIDAVITS CANNOT BE TAKEN ON THEIR FACE VALUE AS NO OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED TO E STABLISH THAT CASH WAS ACTUALLY HANDED OVER BY THESE PARTIES TO T HE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO UNBELIEVABLE THAT TWO PERSONS NAMELY SH. RAM JIYAWAN PANDEY AND SH. VINDESHWARI PRASAD DWIVEDI WHO CLAIM ED TO HAVE GIVEN RS. 5,00,000/- AND RS .4,00,000/- IN CAS H TO THE APPELLANT, WILL GIVE SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT OF CASH UNL ESS AND UNTIL THE DEAL WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE FOR LAND HAD REACH ED A VERY MATURE STAGE ULTIMATELY NO LAND HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY THESE TWO PERSONS AND IT IS CLAIMED THAT THEY RECEIVED TH E MONEY BACK, PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY THAT THESE PERSONS HAD GIVEN THE CASH FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND IS AGAINST THE ASSESS EE AS THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THESE TWO PERSONS DIRECTLY OR SOMEBODY ON THEIR BEHALF NEGOTIATED WITH THE PROSPE CTIVE SELLERS OF LAND. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IN T HIS REGARD CANNOT ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 15 BE ACCEPTED. AS REGARDS CLAIM OF RS. 5,35,720/- WHI CH IS STATED TO BE OUT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME, IT IS A MATTER OF REC ORD THAT SOME BILLS OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE HAVE BEEN SEIZED DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. BUT, ONE FAILS TO UNDERSTAND AS TO HOW T HE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE DERIVED AGRICULTURE INCOME EVEN BEFORE P URCHASE OF LAND. THEREFORE, THE BILLS OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE S EIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CANNOT BE RELIED AND LENT ANY CRED ENCE. THEREFORE, WHOLE OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 33 LACS HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND T HE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT IS CONFIRMED. 5.10 ANOTHER ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS OF RS. 7, 37,410/-. AS PER THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT INVESTMENT OF RS. 10,86,910/- HAS BEEN MADE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF FA RM HOUSE AND DEEP TUBE WELL. THE INVESTMENT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY SMT. AFRIN RIZVI AT RS. 3,49,500/-HAS BEEN CONSIDER ED IN HER HANDS. THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 3,15,399/- IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE OF MS. JAMILA BEGUM AND RS. 4,22,011/- IN THE APPELLANT'S HANDS. IT IS CLAIMED BY THE LD. AR THAT INVESTMENT OF RS. 4,22,011/- HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED BY DR. RIZVI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 99-2000 AND OF RS. 4,20,000/- I N THE RETURN FILED BY MS. AFRIN RIZVI FOR THE A.Y. 99-2000. IT I S FURTHER CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT THAT INVESTMENT OF RS. 3,00,000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY MS. JAMILA BEGUM AND MS. AQUILA BEGUM AS PER THE IR AFFIDAVITS FILED. AS THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 4,22,011 /- HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT TO TH AT EXTENT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO CANNOT BE UPHELD. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENT MADE BY MS. JAMILA BEGUM AND MS. AQUI LA BEGUM, ONLY AFFIDAVITS HAVE BEEN FILED AND THE SAME CANNOT BE TAKEN ON THEIR FACE VALUE AS THESE ARE WITHOUT ANY CORROBORA TIVE EVIDENCE ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 16 WHATSOEVER. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT O F RS. 3,15,399/- IS UPHELD. THUS, LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 33 LACS TO BE ASSESSED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND FURTHER SUM OF RS . 3,15,399/- OUT OF INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF FARM HOUSE AND TUBE WELL. 10. LASTLY, REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.40,53,000 /-, THE SAME HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS HOL DING 280 BIGHAS OF LAND OUT OF THAT, ASSESSEE HAS ONLY DISCLO SED 87 BIGHAS AND THEREFORE, ON SUCH A DIFFERENCE AO HAS APPLIED PURCH ASE PRICE AT RS. 21,000/- PER BIGHA AND MADE THE ADDITION. THE RELEVAN T FINDING AND CONCLUSION OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE IS AS UND ER:- 5.11 ANOTHER ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS OF RS. 4 0,53,000/-. THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING 280 BIGHAS OF LAND AND OUT OF THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED 87 BIGHAS AND BY ADOPTING TH E PURCHASE PRICE AT RS. 21000/- PER BIGHA. AS PER THE LD. AR T HAT THE TOTAL LAND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS RELATIVES IS A S REFLECTED IN THE SEIZED 16 SALE DEEDS AND THE TOTAL LAND HOLDING AS PER THE DEEDS WORKS OUT TO 93 BIGHAS AND 10 BISWAS. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS SOME ERROR WITH RESPECT T O THE LAND AREA IN THE SALE DEED ANN. A-I0/129. IN THIS SALE DEED O N PAGE NO.3 IT IS STATED THAT THE AREA OF LAND PURCHASED BY THE' A PPELLANT IS 7 BIGHA 2 BISWA. HOWEVER, THIS IS ERRONEOUSLY SHOWN A S 12 BIGHA 14 BISWA ON PAGE 3 AND 13 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT SHOULD BE AMENDED TO T HIS EXTENT. IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AREA OF LAND OWNED BY TH E APPELLANT IS 23 BIGHA 12 BISWA AND THIS FACT IS CORROBORATED BY THE CERTIFICATE ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 17 FROM PATWARI DATED 11.6.04 WHICH STATES THE AREA BE LONGING TO THE APPELLANT IS 23 BIGHA 10 BISWA. IT IS FURTHER ARGUE D THAT IN THIS CERTIFICATE IT IS ALSO STATED THAT ONE PUCCA BIGHA IS EQUIVALENT TO 3 KACHA BIGHAS. WITH REGARD TO THE CONFUSION ABOUT TH E KACCHA BIGHA AND PUCCA BIGHA, IT IS STATED THAT THE PREVAL ENT MODE OF ENTRIES IN THE LAND REVENUE RECORDS IS THAT THE LAN D IS SHOWN IN KACHHA BIGHAS WHILE THE SALE DEEDS ALWAYS RECORD TH E AREA IN PUCCA OR PUKHTA BIGHA. 5.12 THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. BY TAK ING THE LAND HOLDING AS GIVEN BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO ADIT (IN V.) SAHARANPUR. HOWEVER, AS I HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN ESTABLISHING THAT ONE PUCCA BIGHA IS EQUIVALENT TO 3 KACCHA BIGHA. THEREFORE, I FEEL THERE IS NO JUSTIFI CATION IN TAKING THE HOLDING OF LAND AT 280 BIGHAS. I HAVE ALREADY HELD ABOVE THAT THE LAND HOLDING WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ONLY OF THE AREAS AS MENTIONED IN THE REGD. SALE DEEDS W HICH HAVE BEEN SEIZED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. AFTER SUBTRACTING 87 BIGHAS F ROM 280 BIGHAS AND MULTIPLYING IT BY RS. 21,000/- I.E. THE CIRCLE RATE. THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS I.E. A-12/41 AND A-20/40 GIVE GRAP HIC DETAILS OF THE MONEY INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE PU RCHASE OF LAND AT VIII. BHAGUWALA. EVEN IF THE CIRCLE RATE AS MENT IONED IN THE SALE DEED IS ADOPTED THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY ME OF RS. 33,00,000/- WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISC LOSED INVESTMENT IN THE LAND IS CALLED FOR AND THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.40,53,000/- IS DELETED. ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 18 5.13 ANOTHER ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS OF RS. 20 ,83,994/- ON ACCOUNT OF LAND HOLDINGS AS APPEARING IN THE SALE D EEDS PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT HIS SON AND DAUGHTER AN D HIS TWO RELATIVES I.E. SMT. JAMILA BEGUM AND SMT. AQUILA BE GUM. THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF CIRCLE RATES AS GIVEN IN THE SALE DEEDS ITSELF. I HAVE ALREADY UPHE LD THE ADDITION OF RS. 33,00,000/- MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCU MENTS I.E A- 20/40 AND A-12/41. THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED ON THE SE PAGES RELATE TO PURCHASE OF THE SAME AGRICULTURE LAND. TH EREFORE, NO FURTHER ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF LAND IS CALLED FOR AS IT WILL TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS. 20,83,994/- IS DELETED. SO IN THIS MANNER, OUT OF AGGREGATE ADDITION OF RS. 94 ,52,393/- ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS AT RS. 33,15, 399/-. 11. BEFORE US, LD. CIT (DR), AFTER REFERRING TO THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS AND FINDING OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE COM MENTS MADE IN THE REMAND REPORT, SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDING OF THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT 280 BIGHA, BUT 93 BIGHA. THIS FINDING CANNOT ACCEPTED, BE CAUSE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CERTIFICATE FROM PAT WARI WAS AFTER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SECONDLY, AFTER CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF RS. 33 LACS, LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT ALL TH E OTHER ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME WILL GET COVERED BY SUCH ADDITION. FOR HOLDING SO LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT ADDRESSED THE REAS ONING OF THE AO. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, SHRI SAMPAT SUBMITTED THAT THERE CANNOT BE AN IOTA OF DOUBT THAT THE PURC HASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS IN PUCCA BIGHA AS MENTIONED IN SALE DEEDS AND THE ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 19 LOCAL REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS CERTIFIED THE SAME WHICH HAS DULY BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE AO AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS. THUS, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT SUCH AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS ADM ITTED BY THE LD. CIT (A) TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME IS NOT CORRECT. THUS , HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AS WELL AS MATE RIAL REFERRED TO BEFORE US. LD. AO HAS MADE THE AGGREGATE ADDITION OF RS. 94,52,393/-, ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL L AND AND IN CONSTRUCTION OF FARM HOUSE AND DEEP TUBE WELL. THE BRE AKUP OF SUCH ADDITION HAS ALREADY BEEN INCORPORATED BY US IN THE F OREGOING PARAGRAPH. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT PURCHASE OF AGR ICULTURAL LAND THROUGH 16 SALE DEEDS DISCOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 8.11.2001, CLEARLY DISCL OSED 93 BIGHAS. THE AO FROM THE DETAILS OF THE LAND OBTAINED FROM PATWA RI ON THE BASIS OF KHATA NUMBER NOTED THAT IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED AT 280 B IGHAS. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT 280 BIGHAS WERE IN FACT KACCHA BIGHAS AND LAND HAS PURCHASED ONLY IN TERMS OF PACCA BIGHAS. TH IS FACTUM WAS TRIED TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE CERTIFICATE/ LETTER OBTAINE D FROM THE LOCAL REVENUE AUTHORITY, I.E., PATWARI WHO CLEARLY CERTIFIE D THAT ONE PACCA BIGHA IS EQUIVALENT TO THREE KACCHA BIGHA. THE CALCUL ATION OF 1/3 RD OF 280 BIGHAS COMES DOWN TO ROUGHLY 93 BIGHAS, WHICH IS IN CONSONANCE WITH SALE DEED WHICH CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT ASSESSEE T HROUGH THESE SALE DEEDS HAD PURCHASED 93.13% BIGHA. LD. CIT (A) HAS DULY CONFRONTED THIS CERTIFICATE TO THE AO, ON WHICH THE AO F AILED TO REBUT THIS FACT BY ANY PROPER MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE BUT HAS S IMPLY OBJECTED THAT IT HAS BEEN FILED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESS MENT. THIS CANNOT BE THE GROUND FOR OBJECTION, BECAUSE IT IS A CER TIFICATE GIVEN BY ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 20 A LOCAL REVENUE AUTHORITY WHO IS CONFIRMING/CERTIFYIN G ABOUT THE ACTUAL FACT; AND NOT ONLY THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CARRI ED OUT HIS OWN RESEARCH AND CAME TO HIS OWN INDEPENDENT CONCLUSION THAT, IN FACT, ONE PACCA BIGHA IS EQUIVALENT TO THREE KACCHA BIGHAS A ND BASED ON THIS HE HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN SUCH FINDING OF THE L D. CIT (A), BECAUSE THE SAME IS BASED ON MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AND IT HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BY THE DEPARTMENT. 14. SO FAR AS THE OTHER ADDITIONS ARE CONCERNED LIKE, ADDITION OF RS. 30 LACS FOR INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND BASED ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI M.A. KHAN AND SEIZED DOCUMENTS, WE FIND THAT TH E DETAILS OF RECEIPTS AND OUTGOINGS BASED ON SEIZED ANNEXURE HAS BEEN INCORPORATED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN PARA 5.8 AND THEREA FTER, HE HAS EXAMINED THE SOURCE OF CASH IN DETAIL. AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION HE HAS CONFIRMED RS. 33 LACS TO BE ASSESSED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THIS SUM OF RS. 33 LACS ALSO INCLUDES SUMS AGGREGATING TO RS. 13,34,280/- WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN I NVESTED BY TWO OF HIS RELATIVES, SMT. JAMILA BEGUM AND SMT. AQUILA B EGUM OF RS. 8 LACS AND RS. 5,34,280/- RESPECTIVELY AGAINST WHICH AS SESSEE IS ALSO IN APPEAL. LD. CIT (A) HAS REJECTED THE ASSESSEES PLEA ON THE GROUND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THESE TWO LADIES CANNOT BE ACC EPTED AS THEY HAVE NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE FOR SOURCE OF THEIR INCOME. T HOUGH THIS IS ONE OF THE GROUND / ISSUE RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL THE REFORE BEING THE CONNECTED ISSUE WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP THIS ISSUE AT THIS STAGE ONLY. 15. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE GROUND THAT PRESUM PTION U/S 132 (4A) COULD NOT BE REBUTTED. HOWEVER, THE MOST GLAR ING FACT IS THAT THE SALE DEED ITSELF MENTIONS THE NAME OF THE OWNER AND ALSO THEY HAVE ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 21 FILED THEIR AFFIDAVIT OWNING THEIR LAND, THEREFORE, SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEES CONCERN THE PRESUMPTION DRAWN AGAINST THE A SSESSEE STANDS REBUTTED. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. CIT (DR) SUPPORTI NG THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS SCORE SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDEN CE COULD BE FILED THAT THE LAND HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY THESE TWO L ADIES OUT OF THEIR OWN SOURCES AND ONCE THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN FOUND FR OM THEIR POSSESSION, THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS N OT BEEN DISCHARGED. 16. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND O N PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL REFERRED TO BEFORE US AS NOTED ABOVE , OUT OF 16 SALE DEEDS, SALE DEEDS PERTAINING TO 5 BIGHAS 10 BISWAS A ND 4 BIGHAS BELONG TO MS. JAMILA BEGUM AND MS. AQUILA BEGUM WHO ARE CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. ONCE DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH A DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO THIRD PERSON HAS BEEN FOUND WHICH CLEAR LY MENTIONS THAT THESE TWO PERSONS ARE OWNERS OF THE LAND WHOSE NAMES ARE APPEARING IN THE SALE DEED AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS THEY HAVE NOT ONLY OWNED UP THE OWNERSHIP OF SAID LAND THA T IT BELONGS TO THEM, BUT ALSO HAVE MENTIONED THAT IT IS OUT OF THEIR OWN S OURCE OF INCOME, THEN THE SOURCE OF THEIR INVESTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IN THEIR HANDS. THOUGH THEY MAY NOT HAVE BEE N ABLE TO ADDUCE THE SOURCE OF INCOME BY GIVING ANY EVIDENCE, BUT SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THE PRESUMPTION CAST UPON HIM I N TERMS OF SECTION 132 (4A) STANDS DISCHARGED, FIRSTLY , FOR THE REASON THAT THE DOCUMENT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, ALBEIT THE OWNER OF THE DOCUMENT ARE OTHER PERSONS; AND SECONDLY , THESE TWO PERSONS HAVE OWNED UP THE DOCUMENT. THUS, AT THIS STAGE ITSELF TH E ONUS HAS SHIFTED TO THE DEPARTMENT AND THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE INQ UIRED FROM THESE TWO PERSON AS TO WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT I N THE SAID ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 22 LAND AND THE RIGHT COURSE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO INITIATE PR OCEEDINGS U/S 158BD WHICH PROVISION IS APPLICABLE UNDER THESE CIRC UMSTANCES, BECAUSE IF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERS ON OTHER THAN THE PERSONS SEARCHED, THEN LAW ENVISAGES THAT THE PROCEE DINGS U/S 158BD HAS TO BE SEPARATELY INITIATED AS LAID DOWN IN THE SAID SECTION. THUS, WE HOLD THAT SO FAR AS THE VALUE OF THESE TWO SA LE DEEDS FOR PURCHASE OF LAND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE OR ANY OTHER ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME CA N BE MADE. ACCORDINGLY, TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 13,34,280/- CANNOT BE ADDED AND SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED FROM THE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE. 17. NOW SO FAR AS THE OTHER ADDITIONS ARE CONCERN ED WHICH HAVE BEEN PARTLY CONFIRMED AND PARTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CI T (A), AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 5.8 TO 5.10 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER (AS INCORPORATED ABOVE), WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) AS IT IS NOT ONLY BASED ON CORRECT APPRECIATION OF FACTS BUT ALSO THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. THUS, THE OTHER ADDITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN DELETED BY TH E LD. CIT (A) SPECIFICALLY ON ACCOUNT OF ENHANCING THE MEASUREMENT O F LAND FROM 90 BIGHA TO 280 AND THEREBY VALUING THE SAME DIFFERENTLY AND PART OF THE INVESTMENT WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FARM HOUSE AND TUBE WELL IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO . 1 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND PART OF THE GROUND NO. 6.1 O F THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ALLOWED. 18. THE NEXT GROUND RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 1 ,64,59,981/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLER Y. THE AO NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CERTAIN VISITING CARDS /PAPERS/BILLS RELATING TO PURCHASE/PAYMENT OF JEWELLERY WERE FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SEA RCH, THE TOTAL ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 23 JEWELLERY FOUND WAS VALUED AT RS. 66,17,424/-, WHICH HAS BEEN SEPARATELY ADDED BY THE AO IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT OR DER ASSESSEES WIFE, SMT. AFRIN RIZVI. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION BE FORE THE AO WITH REGARD TO EACH AND EVERY SEIZED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN D ISCUSSED AT LENGTH FROM PAGES 34 TO 46. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF AS SESSEES EXPLANATION QUA THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOR THE SAKE OF RE ADY REFERENCE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- PAGE NO. 2 RELATES TO SOME CALCULATION, WHICH SHOWS BASIS OF COST MATERIAL ONLY. HOWEVER, THIS NOT RELATED TO ANY PURCHAS ES AS MENTIONED THAT IT MAY BE RELATED TO THE BRACELET, BUT IS DO ES NOT RELATE TO ANY PURCHASE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. PAGE NO.3 ALSO RELATES TO THE ITEM SHOWN TO DR. AFROZ REHMAN FOR SELECTION, HOWEVER, NO ITEM RELATE TO ANY PURCHASE. PAGE NO.4 DOES NOT REFLECT ANY PURCHASE OF GOLD, DIAM OND JEWELLERY BUT IT RELATES ONLY TO CALCULATION FOR THE PU RPOSE OF FINDING OUT THE BREAKUP OF THE JEWELLERY COST. IN THE SAME WAY, PAGE NO. 5 IS ONLY A CALCULATION, W HICH DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY ESTABLISH PURCHASE BY THE ASSESSE. PAGE NO. 6 IS AGAIN DETAILS OF CALCULATION TO FIND O UT THE COST OF A DIAMOND NECKLACE, WHICH DOES NOT MEAN ANY PURCHASE. PAGE NO. 7 HAVING ROUGH CALCULATION WHICH DOES NOT S UGGEST ANYTHING. PAGE NO. 8 ALSO SHOWS THE CALCULATION, IF JEWELLERY MANUFACTURED BY GIVEN ITEM GOLD AND DIAMOND ETC. THIS DOES NOT SHOW ANY PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 24 PAGE NO. AGAIN A CALCULATION, WHICH DOES NOT SUGGES T ANY PURCHASE. PAGE NO. 10 ALSO A ROUGH CALCULATION ONLY. PAGE NO. 11 AGAIN IS A CALCULATION SHOWN THE COST OF J EWELLERY SHOWN. PAGE NO.12 ALSO A ROUGH CALCULATION ONLY. PAGE NO. 13 DOES NOT REFLECT ANY RECEIPT BUT ONLY SHOWS RS. 200/- SIGNED BY SOMEONE. IT DOES NOT MEAN A RECEIPT. PAGE NO. 14 AGAIN IS A CALCULATION OF A SET, BALL TI KKA, PEARL AND JHOOMER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE ARE PURCHASE, BUT IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT SMT. AFROJ REHMAN ASKED THE JEWELLER TO R EPAIR THE JEWELLERY FOR HER DAUGHTER'S MARRIAGE, HOWEVER, THE A SSESSEE CANNOT SAY WHETHER IT WAS PURCHASED OR NOT. IN THE SAME WAY, PAGE NO.15 IS A DESCRIPTION OF JEWEL LERY, WHICH MAY RELATED TO MARRIAGE OF DR. AFROJ REHMAN'S DAUGHTE R PURCHASES. PAGE NO. 16 IS AGAIN A ROUGH CALCULATION. PAGE NO.17 IS AGAIN CALCULATED OF JEWELLERY WHICH DO ES NOT RELATE TO ANY PURCHASES AS YOUR GOOD SELF MENTIONED IN THE QUER Y. PAGE NO.18 ALSO RELATES TO A CALCULATION ONLY. PAGE NO.2 TO 18 ARE RELATED TO CALCULATION OF GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY BUT ALL THE PAPERS ARE UNSIGNED AND NOWHERE , IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ITEM MENTIONED IN THE PAPER ARE ACTUA LLY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PAPERS RELATE TO ANY PURCHASES OF GOLD ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 25 AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY. THEREFORE, YOUR GOODSELF IS REQUESTED TO CORRECT THE QUERY AND DELETE THE WORD PURCHASE OF GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY. IN FACT WITH DUE RESPECT IT MAY BE N OTED THAT THE WORD 'PURCHASE' IS A PREMATURE PRESUMPTION ITSELF. PAGE NO. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 RELATE TO THE VISITING CARDS OF CHAMPALAL JEWELLERS. ON THE BACK OF THE VISI TING CARD SOME CALCULATION OR RECEIPT OF THE GOLD JEWELLERY MENTIONED . ACTUALLY, THESE CARDS RELATE TO THE GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH WAS RETU RNED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME AS AGREED BY THE JEWELLE RY AT THE TIME OF SELECTION OR APPROVAL OF GOLD AND DIAMOND JEW ELLERY. PAGE NO.25 OF ANNEXURE A2 E, IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT SOME GOLD ITEMS WERE DEPOSITED (RETURNED BACK) BY THE JEWELLERS ON 17. 9. 2000 AND THIS MEANS OTHER CARDS OF PAGE NO.19TO 29 SI MILARLY RELATE TO THE GOLD THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY, WHICH WAS RETURNED TO THE JEWELLERS AFTER CONSULTATION WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS - SINCE THE TRANSACTIONS WERE ALL 'ON APPROVAL' PAGE NO. 28, 29, 30 & 31 ARE RELATES TO THE REPAIR/RE NOVATION WORK OF GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY BY DR. AFROZ REHMAN. 19. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE'S WIF E'S SISTER, DR. AFROZ REHMAN, WHO IS CITIZEN OF USA HAVING FOUR DAUG HTERS DID VISIT INDIA DURING THE PERIOD THE APRIL, 2000 TO MAY, 2001 FOR THE MARRIAGES OF HER DAUGHTERS, SMT. SALMA AND SALRA WHICH WAS HELD ON 20.5.2000 AND 24.6.2001 RESPECTIVELY. DURING THESE VISITS TO IN DIA, SMT. AFROZ REHMAN ACCOMPANIED BY ASSESSEE'S WIFE HAD MADE HEAV Y PURCHASES OF COSMETIC ITEM GOLD DIAMOND JEWELLERY. IT MAY BE POSSIB LE THAT THE CALCULATION MADE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE/MANUFACTURING AND RENOVATION OF OLD GOLD JEWELLERY, THEY MAY HAVE USED THE NOTING PAD ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 26 WHICH THEY HAD BROUGHT FROM HONG KONG DURING THEIR V ISIT TO INDIA. HOWEVER, IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT SMT. AFROZ REHMAN DURING HER VISIT TO INDIA HAD PURCHASED VARIOUS ITEMS OF GOLD JE WELLERY AFTER A LOT OF BARGAINING FROM JEWELLERS PARTICULARLY CHAMPA LAL , A FAMOUS JEWELER OF GREATER KAILASH NEW DELHI. APPROXIMATELY, 5 TO 6 LACS WORTH IN GOLD, SILVER AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED/MANUFACT URED/ RENOVATED BY DR. AFROZ REHMAN AND MOST OF THE JEWELLER Y WAS PURCHASED/REPAIRED/RENOVATED BY CHAMPA LAL JEWELLERS WHO AGREED TO EXCHANGE/RETURN THE GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY IS PR OPER PAYMENT IN THE SHAPE OF SECURITY/PURCHASE PRICE ARE PAID TO THE J EWELLER AND RETURNED IS MADE WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE PURCHASE. SUC H PURCHASES 'ON APPROVAL' AND 'RETURNED' WAS POSSIBLE SINCE THE JEWE LLER KNOWS THE ASSESSEE'S REPUTATION, DR. REHMAN'S DAUGHTER SALMA AND OTHER RELATIVES COULD CONDUCT THESE TRANSACTIONS ON RETURNABLE BASIS AND THE GOODS WERE RETURNED FORM OR TAKEN TO USA THROUGH VARIOU S AMONGST RELATIVES AND FRIENDS VISITING INDIA. IN SUPPORT OF TH E ABOVE EXPLANATION THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF INVITATION CARD OF MARRIAGE OF ONE OF THE DAUGHTER OF DR. AFROZ REHMAN AND COPY OF PASSPORT OF DR. AFROZ REHMAN. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM DR . AFROZ REHMAN IN WHICH EVERYTHING WAS MENTIONED REGARDING QUANTITY OF GOLD/DIAMOND JEWELLERY PURCHASED/EXCHANGED FROM VARIOUS JEWELLER S INCLUDING CHAMPA LAL JEWELLERS. DR. AFROZ REHMAN IN HER AFFID AVIT FURTHER STATED THAT SHE HAD A VERY SHORT VISIT AND LOT OF PURCHASES WER E MADE FOR HER YOUNGER DAUGHTER. 20. AO HELD THAT THE CONTENT OF THE AFFIDAVIT IS IN CONTRADICTION OF THE FACT THAT THE GOLD/DIAMOND JEWELLERY WERE PURCHASED/ EXCHANGED ON APPROVAL BASIS FOR SIX MONTHS. MOREOVER, AFFIDAVI T HAS GOT NOT MUCH EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND IT IS SIMPLY A SELF SERVING DOC UMENT. MERE ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 27 STATEMENT WITHOUT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CANNOT JUSTIFY THAT THE JEWELLERY WERE PURCHASED BY OTHER PERSONS AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THE DETAILS IN REGARD TO PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY WAS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SUBMISSION FAILED TO EVEN IDENTIFY TH E RELATIVES AND FRIENDS WHO WERE VISITING INDIA AND WHO WERE TAKING BACK THE JEWELLERY TO USA ON BEHALF OF DR. AFROZ REHMAN. FURTHER, IT IS W ORTH MENTIONING HERE THAT SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF CHAMPALA L JEWELLERS, GREATER KAILASH-II, NEW DELHI AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO UNACCOUNTED SALES WERE SEIZED VIDE ANNEXURE A-1. PAGE 51 OF ANN EXURE A-1 CLEARLY SHOWS SALE OF JEWELLERY TO 'DR. RIZVI'. IN THE CASE OF CHAMPALAL JEWELLERS, UNACCOUNTED SALES MADE TO VARIOUS CUSTOMERS AS PER ANNEXURE A -1 WAS DISCLOSED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS WHICH INCLUDED UNACCOUNTED SALES TO DR. RIZVI ALSO. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE V IDE ORDER SHEET NOTINGS DATED 24.12.2003 SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS PERS ONALLY NEVER VISITED TO THE SHOP OF CHAMPALAL JEWELLERS NOR H E HAD DONE ANY TRANSACTIONS PERSONALLY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT WHATEVER TRANSACTIONS TOOK PLACE BETWEEN HIS RELATIVES AND CHAMPALAL JEWELLERS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM. IN HIS SUBMISS ION THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT NOT A SINGLE ITEM RELATING TO SUCH PUR CHASE ATTRIBUTED TO ME WAS EVER FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AND WH OEVER PURCHASED THEM, TOOK THEM, AS THEY WERE NOT MEANT FOR ME AND MY FAMILY MEMBERS. HOWEVER THE AO REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION ON THE GROUND THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN SUPPO RT OF SUCH EXPLANATION AND THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, CLEARLY SHOWS TH E ASSESSEE HAS TRANSACTED IN PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY WHICH IS UNDISCLO SED EXPENDITURE / INVESTMENT. THE RELEVANT CONCLUSION OF THE AO IN THIS RE GARD READS AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 28 THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CATEGORICAL AND MOREOVER, NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY HIM IN SUPPORT OF HIS S UBMISSION. THE NOTINGS ON SEIZED PAPERS, VISITING CARDS AS PER ANNEXURE A-28 IS VERY MUCH CLEAR AND IT IS WRITTEN IN THE SAME LA NGUAGE /STYLE AS IT WAS WRITTEN IN SEIZED PAPERS, ANNEXURE A-1/51 SE IZED FROM THE PREMISES OF CHAMPALAL JEWELLERS. THE FACT THAT THE NAME OF DR. RIZVI WAS WRITTEN ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN RESPEC T OF UNACCOUNTED SALES AND IT REMAINS UNANSWERED AS TO H OW THE NAME OF DR. RIZVI APPEARED IN THE SAID DOCUMENTS. F URTHER HOW CHAMPALAL JEWELLERS WAS AWARE OF ASSESSES REPUTATIO N WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NEIGHBOUR PURCHASED ANY JEWELLERY FROM THEM, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HOW CHAMPALAL JEWELLERS GAV E COSTLY ORNAMENTS TO A STRANGER I.E. RELATIVE OF DR. A.H RI ZVI ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSEE'S REPUTATION. THE TRANSACTION RECORDED ON SEIZED DOCUMENT, ANNEXURE A-28 FOUND IN THE RESIDENCE OF T HE ASSESSEE VIS-A-VIS THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE SEIZED D OCUMENTS A- 1/51 FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF CHAMPALAL JEWELLERS C LEARLY PROVES THAT CHAMPALAL JEWELLERS HAD SOLD JEWELLERY OUT OF BOOKS AND DR. RIZVI, THE ASSESEEE MADE PAYMENTS OUT OF HIS UNDISC LOSED INCOME. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION THE INVESTMENT/EXPENDIT URE MADE AS PER NOTINGS ON DOCUMENTS INVENTORIED AS ANNEXURE A- 28 AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,64,59,981/- IS TREATED AS UNDISC LOSED EXPENDITURE/INVESTMENT OUT OF INCOME NOT DISCLOSED. 21. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAS MADE VERY D ETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND ONE OF THE MAIN CRUCIAL EXPLANATION W AS THAT THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY RELATES TO PURCHA SE MADE BY SISTER OF SMT. AFRIN RIZVI. DR. AFROZ REHMAN WHO IS A CITIZEN OF USA HAVING FOUR DAUGHTERS WHO HAD VISITED INDIA DURING THE PERIOD OF ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 29 APRIL, 2000 TO MAY 2001 FOR MARRIAGES OF HER TWO DA UGHTERS WHICH WAS HELD ON 20.5.2000 TO 24.6.2001. DURING THESE VISITS SH E HAD MADE HEAVY PURCHASE OF COSMETIC ITEMS, GOLD AND DIAMOND JE WELLERY. ALL THESE DETAILS AND SUBMISSIONS ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT OF DR . AFROZ REHMAN SISTER OF SMT. AFRIN RIZVI WAS FILED AND THESE HAVE B EEN DISCUSSED IN DETAIL BY LD. CIT (A) IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER. 22. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THROUGHOUT CONTENDIN G THAT ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED PAPERS WERE NOT IN HIS HANDWRITI NG AND THESE PAGES CONTAIN JOTTINGS MADE BY HIS WIFES SISTER WHO L IVES IN USA AND WAS MAKING PURCHASE FOR THE MARRIAGE OF HER DAUGHTER . THIS HE HELD THAT IS CLEARLY CORROBORATED BY MAKING FIGURES GIVEN IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH IF DIVIDED BY 44 (WHICH WAS THE APPRO XIMATE PREVAILING DOLLAR RATE AT THAT TIME) AND EVIDENCE FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS LIKE PAGES 2 AND 6 AND OTHERS OF ANNEXURE A -28. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION AND ALL THESE DOCUMENTS COU PLED WITH AFFIDAVIT OF WIFES SISTER, HE HELD THAT ASSESSEES EXP LANATION APPEARS TO BE CORRECT. FURTHER HE HELD THAT ONCE ONLY JEWELLERY OF RS. 66,17,424/- WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH, THEN TO MAKE SEPARATE ADD ITION OF RS. 1,64,59,981/- CANNOT BE UPHELD, ONCE NO JEWELLERY HA S BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FOR THIS AMOUNT. AFTER RELY ING UPON THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS HE CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 7.6 IN VIEW OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION I AM OF TH E OPINION THAT ADDITION MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF JOTTINGS IN TH E SEIZED PAPERS IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS THE AO HAS TO BRING SOME CORROB ORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THESE JOTTING/ENTRIES ACTUALLY SHOW SO ME TRANSACTION AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN PURCHA SE OF JEWELLERY WHICH IS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE AO CAN ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 30 TAX ONLY THAT EXPENDITURE WHICH IS PROVED TO HAVE B EEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RE CORD TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,64,59,98 1/-MADE BY THE AO. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 23. LD. CIT(DR) SUBMITTED THAT, ONCE HUGE SEIZED DO CUMENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND INDICATING PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY FROM PAR TICULAR JEWELLER, THEN ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT INVESTMENT IN THESE JEWELLERIES HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH DISCLOSED SOURCES . MERE STATING THAT THESE JEWELLERS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY ASSESSEES WIFES SISTER CANNOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE ONCE INCRIMINATI NG DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND, THEN ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROV E BY COGENT EVIDENCE. THUS, SHE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 24. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT LOOKING TO T HE FACT THAT NO JEWELLERY HAS BEEN FOUND OTHER THAN VALUING AT RS. 66 ,17,424/- WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES WIFE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE FOR SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT. 25. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUS ED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AS WELL AS MAT ERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE ENTIRE BASIS OF ADDITION IS BASED ON CER TAIN LOOSE PAPERS AND BILLS FOR THE PURCHASE/PAYMENT OF JEWELLERY FOUN D FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. EACH AND EVERY DOCUMENTS A ND PAPER HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED BY US IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS. SOME OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS CONTAINED SOME ROUGH CALCULATION AND SOME OF THEM ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 31 ARE IN THE FORM OF BILLS OF ONE JEWELLER, CHAMPALAL JEWELLERS. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION HAS BEEN THAT ASSESSEES WIFES S ISTER, DR. AFROZ REHMAN WHO HERSELF IS A MEDICAL DOCTOR AND CITIZEN OF USA HAD COME TO INDIA FOR MARRIAGE OF HER DAUGHTERS AND DURING HER VISIT, SHE HAD MADE PURCHASES OR RENOVATED OLD JEWELLERY. SHE HAD ALSO FILED HER AFFIDAVIT THAT THE JEWELLERIES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY HER AND SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS WERE JUST ROUGH CALCULATION AND NOTING AND SOME OF THE JEWELLERIES HAVE GIVEN FOR APPROVAL AND RETURNED BAC K WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENTS ITSELF. ONE VE RY IMPORTANT FACT WHICH IS NOTEWORTHY IS THAT ALL THE JEWELLERY ITEMS AS P ER THE DESCRIPTION MADE IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE NEVER FO UND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PURC HASED THE JEWELLERY WORTH OF RS. 1.64 CRORES IN THE YEAR 2000, THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A HUGE AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY (MORE THAN 37 KGS AT THEN PREVAILING RATE OF GOLD) WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN FOUND FROM THE POS SESSION OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN A GLOBAL SEARCH HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT A T ALL THE PLACES INCLUDING BANK LOCKER, RESIDENCE, FARM HOUSE AND OF FICE. NONE OF SUCH ITEMS OF JEWELLERIES HAVE BEEN FOUND BARRING JEWELLE RY VALUING RS. 66.17 LACS WHICH HAS BEEN SEPARATELY CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION THAT DR. AFROZ REHMAN HAD COME TO INDIA, PHOTOCOPY OF HER PASSPORT, PHOTOCO PY OF MARRIAGE INVITATION CARD OF HER DAUGHTER ALONGWITH HER AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED, WHEREIN SHE HAS STATED THAT SHE HAS PURCHASED JEWELLER Y FROM CHAMPALAL JEWELLERS WORTH RS. 10 LACS. OTHER NOTINGS H AVE BEEN STATED TO BE ROUGH CALCULATION OR JEWELLERY PURCHASED FOR APPROVAL WHICH HAS BEEN RETURNED. FURTHER ONE IMPORTANT FACT WHIC H HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS THAT THE CALCULATIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY IF IS DIVIDED BY RS. 44, WHICH WAS THEN P REVALENT EXCHANGE RATE OF INR AGAINST THE US DOLLAR WHICH IS APPEARING AT SEVERAL PLACES, ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 32 HE HELD THAT IT WILL GO TO SHOW THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION WAS UNDERTAKEN BY SMT. AFROZ RAHMAN WHO IS A US CITIZEN. BASED ON THESE FACTS AND DOCUMENTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY DISCREPAN CY OR REASONS TO DEVIATE FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFO RE, SAME IS AFFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE RE VENUE IS DISMISSED. 26. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO PART RELIEF GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREBY HE HAS REDUCED ADDITION OF RS. 44,99,006/- T O RS. 27,99,954/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME I N FARM HOUSE AT VILLAGE FATEHPUR BERI, CHATTARPUR, MEHRAULI, NEW DELH I ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. THESE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY T HE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT/EXPENDITURE IN THE FAR M HOUSE BASED ON SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED I NVESTMENT OF RS. 19,47,283/- IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF FARM HOUSE AND AO HAS MADE ADDITION OVER AND ABOVE THIS AMOUNT AT RS. 24,15,117/ -. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED AN AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 12.5 BIGHA FO R RS. 8,95,000/- ON 16.8.1994 WHICH WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE SAID LAND WAS DEVELOPED AND A FARM HOUSE WAS CONSTRU CTED AND DETAILS OF INVESTMENTS WERE PART OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS INVENTORISED AS ANNEXURE A-2. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED TOTAL EXPEN SES OF RS. 19,47,000/- INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION OF FAR M HOUSE. THE DETAILS ARE GIVEN AS UNDER:- ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT INCURRED SOURCES 1997-98 19,710/- DECLARED IN BLOCK RETURN 1998-99 1,09,654/- DECLARED IN BLOCK RETURN 1999-00 2,44,500/- SAIF & SOHEER RIZVI- AGRICULTURAL INCOME ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 33 2000-01 11,94,409/- DECLARED IN BLOCK RETURN: RS. 5,00,000. SAIF & SOHEER RIZVI- RS. 6,95,000/- AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 2001-02 3,16,084/- DECLARED IN THE BLOCK RETURN OF THE COMPANY : RS. 3,16,084/- 2002-03 62,926/- DECLARED IN BLOCK RETURN OF COMPANY : RS. 62,926/- TOTAL 19,47,283/- 27. AO AFTER ANALYSING EACH AND EVERY SEIZED DOCU MENTS AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE A-2 HAS MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS WHICH COMES TO RS. 44,99,006/-. ONE OF THE MAIN CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT, FURTHER ADDITION OF RS. 24,15,117/- AS MADE BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AS THERE ARE SEVERAL DUPLICATE ADDITIONS WH ICH ALREADY STOOD INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 19.44 LACKS. OUT OF THIS AMOUNT RS. 10,86,374/- HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED IN THE BLOCK R ETURN. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DEALT WITH THESE ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS O F SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND HAS GIVEN A VERY DETAILED ANALYSIS WHIL E DELETING OR SUSTAINING THE SAID ADDITIONS WHICH WE FIND IT PROPER TO BE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR PROPER APPRECIATION OF ENTIRE FACTS:- (I) ANN. A-2/121: ON THE BASIS OF THIS DOCUMENT, AN ADDITION OF RS. 1944/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. A PERUSAL OF T HIS SEIZED DOCUMENT REVEALED THAT THIS CONTAINS DESCRIPTION OF GOODS ALONGWITH CARTAGE DELIVERED AT FARM HOUSE BY RAM KU MAR CONTRACTOR. THE A.O. TREATED THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 194 4/- AS UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE AND ADDED THE SAME. IT IS C ONTENDED BY THE LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT THAT THIS IS ONLY AN ES TIMATE AND NOT ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 34 ACTUALLY EXPLAINED. I HAVE SEEN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND ALSO SEEN THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME. IT CONTAINS CERTAIN ITEMS AGAINST WHICH CERTAIN AMOUNT IS WRITTEN AND THE AMOUNTS ARE PRECISE AND DO NOT SEEM TO BE AN ESTIMATE. THE ADDITION MADE IS CONFIRMED. (II) ANN.A-2/132-133: AS PER THE A.O., PERUSAL OF THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT THESE PAPERS CONTAINS QUANTITY OF BRICKS OF 48000 DELIVERED AT FARM HOUSE FOR CONSTRUCTION. THI S IS A CASH MEMO/CHALLAN OF M/S. SHRI MAHALAXMI BRICK FIELD. AC CORDING TO THE A.O. AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE AS TO HOW THE PAYMENT AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF 48000 NUMBER OF BRI CKS WAS MADE, THEREFORE, HE ESTIMATED THE COST OF BRICK AT RS. 4 PER BRICK AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,92,000/- . I HAVE SEEN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. THESE ARE CASH MEMO/CHALLAN OF M/S SHRI MAHALAXMI BRICKS FIELD AND ARE DATED 15.9.99 AND 16 .9.99. THE QUANTITY OF BRICKS MENTIONED ON BOTH THESE DOCUMENT S IS 4000 EACH TOTALLING 8000 BRICKS AND AGAINST RATE COLUMN NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT THESE ARE FIRST QUALITY BRICKS I.E. WHY (I) HAS BEEN PREFIXED BEFOR E THE QUANTITY AND THE COLUMN OF THE RATE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK. I H AVE SEEN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IMPUGNED ADDI TION HAS BEEN MADE. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE RATE COUL D NOT HAVE EXCEEDED RS. 1/- PER BRICK EVEN BY THE CURRENT RATE . WHEREAS THE PURCHASES RELATE TO YEAR 1999. I AGREE WITH THE CON TENTION OF THE LD. AR. THE QUANTITY MENTIONED IS 4000 EACH. THEREF ORE, ADOPTING THE VALUE OF RS. 1 PER BRICK ADDITION OF RS. 8000/- IS SUSTAINED. (III) ANN.A-8/22 & A-8/23: ON THE BASIS OF THESE S EIZED DOCUMENTS, AN ADDITION OF RS. 580001- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O . IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AMOU NT MENTIONED ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 35 IN ANN. A-8/23 OF RS. 34000/- EACH OVERLAPPING OF A MOUNT MENTIONED IN A-8/22. AS PER THE A.O., PERUSAL OF TH E SEIZED DOCUMENTS REVEAL THAT A-8/23 IS A DIFFERENT BILL. H OWEVER, AS PER THE A.O., THE FIGURE OF MEASUREMENT AND AMOUNT ARE DIFFERENT IN THESE TWO BILLS. THEREFORE, HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE TH E ADDITION OF RS. 58,000/-. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR BEFORE ME T HAT BOTH THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS RELATE TO RUNNING BILL OF SAME ITE M OF WORK. FINAL FIGURE HAS BEEN WORKED OUT ON PAGE A -8/23. THIS IS FURTHER CARRIED OUT BY THE FACT THAT AT A.8/22 AT THE BOTTOM A SUM OF RS. 27,000/- HAS BEEN SHOWN AS PAID WHICH HAS BEEN DULY TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION WHILE SETTLING THE FINAL BILL. IT IS ALSO FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.24000/- IS CONCEDE D BY THE APPELLANT AS IT IS COMPRISED IN FIGURE OF RS. 19,47 ,283/-. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE BY THE LD. AND I HAVE ALSO SEEN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. T HE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT. NO FURTHER ADDIT ION IS CALLED FOR AS IT COMPRISED IN THE SUM OF RS. 19,47,283/- WHICH IS THE ADMITTED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FARM HOUSE AT ME HRAULI. (IV) ANN. A-8/24: IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE A.O T HAT THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT RELATE TO WATERFALL BUT ACTUALLY NO WORK W AS DONE. HOWEVER, AS PER THE A.O., A PERUSAL OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT SHOWS THAT THE SAID WORK WAS DONE AND EXPENSES OF R S. 107000/- WERE INCURRED. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT THIS IS AN ESTIMATE NOT FUR WATERFALL BUT ESTIMATE FOR L ILY POND. IT IS UNDATED DOCUMENT IN WHICH IT IS WRITTEN THAT RAW MA TERIAL AS ROCKS, SLATE, MOTOR PUMP ETC. WILL BE PROVIDED BY T HE PARTY. IT FURTHER MENTIONS TWO SUMS OF RS. 90,000/- AND RS. 1 7,000/- AGAINST WHICH NO NARRATION HAS BEEN GIVEN AND THESE TWO FIGURES HAVE BEEN TOTALLED UP WHEREIN FIGURE OF RS. 107,000 /- HAS BEEN ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 36 ARRIVED AT. THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST FROM THE DO CUMENT THAT THIS EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN ACTUALLY INCURRED BY THE APPEL LANT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS DELETED . (V) A-8/2S: AS PER THE A.O., TOTAL AMOUNT WRITTEN O N THIS PAGE IS RS. 64200/-, PAYMENT OF RS. 49200/- HAS BEEN MADE A ND BALANCE OF RS. 15000/- HAS NOT BEEN PAID. ACCORDING TO THE A.O., PERUSAL OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT SHOWS THAT RS. 64200/- IS R ECORDED ON THIS PAPER. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ADDITION OF RS. 64200/- HAS B EEN MADE BY THE A.O. NO WHERE MENTION THE FIGURE OF RS. 64200/- . IN FACT THE TOTALS OF THE FIGURES MENTIONED ON THIS PAGE IS RS. 49200/- AND WHICH IS PART OF RS. 19,47,283/-, THE EXPENDITURE W HICH HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY THE APPELLANT AND FOR WHICH ADDITION HA S BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. THEREFORE, IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LD. A R THAT IT TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD . AR AND I HAVE ALSO SEEN THE DOCUMENT ON WHICH THE IMPUGNED A DDITION HAS BEEN MADE. THIS IS A FACT THAT PERUSAL OF THE SEIZE D DOCUMENTS REVEALS THAT IT NOWHERE MENTIONS THE FIGURE OF RS. 64200/- AS OBSERVED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I ALS O AGREE WITH THE LD. AR THAT A SUM OF RS. 49200/- WHICH IS A SUM TOTAL OF THE FIGURES MENTIONED ON THIS PAGE AS INVESTMENT FOR WH ICH AN ADDITION OF RS. 19,47,283/- HAS BEEN SEPARATELY MAD E BY THE A.O. I FIND THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IN ORDER. THERE FORE, THIS ADDITION OF RS. 64200/- MADE BY THE A.O. IS DELETED. AS THIS SUM OF RS. 49,200/- ALREADY STANDS IN INCLUDED IN THE FIGURE O F RS. 19.47 NO FURTHER ADDITION IS CALLED FOR AND THE SAME IS DELE TED. ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 37 (VI) A-8/26 & A-19/27: AN ADDITION OF RS. 31627/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THIS DOCUMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS TO BE READ WI TH DOCUMENT A- 19/29. AS PER THE A.O., THE PERUSAL OF BOTH THESE S EIZED PAPERS REVEALS THAT TOTAL WORK DONE WAS OF RS. 51,627/- OU T OF THAT ADVANCE-PAYMENT OF RS. 20,000/- WAS GIVEN AND THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 20,000/- IS RECORDED AT A-19/29 BUT AS REGARDS PAYMENT OF RS. 31627/- ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE FAIL ED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE AS TO WHY THIS PAYMENT WAS MADE AGAINS T THE WORK ALREADY DONE IN FEB., 2000 AND ALSO FAILED TO PRODU CE ANY EVIDENCE. THIS AMOUNT WAS OUTSTANDING AT THE DATE O F SEARCH. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT THIS PAPER HAS TO BE R EAD IN CONJUNCTION WITH DOCUMENT SEIZED AT A-19/27 AND A-1 9/29. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT A-19/29, THE ASSESSEE HAS' ALREADY ACCEPTED THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 20000/- ON ACCOUNT O F PAYMENT MADE, AND ON THAT A-19/27 HAS FURTHER ACCEPTED FURT HER INVESTMENT OF RS. 40134/- TOTALLING RS. 60134/- AND THESE PAYMENTS MADE ON A-8/26 ARE DUPLICATION OF THE AMOU NT ALREADY ACCEPTED AS INVESTMENT. I HAVE SEEN THE PAPER A-8/2 6 AND IT IS A KIND OF KACHA BILL OF LADDU LAL SHARMA WHEREIN AGAI NST ITEMS OF WORK CERTAIN AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED WHICH TOTA L UPTO RS. 51627/-. ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SEIZED PAPER SH. LADD U LAL SHARMA HAS BEEN PAID A SUM OF RS. 20,000/- ON 23.2.2000 WH ICH COMPRISED IN THE SUM OF RS. 19,47,283/- INVESTMENT ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN THAT ANOTHER SEIZED PAPER IS A-19/29 WHEREIN LADDU LAL HAS GIVEN A RECEIPT OF RS. 20,000 /- AND THIS DATE ALSO IS 23.2.2000 AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20,000 /- ALREADY HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY THE APPELLANT IS COMPRISED IN RS. ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 38 19,47,283/-. NO FURTHER ADDITION IS CALLED FOR ON T HE BASIS OF THIS SEIZED PAPER. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A .O. IS DELETED. (VII) A-8/27, A-8/42, A-8/43: IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFO RE THE A.O. BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT MENTIONED ON THESE ANN EXURES OF RS. 13269/-, 10900/- AND RS. 3514/- WERE NOT PAID. HOWEVER, THE A.O. DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE AND HE OBSERVED THAT PERUSAL OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS REVEAL TH AT THESE ARE THE BILLS FOR THE WORK ALREADY DONE. AS PER HIM, TH E ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE AS TO WHEN THESE PAY MENTS WERE MADE. ALSO, AS PER THE A.O. THESE ARE BILLS OF FEB. , 01 AND JAN.,01. THEREFORE, THE A.O. MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 27683/- ON THE BASIS OF THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. SEIZED PAPER A- 8/27 SEE MS TO BE A BILL OF SOME CONSTRUCTION WORK WHEREIN AT THE END O F THE PAGE IT IS MENTIONED 'PLEASE PAY RS. 5608/'. PAGE NO.42 OF ANN . A-8 IS A BILL OF FAKHREALAM OF RS. 10967/- AND IT IS DATED 27.L.0 L. PAGE 43 IS AGAIN A BILL OF THE SAME PERSON AND IT IS ALSO DATE D 27.L.01 FOR RS. 3514/-. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THESE ARE ONLY BILLS AND AGAINST WHICH NO PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. IT IS A FACT THAT THESE ARE ONLY BILLS BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT ADDUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THE PAYMENTS AGAINST THES E BILLS WERE NOT MADE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS UPHELD. (VIII) A-8/47: AN ADDITION OF RS. 4100/- HAS BEEN M ADE ON THE BASIS OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEF ORE THE A.O. THAT OUT OF TOTAL BILL OF RS. 6100/- NO PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR RS. 4,000/-. AS PER THE A.O., PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED DOC UMENTS REVEAL THAT RS. 4000/- WAS PAID PRIOR TO RAISING THE BILL AND BALANCE OF RS. 2100/- AFTER THE BILL WAS PRESENTED. THIS AGAIN IS THE BILL OF SH.FAKHREALAM AND THE SAME IS DATED 19.10.2000. THE RE ARE FOUR ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 39 ITEMS OF WORK MENTIONED IN THE BILL WHICH TOTAL UPT O RS. 6100/- FIRST TWO ITEMS ARE OF RS.3200/- & RS. 1260/- WHICH TOTAL RS. 4460/- AND AGAINST WHICH THE WORD 'PAID' IS WRITTEN . IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT ON THE BASIS OF THIS D OCUMENT, A SUM OF RS. 2000/- ALREADY HAS BEEN CONCEDED AS INVESTME NT IN THE FARM HOUSE AND THE SAME IS COMPRISED IN THE FIGURE OF RS. 19.47 LAKH. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR AND I HAVE ALSO SEEN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AS THE SUM OF RS. 2000/- H AS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AS INVESTMENT AND THE SAM E AMOUNT OF RS. 2000/- COMPRISED IN THE FIGURE RS. 19.47 TO THA T EXTENT I AGREE WITH THE LD. AR THAT THERE IS A DOUBLE ADDITION. TH EREFORE, OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 4100/-, ADDITION OF RS. 2000/ - IS DELETED. (IX) A-8/33 & A-8/34: AS PER THE A.O. PERUSAL OF TH E SEIZED DOCUMENTS REVEAL THAT THESE TWO PAPERS ARE DIFFEREN T BILLS INDICATING ADVANCE PAYMENT. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE CONTRACTOR'S NAME A ND AMOUNT AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS EXPENSES INCURRED. HOWEVER, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE BILL ALWAYS CONTAIN THE NAME OF THE CONTRACTOR. ACCORDIN GLY HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,48,615/-. IT IS CONTENDED BY T HE LD. AR THAT A PERUSAL OF THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WILL SHOW THAT TH ESE ARE ONLY ESTIMATES RECEIVED FROM ONE OF THE CONTRACTORS AND ON THESE PAPERS EVEN THE NAME OF THE CONTRACTOR IS NOT MENTI ONED. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS A-8/33 WHICH GIVE S A SUM TOTAL OF RS. 86149/- COMPRISING OF VARIOUS ITEMS AN D DOCUMENT A- 8/34 GIVES A TOTAL OF RS. 89388/- AND BELOW DOCUMEN T A-8/34 IT IS WRITTEN 'ADV. PAID' RS. 80615/-. SO THE CONTENTI ON OF THE LD. AR THAT THESE ARE ONLY ESTIMATES CANNOT BE TAKEN ON IT S FACE VALUE. ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 40 THE SEIZED DOCUMENT A-8/34 CLEARLY STATES THAT ADVA NCE OF RS. 80615/- HAS BEEN PAID. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION TO T HAT EXTENT IS CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF OF RS. 68000/-. (X) A-8/3S: WITH REGARD TO THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT, IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE A.O. BY THE ASSESSEE THAT OUT OF TOTAL B ILLS AS RECORDED ON THIS PAGE AMOUNTING TO RS. 34,000/- PAYMENT OF O NLY RS. 18000/- HAS BEEN MADE. IT IS MENTIONED BY THE A.O. THAT PERUSAL OF THESE SEIZED DOCUMENT REVEALS THAT OUT OF TOTAL BILL OF RS. 34520/- OF SH. MAHENDER SINGH, BUILDING CONTRACTOR, PAYMENT OF RS. 34,000/- HAS BEEN SETTLED. IT IS SUBMITTED BY T HE LD. AR THAT A SUM OF RS. 18000/- HAS ALREADY CONCEDED AS INVESTME NT AND THE SAME IS COMPRISED IN RS. 19.4 7 LAKH. THEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT THERE IS A DOUBLE ADDITION. FOR THE BALANCE OF RS. 16000/- IT IS CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT BAL ANCE PAYMENT OF RS. 16000/- HAS BEEN MADE AND THEREFORE, THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE A.O. IN UNCALLED FOR. I HAVE GONE THROUGH TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR AND AL SO SEEN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. IT IS A BILL OF ONE SH. MAHENDER SINGH WHICH EVIDENCES PAYMENT OF RS. 18000/- AND IT SEEMS THE B ILL IS OF RS. 35520/- AND IT HAS BEEN SETTLED FOR RS. 34,000/- AS THIS FIGURE IS MENTIONED IN THE RIGHT HAND BOTTOM CORNER OF THE BI LL. I AGREE WITH THE LD. AR THAT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 18000/-, THERE IS A DOUBLE ADDITION. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT IS DELETED. HOWEVER, ADDITION OF RS. 16,000/- IS SUSTAINED. THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF OF RS. 18,000/-. (XII) A-8/49: AS PER THE A.O., IT WAS CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20887/- AS MENTIO NED IN THE SEIZED PAGE WAS NOT PAID. HOWEVER, AS PER THE A.O., THE CONTENTS ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 41 OF THE DOCUMENT SHOW THAT THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE AN D BILL OF RS. 17754/- AFTER DEDUCTION 15% SECURITY OF RS. 3133/- FROM TOTAL BILL OF RS. 20887/- WAS PASSED FOR PAYMENT. IT IS CONTEN DED BY THE LD. AR THAT THIS PAPER NOWHERE MENTIONED THAT THE P AYMENT OF RS. 17754/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE ARGUMEN T OF THE LD. AR IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A .O. IS UPHELD. (XII) A-8/50, A-8/51, A-8/52 AND A-8/53: AS PER TH E A.O., IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM THAT EXPENDITU RE RECORDED IN A-8/50 AND A-8/53 ARE OVERLAPPING OF A-8/52. THI S CONTAINS BILLS OF RS. 38990/- AND RS. 16112/- OF MANISH ENTE RPRISES. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THIS IS OVERLAPP ING OF A-8/52. HOWEVER, THE A.O. DID NOT AGREE WITH THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT ALL THE THREE DOCUMENTS IN DICATE DIFFERENT PAYMENTS FOR DIFFERENT WORK. ACCORDING TO THE A.O., HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED PAYMENT OF RS. 42034/- AND RS . 8000/-. THEREFORE, EXPENSES OF RS. 30990/- AND RS. 16112/- TOTAL OF WHICH COMES TO RS. 47102/- WAS TREATED BY HIM AS UN DISCLOSED INCOME. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT INVESTME NT OF RS. 42034/- IS ALREADY CONCEDED AND THE SAME IS COMPRIS ED IN THE SUM OF RS. 19,47,283/-. I HAVE SEEN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT A-8/50 ON THE LETTE R HEAD OF M/S MANISH ENTERPRISES, WHO IS INTERIOR AND CIVIL CONTR ACTOR AND RELATES TO STONE WORK WHEREIN THE TOTAL OF VARIOUS ITEMS AS MENTIONED IN THIS SEIZED PAPER IS RS. 38990/- WHERE IN IT IS STATED THAT SUM OF RS. 8000/- IS RECEIVED AGAINST ADVANCE PAYMENT. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT SUM OF RS. 8000/- ALRE ADY STANDS INCLUDED IN THE SUM OF RS. 19.47 LAKH SO, THEREFORE , TO THAT EXTENT THERE IS A DOUBLE ADDITION. THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 42 FOUND TO BE CORRECT AND ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT IS DELETED. HOWEVER, AS THE TOTAL AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THIS BILL IS RS. 38990/- THEREFORE, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 30990/- IS UPHELD. (XIII) A-8/58 & A-8/59 : IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE AO THAT THE PAYMENT IS AN OVERLAPPING OF A-8/58. HOWEVER, AS PE R THE AO PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED PAPER SHOWS THAT THE WORK DON E AS PER A- 8/59 IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ITEMS AS MENTION ED IN A-8/58. THEREFORE, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 50,100/-. I H AVE SEEN THE DOCUMENTS AND A PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS SHOWS THAT TH ESE RELATE TO WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND IT COMPRISES OF EXPENDITU RE ON VARIOUS ITEMS LIKE 5 HP MOTOR, STRAINER ETC. AND THE TOTAL ARRIVED AT PAGE A- 8/59 IS RS. 15100/- AND THE GROSS TOTAL AS GIVEN ON PAGE NO. A- 8/58 IS RS. 97000/- WHEREIN PAYMENT OF THIS AMOUNT IS SHOWN ON 4.11.99. A SUM OF RS. 97000/- HAS BEEN INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 19.47 LAKH AND THE SUM OF RS. 50100/- ALREADY STAND INCLUDED IN THE SUM OF RS. 19.47 LAKH . THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING THIS ADDITION BY THE A.O. AND THIS ADDITION OF RS. 50,100/- IS DELETED. (XIV) A-8/71: AN ADDITION OF RS. 20147/- WAS MADE O N THE BASIS OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT. THIS DOCUMENT SHOWS A PAYMENT OF RS. 55000/- ON VARIOUS DATES. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THIS PAPER HAS TO BE READ ALONG WITH SEIZED PAPER A- 8/27 & 50 . HOWEVER, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS NOT FOUND TO BE COR RECT AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. FOR RS. 20147/- IS UPHELD . (XV) A-8/78: WITH REGARD TO THIS PAPER, IT WAS SUBM ITTED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,000/- HAS BEEN MAD E BY THE A.O. AS PER THE A.O., PERUSAL OF THIS SHEET REVEALS THAT ON THESE PAPERS RECORDING OF MEASUREMENT OF 4073 SQ. FT. IS GIVEN W HICH THE ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 43 ASSESSEE CLAIMS AS BILL AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT CORRECT . AS PER HIM, THE BILL AMOUNT IS @ RS. 2/- FOR 4000 SQ.FT. WHICH COMES TO RS. 8000/-, THEREFORE, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 8000/ -. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT PAYMENT OF RS. 4000/- AS MENTIONED ON THIS PAGE STAND INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 19.47 LAKH AND THEREFORE, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THIS ADDITIO N OF RS. 8000/- MADE BY THE A.O. SHOULD BE DELETED. A PERUSAL OF TH IS DOCUMENT SHOWS THAT THE BILL HAS BEEN SETTLED FOR RS. 8000/- BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY INCLUDED RS. 4000/- IN THE AMO UNT OF RS. 19.47 LAKH TO THAT EXTENT THE ADDITION IS DELETED. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4000/- MADE BY THE AO IS SUSTAINED. (XVI) A-8/79 : IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE T O THE A.O. WITH REGARD TO THIS SEIZED PAPER THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 8000/- IS NOT A PAYMENT BUT IT IS A QUOTATION. HOWEVER, AS PER THE A.O., SEIZED PAPER REVEALS THAT THIS IS A PAYMENT OF RS. 8000/- TO SH. UMESH CHAND, GHISAIWALA. I HAVE SEEN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT IT HAS TO BE SEEN ALONGWITH A-8/78 PA GE A- 8/78 WHICH ALSO RELATES TO THE BILL OF RUBBING OF FLOORS , AND THIS PAGE ALSO MENTIONS SUM OF RS. 8000/- AGAINST WHICH THE N AME OF 'UMESH CHANDER' IS WRITTEN AND ON TOP OF THIS PAGE IS WRITTEN GHISAIWALA. AS I HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE ADDITION O F RS. 4000/- WHILE DISCUSSING THE PAGE A-8/78. I DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN UPHOLDING THIS ADDITION OF RS. 80001- AS IT WILL TA NTAMOUNT OF DOUBLE ADDITION. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS D ELETED. (XVII) A-8/80:AN ADDITION OF RS. 25001- HAS BEEN MA DE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THIS SEIZED PAPER. ON THIS PAGE IT IS WRITTEN PLEASE PAY RS. 25001- ONLY. IT IS ALSO FURTHER WRITTEN ON THE LEFT BOTTOM OF THE PAGE 'PASSED RS. 25001-.' ONLY. HOWEVER, LD. AR ON BEHALF OF ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 44 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THIS IS ONLY AN ESTIMAT E AND NO PAYMENT WAS MADE. THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED PAPER ARE SELF EXPLANATORY AND THE ACTION OF THE A.O. DOES NOT CAL L FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 2500/- IS SUST AINED. (XVIII) A-19/9, A-19121, A-1917, A-19/8, A-9112 & A -19/43: THESE ANNEXURES INDICATES PAYMENT OF RS. 2,70,000/- , RS. 3,99,799/-, RS. 1,62,000/-, RS. 15000/-, RS. 25,000 /- & RS. 1,57,500/- (TOTAL RS. 10,29,299/-). THE ASSESSEE CL AIMED THAT PAYMENT OF RS. 3,99,799/- AS RECORDED IN A-19/21 IN CLUDES PAYMENT OF RS . 2,70,000/-, RS. 1,62,000/-, RS. 15, 000/-, RS. 25,000/- & RS. 1,57,500/-. THE TOTAL OF THESE FIVE PAYMENTS COMES TO RS. 6,29,500/-. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO HOW PAYMENT OF RS. 6,29,500/- IS INCLUDED IN RS. 3,99,7 99/-. AFTER CROSS VERIFICATION IT WAS FOUND THAT PAGE 21 OF A NNEXURE A -19 INDICATES THAT ON 1.11.99 ADVANCE OF RS. 2,70,000/- WAS PAID BUT ON GOING THROUGH ALL THE PAGES IT IS QUITE CLEAR TH AT THESE PAYMENTS ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE BREAKUP OF FIGURES AND DA TES DO NOT TALLY. HOWEVER, EXCEPT THE ADVANCE OF RS. 2,70,000/ - NO OTHER PAYMENT WAS OVERLAPPING. THEREFORE, PAYMENTS RECORD ED IN ALL THE FIVE ANNEXURES AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,29,299/- AFTER D EDUCTING ADVANCE OF RS. 2,70,000/- WHICH COMES TO RS. 7,59,2 99/- IS FOUND UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONSTRUCT ION OF FARM HOUSE. THE LD. AR VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUBMITTE D AS UNDER: 'ALL THESE ANNEXURES RELATE TO A CONTRACTOR, NAME LY RAJENDRA BABA IN REGARD TO CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. A CAREFUL EXA MINATION OF THESE ANNEXURES SHOWS THAT:- A-19/21 & A-19/5 ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 45 A-19/21 IS A PAPER CONTAINING DETAILS OF PAYMENTS M ADE TO THE CONTRACTOR FROM TIME TO TIME. THE TOTAL AMOUNT ON T HIS PAGE IS 3,99,799/- INCLUDING THE ADVANCE OF RS. 2,70,000/- ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE A. O. IN THIS ADDITION. A-19/12,15, 17 AND 18 IS THE BREAK-UP OF THIS AMOUNT FLOOR WISE. HOWEVER, THE A.O. HAS MADE A DUPLICATE ADDITION OF RS.2,15,040/- RELATING TO ANNEXURE A- 19/5 ON PAGE 26 OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE ANNEXURE WOULD SHOW THAT IT A RUNN ING BILL IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ACCOUNT. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,99 ,799/- HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED IN THE BLOCK RETURN. THE A.O. HAS REFERRED TO A FIGURE OF RS. 10,29,277/ - WHILE MAKING THIS ADDITION. THIS IS EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS: AMOUNT WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED A-19/21 2,70,000 ADVANCE-ACKNOWLEDGED BY AO A-19/7 1,62,000 PL. REFER TO FINAL BILL (PBP AREA IS THE SAME) A-19/8 15,000 FINAL BILL PB P A-19/12 25,000 SHOWN IN ANNEX. A-19/21 (PAYMENT ON 19.2.99) A-19/43 1,57,500 PAYMENT RECORDED IN A-19/21 A-19/21 3,99,799 TOTAL PAYMENT TOTAL 10,29,299 THIS IS A DOUB LE ADDITION ALREADY MADE. HENC E, THIS NEEDS TO BE DELETED. ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 46 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE LD . AR. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,99,799/- WHICH IS RECORDED ON P AGE 21 IS ALREADY DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE BLOCK RETU RN, THEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT NO FURTHER ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. I AC CEPT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE LD. AR EXCEPT IN CASE OF SEIZED PAGE A- 19/43 WHEREIN IT IS CLAIMED THAT SUM OF RS. 1,57,50 0/- IS RECORDED IN A-19/21 THIS IS NOT BORNE OUT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, PAYMENTS MADE TO SH. LADOO LAL SHA RMA OF RS. 1,57,500/- HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED AND ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,57,5,00/- IS CONFIRMED. (XIX) A-19/23: THIS IS A BILL OF BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIER DATED 25.9.2000 ON WHICH TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 36400/- IS M ENTIONED. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THE PAYMENT OF R S. 10000/- WAS MADE. HOWEVER, AS PER THE A.O. PERUSAL OF THE S EIZED DOCUMENT REVEALS THAT PAYMENTS OF RS. 27,000/- AND RS. 7000/- WERE MADE ON 6.9.99 AND 2.9.99. THEREFORE, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 26,400/-. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE SUM OF RS. 10,000/- HAS ALREADY BEEN INCLUDED IN THE FIGURE OF RS. 19.47 LAKH I.E. THE INVESTMENT ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE FARM HOUSE. I HAVE SEEN THE DOCUMENTS THAT THE BILL IS O F RS. 36,400/- AND THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT IT HAS BEEN S ETTLED FOR A LOWER AMOUNT. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS. 26,400 /- IS UPHELD. (XX) A-19/25: AN ADDITION OF RS. 8050/- HAS BEEN MA DE BY THE A.O. THIS AGAIN A BILL OF SH. NETRAPAL DATED 18.2.2 001 FOR RS. 30900/-. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT THAT ONLY A SUM OF RS. 22850/- WAS ACTUALLY PAID AGAINST THIS BILL. IT IS SEEN FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT THAT THE THREE AMOUNTS OF RS. 4000/ -, RS.16,000/- AND RS. 2850/-, WHICH TOTAL UPTO RS. 22 850/- ARE ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 47 MENTIONED AND BENEATH THESE FIGURES SIGNATURE OF SH . NETRAPAL ARE APPEARING. THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE CORRECT THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN SETTLED FOR RS. 22850/-. AS TH IS AMOUNT OF RS. 22850/-MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED. (XXI) A-19/39 & 40: AN ADDITION OF RS. 39074/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT. I T IS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR THAT OUT OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 39074/ -, A SUM OF RS. 23000/- ALREADY STAND ADMITTED AS INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FARM HOUSE. IT IS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS FILE D BY THE LD. AR THAT RS. 23,000/- ALREADY STAND INCLUDED IN THE SUM OF RS. 19.4 7 LAKH AND THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR BEING CORRECT IS ACCEPTED AND ADDITION OF RS. 23,000/- IS STRAIGHTWAY DELETED . AS FAR AS BALANCE OF RS. 16074/- IS CONCERNED, IT IS SEEN FRO M THIS PAGE NUMBER THAT TOTAL OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF WORK HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS. 39216/-. HOWEVER, IT SEEM THAT IT HAS BEEN SETT LED FOR RS. 33213/- OUT OF ADVANCE GIVEN OF RS. 10,000/-, THE T OTAL AMOUNT AS PER THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT IS ARRIVED AT RS. 23,0001- WHICH STANDS ALREADY ADMITTED. THEREFORE, ADDITION FOR THE CONST RUCTION OF THE FARM HOUSE MADE BY THE A.O. FOR RS. 39074/- IS DELE TED. (XXII) A-19/50: AN ADDITION OF RS. 5000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT. IT IS SE EN FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT THAT ON THE LETTER HEAD IT IS WRITT EN NORTH ACADEMY AND THE TOP OF WHICH NAME MASROOR IS WRITTE N AND UNDER THIS IT IS WRITTEN 'TRAP CUTTING' AND AGAINST THE F IGURE OF RS. 5000/- , IT IS WRITTEN 'TOTAL WORK'. IT IS CONTENDED BY TH E LD. AR THAT THIS IS ONLY AN ESTIMATE AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THIS DOCUMENT. I HAVE PERUSED THE DOCUMENT AND IT IS SEEN FROM THE DOCUMENT THAT IT SEEMS TO BE AN ESTIM ATE ONLY AND IT ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 48 IS NOT A PROPER BILL. NOR THERE IS ANY INDICATION F ROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 5000- HAS ACTUALLY BEEN PAID. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 2000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT. AS PER THE A. O., PERUSAL OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEE N MADE. IT IS SEEN FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT THAT ON THE LEFT S IDE OF THIS DOCUMENT, PAYMENT OF RS. 8500/-IS SHOWN AND RIGHT S IDE THERE ARE TWO NARRATIONS STATING 'PAID RS. 1000/-' 'PAID RS. 2000/-' ARE APPEARING. IT IS SEEN FROM THIS DOCUMENT THAT SUM O F RS. 1000/- HAS BEEN PAID ON 19.8. AND 30.8. THEN IT ALSO GOES ON STATE 'PAID RS. 5000/- TILL DATE' AND THIS NARRATION IS DATED 2 6.10.2001. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS UPHELD. (XXIV) A-19/55 & A-19/56: AN ADDITION OF RS. 41000/ - HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THESE SEIZED DOCUM ENTS. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT THESE TWO SEIZED DOCUM ENTS HAVE TO BE READ ALONGWITH ANNEXURE A-8/5. AS PER SEIZED PAP ER A-19/55, IT IS SEEN THAT AN ADVANCE PAYMENT OF RS. 41,000/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON 12.7.2001. I HAVE SEEN THE SEIZED DOCUM ENT A-S/52, WHICH IS ALSO RELATING TO GANGA PARSAD SHARMA AND O N THIS SEIZED PAPER DETAILS OF VARIOUS PAYMENT MADE IS MENTIONED AND TOTAL IS WORKED OUT AT RS. 34,000/- AND PERUSAL OF PAGE A-19 /55 SHOWS TOTAL ADVANCE PAYMENT OF RS. 41,000/-. I FIND FORCE IN THE AGREEMENT OF THE LD. AR THAT TILL JULY 2001 TOTAL A DVANCE PAYMENT OF RS. 41,000/- HAS BEEN MADE AND THIS ALREADY STAN D INCLUDED IN THE ADMITTED INVESTMENT IN FARM HOUSE. I DO NOT FIN D ANY JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE A.O. TO MAKE FURTH ER ADDITION OF RS. 41,000/- AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DELETED. ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 49 (XXV) A-19/57: AN ADDITION OF RS. 20,000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT. AS PER T HE A.O., PERUSAL OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT SHOWS THAT THIS IS AN ACCOU NT OF FINISHING WORK FOR RS. 20000/-. HOWEVER, IT IS CONTENDED BY T HE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT THAT THIS IS ONLY AN ESTIMA TE. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE LD. AR AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O.I S CONFIRMED. (XXVI) A-19/61 & 62: AN ADDITION OF RS. 3000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON SIS OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT. AS PER THE LD. AR ON THE BASIS OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT ADMITTED INVESTMENT I N FARM HOUSE IS RS. 3700/- WHICH FORMS PART OF RS. 19.47 LAKH. T HEREFORE, I AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THERE IS NO FURTHER SCOPE FOR MAKING ANY FURTHER ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT AND THE SAME IS DELETED. (XXVII) A-19/64, 65 & 69: AN ADDITION OF RS. 60047/ - ON THE BASIS OF THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS HAS BEEN MADE. I HAVE PER USED THESE DOCUMENTS AND FIND THAT A-19/64 IS DUPLICATE OF A-1 9/65 AS THE FIGURES ON THESE PAGES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. IT IS STATED BY THE LD.A.R. THAT IN A-19/64, A SUM OF RS. 10000/- HAS B EEN ACCEPTED AS INVESTMENT IN THE FARM HOUSE AND FORMS PART OF R S. 19.47 LAKH. SIMILARLY, A SUM OF RS. 44500/- HAS ALREADY BEEN AC CEPTED AS INVESTMENT AND FORMS PART OF RS. 19.47 LAKH. SO, TH E TOTAL INVESTMENT ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RS. 54,500/- . THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE LD. AR IS ACCEPTABLE AND T HE ADDITION MADE IS DELETED. (XXVIII) A-24/40: AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,40,000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT. AS P ER THE A.O., IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS IS A QUOTAT ION ON ACCOUNT OF SANITARY WARES. THE A.O. DID NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 50 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THIS IS NOT A QU OTATION BUT DULY INDICATING THE PAYMENT OF RS. 1,39,790/- AND C ARTAGE OF RS. 270/-. I HAVE PERUSED THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. IT IS A PHOTOCOPY AND DOES NOT MENTION THE NAME OF THE ANY PARTY AND IT I S A PLAIN SHEET OF THE PAPER SO THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. THAT IT IS A BILL IS NOT BORNE OUT FROM RECORDS. IT ALSO DOES NOT STATE THAT THE P AYMENT OF RS. 140000/- HAS BEEN ACTUALLY MADE. ON THE BASIS OF TH IS DOCUMENT ALONE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE WITHOUT ANY CORROBORA TIVE EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS. 1,40,000/- IS DELETED. (XXIX) A-24/12 : AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,70,000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THIS PAPER. IT IS SEEN FRO M THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS THAT THERE ARE THREE PAGES OF THIS ANNEXU RE ARE ON THE LETTER HEAD OF WATER SPECIAL INDIA AND UNDATED. PAG E NO. 10 OF THIS ANNEXURE CLEARLY WRITES ON THE TOP 'QUOTATION' AND THEN AFTER VARIOUS ITEMS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED AND THE TOTAL PRI CE OF WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS RS. 1,70,000/-. ON THE. SAME PAGE AT THE END OF WHICH IT IS WRITTEN 'PIPING' IS ESTIMATED FO R PLANT ROOM 6-8 METER FOR POOL', A PERUSAL OF THIS DOCUMENT LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT IT IS ONLY AN ESTIMATE AND NO PAYMENT OF RS. 1,70,000/ - IS INDICATED FROM THIS DOCUMENT. THEREFORE, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANC E THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. CANNOT BE UPHELD AND THE SAME IS D ELETED (XXX) A-28/1: AN ADDITION OF RS. 25020/- HAS BEEN M ADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THIS PAGE. I HAVE SEEN THE SEI ZED DOCUMENT AND ON THE TOP OF WHICH IT IS CLEARLY WRITTEN 'ROUG H ESTIMATE'. HOWEVER, ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE IT IS WRITTEN ' ADVANCE RECEIVED 2000/-. THOUGH IT IS MENTIONED ON THE SEIZED PAPER ROUGH ESTIMATE BUT AS PAYMENT OF RS. 2000/- IS EVIDENCED FROM THE ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 51 SEIZED DOCUMENT ITSELF SO IT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS ROU GH ESTIMATE. THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED AND THE ADDITIO N MADE IS UPHELD. (XXXI)A-3/15: AN ADDITION OF RS. 62375/- HAS BEEN M ADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT. AS PER T HE A.O. THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS THAT ON 3.1.9 9, 27.1.99 AND 22.2.99 180 BAGS AND 300 BAG RESPECTIVELY OF CEMENT WERE DELIVERED. AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER AN EXPLANA TION, HE MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF 499 BAGS ADOPTIN G THE RATES AT RS. 125/- PER BAG AGGREGATING TO RS. 62375/-. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT THIS IS AN ACCOUNT OF EMPTY BAGS BE ING MAINTAINED BY THE CHOWKIDAR. THIS PAPER DOES NOT SAY ANY PAYME NT HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE PERUSED THE SEIZED DOC UMENT. A PERUSAL OF SOME OF THE ENTRIES SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THESE ENTRIES HAVE BEEN MADE BY CHOWKIDAR FOR THE SALE OF EMPTY BAGS OF CEMENT. SOME OF THE ENTRIES READ AS ' KHALI BORI BECHA, THEREFORE, I FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION O F THE LD. AR AND THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF THESE ENTRIES OF RS. 62375/- IS DELETED. (XXXII) A-2/21: AS PER THE A.O. THIS IS A DELIVERY CHALLAN DATED 11.8.2000 OF 100 BAGS OF CEMENT FROM ACC BY TRUCK N O. DLK 4150. AS NO EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED, THE A.O. MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 13500/- TAKING THE COST OF PER BAG AT RS. 13 5/-. IT IS STATED BEFORE ME THAT THIS HAS BEEN TAKEN IN ACCOUNT IN TH E CONTRACTOR'S PAYMENT. BUT, THIS HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED. THER EFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS UPHELD. ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 52 (XXXIII) A-8/60: AS PER THE A.O. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED IN EXPLANATION DATED 29.10.2003 AND IT HAS BEEN COVERED WHILE EXPLAINING A-8 PAGE 9 TO 80. AS PER T HE A.O. PERUSAL OF EXPLANATION REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT G IVEN ANY EXPLANATION IN REGARD TO PAYMENT OF RS. 1,32,500/- ON 5.1.2000. NOTHING HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE ME ALSO WITH REGARD TO THIS ADDITION, AND, THEREFORE, SAME IS CONFIRMED. (XXXIV) A-24/21: IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. T HAT THIS IS PLAIN PAGE AND DOES NOT BEAR NAME OF THE ASSESSEE OR COMP ANY NOR DOES IT MENTION ANY OTHER DETAILS. AS PER THE A.O. PERUSAL OF SEIZED DOCUMENT REVEALS THAT THIS IS AN ACKNOWLEDGE MENT FOR CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 228501- ON 28.5.96 TO TRUCK SYNDICAT E. AS PER THE LD. AR THIS PAPER DOES NOT RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE A ND THIS APPARENTLY APPEARS TO HAVE STRAYED ALONGWITH CERTAI N OTHER PAPERS FROM SOME SHOP ETC. I DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE A.O. AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS UPHE LD. 28. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE FIND THAT EACH AND EVERY SEIZED DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED THREADBARE BY THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE SEIZED MATERIAL, EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMMENTS OF THE AO. MOST OF THE ADDITIONS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CI T (A) AFTER PROPER ANALYSIS AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE IS ALSO INTO A PPEAL. HOWEVER, CAREFULLY GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AS INCORPORATED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN SUCH A FINDING AND TH EREFORE, THE OBSERVATION AND FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) AS INCORP ORATED ABOVE IS CONFIRMED AND ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY TH E REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND CORRESPONDINGLY, GROUND NO. 6(III), W HEREBY THE ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 53 ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE BALANCE ADDITION CONFIRME D BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ALSO DISMISSED. 29. THE LAST ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 4 IS D ELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 10,40,100/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PERQUISITE VAL UE OF RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION. THE AO ON THE PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED DO CUMENTS AND THE DETAILS REVEALED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THAT PR EMISES OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH HE WAS LIVING, I.E., A-232, DEFEN CE COLONY, NEW DELHI IS OWNED BY THE COMPANY M/S. RIZVI SKIN CLINIC PUVA THERAPY RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED IN WHICH ASSESSEE IS O NE OF THE DIRECTORS. THE SAID PREMISES COMPRISE OF 2 FLOORS, OF WHICH, BASEMENT AND GROUND FLOOR WERE USED AS CLINIC AND BA LANCE AS RESIDENCE OF THE DIRECTOR. HE NOTED THAT IN THE COMPUTA TION THE PERQUISITE VALUE OF RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION AS PER RUL E 3(A) (III) HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN AND ACCORDINGLY; HE WORKED OUT THE PERQ UISITE VALUE FOR ALL THE YEARS INVOLVED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT AN D WORKED OUT THE TOTAL PERQUISITE VALUE OF RS. 10,40,100/-. 30. THE ASSESSEE THOUGH HAS MADE DETAILED SUBMIS SIONS ON THIS ISSUE, HOWEVER THE LD. CIT(A), HELD THAT THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT BASED ON ANY SEIZED MATERIAL AND HENCE DO NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME, THEREFORE, IS OUTSI DE THE SCOPE AND PURVIEW OF CHAPTER XIV-B AND ADDITION IF AT ALL CAN B E MADE WOULD A REGULAR ASSESSMENT. 31. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL O F THE NATURE OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, WE FIND THAT AO HAS ESTIMATED TH E FAIR MARKET RENT OF THE PREMISES OCCUPIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF RULE 3A (III) AND SUCH AN ESTIMATE IS SANS ANY SEIZED DOC UMENT AND MATERIAL AND THEREFORE, LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELE TED THE ADDITION ON ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 54 THE GROUND THAT IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER 14-B. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND NO. 4 RA ISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 32. NOW WE WILL TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL VIDE WHICH FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED:- 1. IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF SEARCH & SEIZURE CARRIED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT U/ S 132 OF THE ACT; 2. IN UPHOLDING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 158 BC OF T HE ACT; 3. IN CONFIRMING THE TIME-BARRED ORDER U/S 158BE OF TH E ACT; 4. IN UPHOLDING THE PROCEEDINGS AS VALID AND NOT VIOLA TIVE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE; 5. IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N SEARCHING THE THREE LOCKERS AT IOB, PNB AND SBI AND INITIATIN G AND CARRYING OUT CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS EVEN THOUGH NO SEARCH WARRANTS WERE ISSUED IN RESPECT THERETO; 6. IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS MADE TO THE R ETURNED INCOME: (I) RS. 36,15,399/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVESTME NT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND FARM HOUSE IN DISTRICT SAHARA NPUR; (II) RS 5,23.445/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAI NED CASH ALTHOUGH THE SAME WAS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH; (III) RS. 25,58,786/- OUT OF RS. 44,99,006/ - ON A CCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT/ EXPENDITURE IN THE FARM HOUSE A T VILLAGE FATEHPUR BERI, MEHRAULI; (IV) RS. 1,58,027/- ON ACCOUNT OF POWER LINE IN FA RM HOUSE AT BHAGOOWALA, SAHARANPUR; (V) RS. 1,00,000 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED PURCHASE O F GYPSY. 7. IN CONFIRMING THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 55 33. OUT OF THE SAID GROUNDS, GROUND NO. 1 TO 5 HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED AND THEREFORE, SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRES SED. 34. SO FAR AS GROUND NO. 6(I) IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL WHILE DEALING THE SAME IN THE REVENUES APPEAL VIDE GROUND NO. 1. OUT OF THE TOTAL AGGREGATE AD DITION OF RS. 94,52,393/-, PARTLY HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AND PARTLY HAS BEEN DELETED. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION DELETED BY THE LD. CIT (A) THE SAME HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY US IN THE REVENUES APPEAL . HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHA SE OF LAND STANDING IN THE NAME OF TWO RELATIVES, I.E., SMT. JAMI LA BEGUMAND SMT. AQUILA BEGUM FOR SUMS AGGREGATING TO RS. 13,34,2 80/-, WE HAVE ALREADY DELETED THE SAID ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT, FIRSTLY , THAT IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ITSELF THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF THE LAND IS APPEARING WHICH GOES TO SHOW THAT LAND BELONGS TO THESE TWO PERSONS; AND SECONDLY , DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THESE PERSONS HAVE OWNED UP THE PROPERTY AND ALSO FILED TH EIR SWORN AFFIDAVITS. THUS, THE ONUS UPON THE ASSESSEE ON THE D OCUMENTS FOUND AT HIS RESIDENCE/ PREMISES STANDS DISCHARGED AND AO, IF AT ALL, SHOULD HAVE INVOKED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD IN THIS CASE OR SHOULD HAVE ASKED ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THEIR INVESTMENT IN THE SAID LAND. WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY, ADVERSE PRESUMPTION CANNOT BE DRAWN IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INVESTMENT MADE BY THESE TWO LADIES WHO A RE INDEPENDENT PERSONS, BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE OR INVES TMENT HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THUS, GROUND NO. 6(I) IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 56 35. SO FAR AS THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH OF R S. 5,23,445/-, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL, WHEREBY HE HAS GIVEN PART RELIEF OF RS. 3,36,000/- ON ACCOUN T OF CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE BLOCK RETURN AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND OVERALL BALAN CE AMOUNT OF RS. 1445/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED OUT OF AGGREGATE INCOME, NO PROOF WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WITHOUT THEIR BEING ANY REBU TTAL OF THESE FINDINGS BEFORE US, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY ADDITION OF RS. 187445/- AS C ONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED. 36. NOW COMING TO THE THIRD ADDITION OF RS. 25,5 8,786/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT /EXPENDITURE OF FARM HOU SE AT MEHRAULI. THIS ISSUE, WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN THE REVENU ES APPEAL WHEREBY DETAIL FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON EACH AND EVERY SEIZED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN AFFIRMED BY US AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TINKER WITH SUCH FINDING WITHOUT ANY PROPER MATERIAL O N RECORD TO REBUT THE SAME. LD. CIT (A) HAS ALREADY GIVEN RELIEF BASED ON EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND I N THOSE CASES WHERE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN BY FILING ANY COGEN T EVIDENCE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS. 25,68, 786/- AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED AND ASSESSEES GROUND ON THIS SCORE IS DISMISSED. 37. GROUND NO. 6,(IV AND (V) HAVE NOT BEEN PRESS ED AND LD. COUNSEL ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOMINAL IN QUANTUM. AC CORDINGLY SAME ARE DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 57 38. NOW WE WILL TAKE UP CROSS APPEAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. AFRIN RIZVI. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAV E BEEN RAISED: 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN THEREDUCTING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,84,704/- TO RS. 3,49,500/- MADE BY THE ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND FAR M HOUSE AT VILLAGE BHAGOOWALA, SAHARANPUR..' 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REDUCING THE ADDITION FROM R S. 57,10,551/- TO RS. 1,85,671/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACC OUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH .. ' 3. 'ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,12,111/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 39. WHEREAS IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, FOLLOWING GROU NDS HAVE BEEN RAISED:- 1. THAT THE ORDER THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD ON FACTS AND I N LAW FOR THE ABOVE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS/ARGUMENTS/EVID ENCE ADDUCED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIAN CE HAS BEEN PLACED UPON IRRELEVANT MATERIAL AND CONSIDERAT IONS. THE ADDITIONS AS CONFIRMED VITIATES THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AND REQUIRES TO BE ANNULLED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AN D IN LAW IN SUSTAINING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2003 PASSED U/S 15 8BC FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1995 TO 8.11.2001 RELEVANT TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT 1996-97 TO 2001-02 AND A.Y. 2002-03 (FOR THE PERIOD 11.4.2001 TO 8.11.2001) ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 58 (I) RS. 3,49,500/- BEING INVESTMENT IN FARM HOUSE BUILDING OUT OF AN ADDITION OF RS. 10,84,704/- MADE BY THE AO; (II) RS. 1,85,671/- BEING UNDISCLOSED AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY OUT OF AN ADDITION OF RS. 6 4,31,807/- MADE BY THE AO; (III) RS. 22,000/- BEING UNDISCLOSED & U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN SHARES OUT OF AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,20,000/- MADE BY THE AO; (IV) RS. 98,000/- BEING UNDISCLOSED & UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FDR. 40. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO . 1 IN REVENUES APPEAL AND GROUND NO. 2.1 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE THAT THE AO ON SCRUTINY OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD M ADE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN VILLAG E BHAGOOWALA, SAHARANPUR WHICH WAS CALCULATED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF CIRCLE RATE AT RS. 5,37,375/- AND ADDED STAMP DUTY PAID AT RS. 42 ,930/- AGGREGATING TO RS. 5,80,305/-. THE AO DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE IN VESTIGATION WING SAHARANPUR TO ASCERTAIN FROM THE LOCAL REVENUE OF FICE THE EXACT QUANTITY OF LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER FAMI LY MEMBERS. THE DETAILS OBTAINED FROM PATWARI, REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE W AS OWNER OF 242 BIGHAS OF LAND AND THE VALUE OF THE SAME WAS RS. 8,82,000/-. ONE SHRI M.A. KHAN WAS EXAMINED BY ADIT, SAHARANPUR THRO UGH WHOM THE PURCHASE OF LAND WAS CARRIED OUT, HAD STATED THAT PUR CHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS ABOVE THE CIRCLE RATE. LATER O N THE SAID STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED BY MR. M.A. KHAN BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT. A O DREW ADVERSE INFERENCE ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS GIVEN BY PATWARI THA T THE TOTAL LAND HOLDING OF THE LAND WAS 42 BIGHA AND THE REGISTERED SA LE DEED REVEALED 13.3 BIGHAS. THE AO, APPLYING THE RATE OF RS. 21,00 0/- PER BIGHA OF BALANCE 29 BIGHA ESTIMATED THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 6,09,00 0/- AND ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 59 ACCORDINGLY IN THE LAND ADDITION WAS CALCULATED AT RS. 11,89,305/- (RS. 5,80,305/- + RS. 6,09,000/-) APART FROM THAT ASS ESSE HAD ADMITTED CONSTRUCTION IN THE FARM HOUSE BUILDING AT RS. 9 ,81,910/- AND INVESTMENT IN TUBE WELL AT RS. 1,05,000/- WHICH AGG REGATED TO RS. 10,86,910/-. THE INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FARM HOUSE WAS CLAIMED BY THREE PERSONS NAMELY ASSESSEES HUSB AND, SHRI A.H RIZWI OF RS. 4,22,011/-, RS. 3,49,500 BY THE ASSESSE E HERSELF AND RS. 3,15,399/- BY SMT. JAMILA BEGUM. ACCORDINGLY AN AGG REGATE ADDITION OF RS. 150470/- WAS MADE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER BY THE AO:- A) UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND ON THE BASIS OF SALE DEED FOUND BY APPLYING THE CIRCLE RATE AND STAMP DUTY. RS. 5,80,305 B) INVESTMENT IN 29 BIGHAS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. RS. 6,09,000 C) UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FARMHOUSE BLDG. RS. 3,15,399 _______________ TOTAL RS.15,04,704/- ________________ 41. LD. CIT(A) RELYING UPON THE APPELLATE ORDER IN T HE CASE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND DR. A.H. RIZWI AND ON THE BASIS OF CERTIFICATE OF PATWARI THAT ONE PACCA BIGHA IS EQUAL TO THREE KUCCHA BIGHA HELD THAT ADDITION OF RS. 6,09,000/- ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENC E IN MEASUREMENT OF LAND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE ASSESSEE AS PER TH E SALE DEED WAS ONLY HOLDING 13.3 BIGHA OF PACCA BIGHA. REGARDING A DDITION OF RS. 5,80,305/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT AND THE PURCHASE O F LAND, LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT, FIRSTLY , NO EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN FOUND AT THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT STATED IN THE SALE DEED AND THE STATEMENT OF SHRI M.A. KHAN HAS ALSO BEEN DETRA CTED; AND SECONDLY , THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE LAND AS PER THE SALE DEED IS ONLY RS. 2,65,670/- WHICH IS MUCH LESS THE INVESTMENT DISCL OSED IN THE ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 60 REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME AT RS. 4,20,000/-. IN THIS MA NNER ADDITION OF RS. 5,80,705/- WAS ALSO DELETED. FOR THE BALANCE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS U NDER :- 7.6 REGARDING THE INVESTMENT IN FARMHOUSE BU ILDING, THE AO HAS TAKEN THE SAME AT RS. 3,15,399/-. THIS INVESTME NT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY SMT. JAMILA BEGUM AND OTHERS. SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF DR. AH. RIZVI AS WELL. THE ADDITION STANDS CONFIRMED IN THE HANDS OF DR. AH. RIZVI BY ME LD. PREDECESSOR IN PAR A 5.10 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. IT APPEARS THAT THE AO HAS BY MIST AKE ADOPTED THE FIGURE OF RS. 3,15,399/- IN PLACE OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 3,49,500/- SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. SINCE THE APPELL ANT COULD NOT EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 3,49,500/-, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. THE AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 10,84,704/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN A GRICULTURAL LAND AND CONSTRUCTION OF FARMHOUSE BUILDING OF WHIC H THE SUSTAINABLE ADDITION IS RS. 3,49,500/-, THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 7,35,204/- IS DELETED. 42. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT SO F AR AS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN MEASUREMENT OF LAND OF RS. 6,09,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT DETAILS GIVEN BY THE PATWARI TO THE INVESTIGA TION WING SHOWED 42 BIGHAS, WHEREAS THE SALE DEED REVEALED 13. 3 BIGHA OF LAND. IN THIS CASE ALSO, CERTIFICATE FROM PATWARI WAS OBTAIN ED WHEREIN IT WAS CERTIFIED AND CLARIFIED THAT ONE PUCCA BIGHA IS EQUAL TO THREE KUCCHA BIGHAS AND THEREFORE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL WHILE DISCUSSI NG THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE REAS ONING GIVEN ABOVE WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMP UGNED ORDER ALSO ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 61 WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,09,000/-. SO FAR AS TH E OTHER ADDITION OF RS. 5,80,305/- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A NOTE OF THE FACT THAT, THE SALE DEED DISCLOSED TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 2,65,670/- INCLUDING STAMP DUTY AND SINCE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DISCLOSED INVES TMENT IN THE SAID LAND AT RS. 4,20,000/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THEREF ORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,80,305/- HAS RIGHTLY BEEN HELD TO BE UNSUSTA INABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS SCORE. REGARDING PART DELETION OF INVESTMENT IN THE FARM HOUSE BUILDING WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT TH E ADDITION ALREADY STANDS CONFIRMED IN THE HANDS OF DR. A.H. RIZ VI BY THE APPELLATE ORDER IN PARA 5.10 AND TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,49,500/- ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION A ND THEREFORE, OUT OF ADDITION OF RS. 10,84,704/-, LD. CIT(A) HAS AFFIR MED RS. 3,49,500/- AND BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 735204/- HAS BEEN DELET ED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS AFFIRMED AND RESULTANTLY GROUND NO.1 AS RAISE D BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 2(I) IS DISMI SSED. 43. SO FAR AS THE SECOND ISSUE RELATING TO ADDI TION OF RS. 57,10,531/- WHICH HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION TOTAL JEWELLERY AMOUNTING TO RS. 66, 17,424/- WAS FOUND FROM THE FOLLOWING PREMISES :- FROM RESIDENCE-CUM-CLINIC, A-232, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI OF DR. AH.RIZVI & MRS. AFRIN RIZVI. RS. 58,31,714/- 1. FROM LOCKER NO.28/11467, SBI, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI, OF DR. AH. RIZVI & MRS. AFRIN RIZVI. RS. 1,64, 790/- 2. FROM LOCKER NO. 391, LOB M-82, G.K.-II (MARKET) OF DR. A H. RIZVI & MTRS. AFRIN RIZVI. RS. 5,64, 977/- ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 62 3. FROM LOCKER NO. 104, PNB OF DR. A. H. RIZVI & MRS. AFRIN RIZVI. RS. 55,943/- TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. RS.66,17,424/- 44. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE HAS GIVEN THE DETAILED EXPLANATION, FIRSTLY , BY STATING THAT EACH COMES FROM JAMINDAR FAMILY AND HER GRANDFATHER WAS SUPDT. OF POLICE OF TH E NORTHERN REGION IN PRE-PARTITION INDIA AND HER FATHER WAS ENGINEER IN INDIAN RAILWAYS. APART FROM THAT, AFTER MARRIAGE SHE HAD SHIFTED TO HER HUSBANDS PLACE WHO WAS WORKING IN SAUDI ARABIA. MOST OF THE JEWELLE RIES WERE ACQUIRED EITHER AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE FROM BOTH THE FA MILIES AND OR WERE ACQUIRED OR PURCHASED IN SAUDI ARABIA. APART FR OM THAT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HER PARENTS WERE LIVING IN USA AND BEFORE THEY EXPIRED THEY HAVE LEFT HUGE GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY FOR HE R AND IN SUPPORT THE WILL OF THE PARENTS WERE ALSO SHOWN. ASSESSEES DETAILED EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN INCORPORATED BY TH E AO IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF JEWELLERY WAS SUMMARISED AS UNDER:- A. INHERITED FROM PARENTS BEFORE THEIR DEATH RS.6 42890/- & RS.388548/- B. INHERITED FROM PARENTS AFTER THEIR DEATH RS.163 8706/- C. RECD. AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE IN THE YEAR RS.48 6160/- & 1975 RS.176429/- D. PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE'S HUSBAND DR. A.H. RIZVI RS.725104/- E. RECD. ON 5TH MARRIAGE ANNIVERSARY IN THE YEAR 1980 AT SAUDI ARABIA RS.2198342/- F. BELONGS TO ASSESSEE'S DAUGHTER RS.164512/- ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 63 45. HOWEVER THE LD. AO REJECTED THE ASSESSEES EXP LANATION ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDEN CE IN REGARD EXCEPT FOR THE DECLARATION BEFORE THE CUSTOM AUTHORITY WH ICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAD GOT THE JEWELLERY FROM SAUDI ARABIA AND USA, WHICH AO ACCEPTED THE SAME. SO FAR AS THE JEWELLERY DISCLOSED IN THE VDIS OF RS. 2 LACS, IS CONCERNED, S AME TOO WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO. FINALLY, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WAS MADE AT RS. 57,10,531/-. 46. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE IS REPRODUCED HEREUN DER :- 8.3 BEFORE ME, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT S TRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE ADDITION MADE. A DETAILED CHART EXP LAINING THE JEWELLERY AND THE SOURCES OF ACQUISITION WAS ENCLOS ED ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, IT WAS STATED THAT APPELLA NT BELONGS TO A WEALTHY FAMILY OF ZAMINDARI BACKGROUND AND THE FAMI LY HAILED FROM FEROZPUR, BIHAR. IT WAS STATED THAT APPELLANT' S GRANDFATHER WAS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OF THE NORTHERN REGION IN PRE PARTITION OF INDIA AND AFTER PARTITION ALSO REMAINE D IN A POWERFUL POSITION. IT WAS STATED THAT HER FATHER WAS AN ENGI NEER IN INDIAN RAILWAYS. IT WAS STATED THAT APPELLANT MARRIED OR. AH. RIZVI IN 1975 AND AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE, SHE RECEIVED JEWE LLERY BOTH FROM HER PARENTS AS WELL AS HER IN-LAWS. IT WAS STATED T HAT AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE, DR. A H. RIZVI WAS SERVING AS DOCTOR I N SAUDI ARABIA WHERE SHE ALSO SHIFTED AFTER MARRIAGE. IT WAS STATE D THAT ON SHIFTING TO SAUDI ARABIA, SHE PURCHASED SUBSTANTIAL JEWELLERY AT SAUDI ARABIA ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS SUCH AS WEDDING A NNIVERSARY, ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 64 BIRTH OF SON ETC. IT WAS STATED THAT DURING LAST 20 YEARS, THE APPELLANT'S HUSBAND SERVED AS DOCTOR IN SAUDI ARABI A, VIENNA AND LONDON AND FINALLY SHIFTED TO DELHI IN 1983. IT WAS STATED THAT DURING THEIR EXTENSIVE TRAVELS AND STAY ABROAD, THE Y ACQUIRED VARIOUS ASSETS LIKE GOLD AND PRECIOUS STONES WHICH WERE MUCH CHEAPER IN SAUDI ARABIA COMPARED TO INDIA. AS GOLD AND JEWELLERY WAS CHEAP IN SAUDI ARABIA, SHE ACCUMULATED JEWELLER Y OVER THE YEARS. IT WAS STATED THAT APPELLANT HAD FILED RECEI PTS OF PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY IN THE SAUDI ARABIA WHICH WERE ANNEXED TO THE CHART EXPLAINING SOURCES OF PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY. THE AP PELLANT ALSO FILED A COPY OF STATEMENT MADE WITH THE CUSTOMS AT THE TIME OF TRANSFER OF RESIDENCE FROM SAUDI ARABIA TO INDIA IN 1983. IT WAS STATED THAT SINCE THE FAMILY WAS CONSTANTLY ON MOVE AND IN FOREIGN LANDS, THEY KEPT SEVERAL ITEMS OF JEWELLERY IN SAFE CUSTODY OF A TRUSTED FRIEND AND CUSTODIAN. A LETTER OF CUSTODIAN CONFIRMING THE POSSESSION OF SEVERAL ITEM OF JEWELLERY IN 1980 WAS ALSO FILED. AFFIDAVIT OF APPELLANT'S MOTHER-IN-LAW EXPLAINING T HAT SHE WAS IN POSSESSION OF JEWELLERY WHICH BELONGED TO THE FAMIL Y WAS ALSO FILED. IT WAS STATED THAT APPELLANT'S PARENTS WERE LIVING IN USA. HER FATHER EXPIRED IN 1990 AND MOTHER IN 1999 AND L EFT MANY PROPERTIES IN USA AND IN INDIA WHICH INCLUDED GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY. A COPY OF 'WILL' OF APPELLANTS MOTHER W HO PASSED AWAY IN 1999 WHEREIN SHE BEQUEATHED SEVERAL ITEMS OF JEW ELLERY TO THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO FILED. IT WAS STATED THAT MOST O F THESE DOCUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO BUT HE HAS T AKEN NO COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME. IT WAS STATED THAT THE AO W AS THUS HAVING PREJUDICED MIND SET. IT WAS STATED THAT AO H AS GROSSLY ERRED IN ATTRIBUTING THE ENTIRE PURCHASE OF JEWELLE RY OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES WHOLLY AND ONLY TO THE BLOCK PE RIOD OF 1996 TO ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 65 2001. IT WAS STATED THAT AO HAS ERRED IN ALLEGING T HAT MINIMUM JEWELLERY BELONG TO PRE BLOCK PERIOD WHEREAS THE FA CTS ARE COMPLETELY REVERSE. IT WAS STATED THAT IT IS CUSTOM ARY PRACTICE IN TRADITIONAL INDIA THAT THE JEWELLERY IS PURCHASED A T THE TIME OF MARRIAGES, WEDDING ANNIVERSARIES, BIRTH OF CHILDREN ETC. IT WAS STATED THAT ALL THESE EVENTS TOOK PLACE MUCH BEFORE THE BLOCK PERIOD TO WHICH THE ASSESSMENT PERTAINS. IT WAS STA TED THAT BY 1996 TO 2001, APPELLANT HAD ALREADY BEEN MARRIED FO R MORE THAN 20 YEARS AND HER CHILDREN WERE GROWN UP. IT WAS STA TED THAT IT IS CUSTOMARY FOR INDIAN WOMEN TO COLLECT JEWELLERY AS STRI DHAN AND PARTICULARLY AT MARRIAGES AND ON FAMILY OCCASIONS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF AO FAILS THIS IMPORTANT TEST OF REASONABLENESS, AS IT IS NOT IN ALIGNMENT WITH TRAD ITIONAL AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ORDER O F AO MITIGATES AGAINST THE TEST OF REASONABLENESS THAT THE APPELLA NT DID NOT BUY JEWELLERY IN FIRST 20 YEARS OF MARRIAGE LIFE WHEN S HE WAS A YOUNG BRIDE AND MOTHER BUT CONSTANTLY PURCHASED HUGE QUAN TITY OF JEWELLERY ONLY IN THE BLOCK PERIOD. IT WAS STATED T HAT FROM THE DESCRIPTION OF THE JEWELLERY ITEM ITSELF. IT IS OBV IOUS THAT MOST ITEMS OF JEWELLERY WERE ANCESTRAL AND ANTIQUE. IT WAS THU S CONTENDED THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 57,10,531/- ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 47. AFTER CALLING FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL AND HAS DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 55,24,860/- AFTER OBSERVING AND HOLDIN G AS UNDER :- ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 66 8.7 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AD AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS NOT O BJECTED TO THE GENUINENESS OF BILLS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT FOR PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY FROM THE MIDDLE EAST DURING HER STAY IN S AUDI ARABIA. HIS OBJECTION IS WHETHER THE JEWELLERY PURPORTEDLY PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT IN MIDDLE EAST IS SAME AS FOUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION. A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF JEW ELLERY CHART AND ITS COMPARISON WITH THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT REVEALS THAT NOT ONLY DESCRIPTION OF ALL JEWELLERY ITEMS, EXCEPT FOR TWO GROUPS OF SMALL ITEMS, BUT ALSO THEIR WEIGHT AN D CARTAGE MATCH WITH THAT GIVEN IN VALUATION REPORT PREPARED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH BY APPROVED VALUER. EVEN SOME PORTION OF JEW ELLERY CONSISTED IN THE ABOVE TWO UNMATCHED GROUP OF SMALL ITEMS, WERE DULY EXPLAINED FROM THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BY TH E APPELLANT. THESE EVIDENCES REVEAL THAT BESIDES THE ITEMS BELON GING TO THE MOTHER-IN-LAW AND THE DAUGHTER OF THE APPELLANT AND THOSE RECEIVED BY HER THROUGH THE' WILL' OF HER MOTHER WE RE ACQUIRED BEFORE SHE FINALLY CAME BACK TO INDIA IN 1983. THUS ALL THE MATCHED ITEMS THAT WERE ACQUIRED PRIOR TO THE COMME NCEMENT OF THE BLOCK PERIOD ON 1.4.95 MUST BE CONSIDERED AS EX PLAINED AS THESE ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV - B. THE REASONING OF THE AO THAT IT IS NOT EVIDENCED THAT J EWELLERY PURCHASED PRIOR TO APPELLANT'S FINALLY COMING TO IN DIA CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT FIRSTLY THE ITEMS MATCH DESCRIPTION AND SECONDLY THAT ONCE A PERSON FINALLY SHIFTS IN 1 983 IN INDIA IT CANNOT BE EXPECTED THAT SHE WOULD LEAVE HER JEWELLE RY IN THAT FOREIGN COUNTRY AND BUY FRESH JEWELLERY IN INDIA AN D THAT TOO WITHIN THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE AO HAS ALSO SIMPLY BRU SHED ASIDE THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE AFFIDAVITS OF AP PELLANT'S MOTHER- ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 67 IN-LAW, CERTIFICATE OF HER DAUGHTER AND INHERITANCE FROM HER MOTHER DULY SUPPORTED BY REGISTERED 'WILL'. HE HAS NOT CON SIDERED THE SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE APPELLANT AND HE R IN-LAWS. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO WITHOUT ANY COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE. IN VIEW OF THIS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ONLY UNMATCHED PORTION OUT OF JEWELLERY ITEMS LISTED AT SI NO. 33 AND 46 OF THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 8.11.01 PRE PARED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AT A-232, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI CAN BE HELD AS UNEXPLAINED AND ACQUIRED OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCO ME DURING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD. 8.8 THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER EXPLAINED FROM PURCHA SE BILLS OF MIDDLE EAST- ACQUISITION OF THREE PIECES OF DIAMOND BANGLES OUT OF 13 PIECES OF BANGLES/KARA OF DIAMOND AND STONE VALU ED AT RS. 2,77,8001- AND LISTED AT S.NO. 33 OF THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 8.11.2001. LIKEWISE THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO EXPLAINE D FROM THE PURCHASE BILLS OF MIDDLE EAST, ACQUISITION OF 5 PAI RS TOPS, 2 PIECES RINGS AND 1 PIECE TIKKA OUT OF 6 PAIRS TOPS, 6 PIEC ES PENDANTS, 2 PIECES RINGS AND 1 PIECE TIKKA VALUED AT RS. 44,300 /- AND LISTED AT SI.NO. 46 OF THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 8.11.01. TH US, IN BOTH THESE CASES THE EXPLAINED ITEMS HAD BEEN ACQUIRED D URING HER STAY IN SAUDI ARABIA. THUS AFTER CONSIDERING THEIR WEIGHT AND QUANTITY, THE PROPORTIONATE VALUE OF UNEXPLAINED JE WELLERY ITEMS COMES TO RS. 1,85,671/- OUT OF TOTAL VALUE OF R. 3, 22,100/- (RS.2,77,200 +44,300/- OF THE SMALL JEWELLERY ITEMS AT SI. NO. 33 AND 46 OF THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 8.11.2001. 8.9 ACCORDINGLY, OUT OF TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE APPELLANT DURING SEARCH, JEWELLERY OF RS. 64 ,31,807/- DETAILED AS UNDER, IS ACCEPTED AS FULLY EXPLAINED:- ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 68 1. JEWELLERY ACQUIRED UPTO 31.3.95 (I.E. PRIOR TO T HE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD) INCLUDING THAT RECEIVED ON HER MARRIAGE IN 1975. RS. 44,92,736/- 2. JEWELLERY INHERITED FROM MOTHER. RS. 5,66 ,108/- 3. JEWELLERY BELONGING TO MOTHER-IN-LAW (OTHER THAN THAT FOUND FROM TWO LOCKERS.) RS. 9,87,718/- 4. JEWELLERY BELONGING TO DAUGHTER. RS. 1,64,512/- 5. JEWELLERY BELONGING TO MOTHER-IN-LAW (FOUND FROM LOCKER NO. 28/11467 SBI AND 104 PNB AS ADMITTED BY AO. RS. 2,20,733/- ___________________ TOTAL RS. 64,31,807/- _________________ REMAINING, ADDITION OF RS. 1,85,671/- FOR UNDISCLOS ED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY IS CONFIRMED. THE APPELLANT EFFECTIVELY G ETS A RELIEF OF RS. 55,24,860/-. 48. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS THE M ATERIAL REFERRED TO BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THE ACQUISITION OF JEWELLERY, FIRSTLY, BY GIVING HER WEALTHY FAMILY B ACKGROUND FROM HER PARENT SIDE AND ALSO THE FACT THAT SHE WAS MARRIED TO A REPUTED DOCTOR WHO WAS SERVING IN SAUDI ARABIA AT THE TIME OF MARRIAG E. AFTER STAYING IN SAUDI ARABIA WITH HER HUSBAND HAS SERVED IN SAUDI ARABIA, VIENNA AND LONDON AND FINALLY SHIFTED TO DELHI IN 1983. MOST OF THE JEWELLERIES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED DURING THE TIME OF STAY AT ABROAD W HICH WAS BROUGHT TO INDIA IN 1983. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED LE TTER OF CUSTODIAN CONFIRMING THE POSSESSION OF ITEMS OF JEWELLERY ALON G WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF HER MOTHER IN LAW TO SHOW THAT SHE WAS ACTUALLY IN P OSSESSION OF ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 69 JEWELLERY WHICH BELONGED TO THE FAMILY. PART OF THE SOU RCE WAS ALSO EXPLAINED FROM THE JEWELLERY INHERITED FROM HER PARE NTS THROUGH WILL WHICH HAS BEEN ALREADY NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). APART FROM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED BILLS PURCHASE OF JEWEL LERY FROM MIDDLE EAST DURING THE STAYING IN SAUDI ARABIA WHICH WAS MATC HED ITEM WISE FROM THE JEWELLERY FOUND INCLUDING WEIGHT AND CARTAGE. THE OBSERVATION AND THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) A FTER PERUSING THE ENTIRE DETAILS, EXAMINING OF SEIZED MATERIAL, EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE EVIDENCE AND THE FINDING OF THE AO, IS BASED ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND WE DO FIND ANY RE ASON TO DEVIATE FROM SUCH A FINDING AND LOOKING TO THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED AND GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. SO F AR AS THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,85,671/- IS CONCERNED, REASONS STATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE SAID JEWELLERY COULD NOT BE MATCHED FROM THE BILLS AND DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WITHOUT ANY REBU TTAL, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. THUS, GROUND NO. 2 (II) AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 49. IN GROUND NO. 3 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED TH E ADDITION OF RS. 5,12,111/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION TOT AL CASH OF RS. 49,98,000/- WAS FOUND OUT OF WHICH IT WAS EXPLAINED T HAT CASH OF RS. 5,12,111/- PERTAINS TO ASSESSEE AND SAME IS HER CASH IN HAND AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS ON 8.12.2001. IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTION THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CASH BOOK ACCOUNT FROM 1.4.200 1 TO 31.3.2002 THE CASH SHOWN WAS STATED TO BE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOM E OF RS. 549312/-. HOWEVER THE AO IN ABSENCE OF ANY PROPER EV IDENCE HAD TREATED THE ENTIRE CASH AS UNEXPLAINED. ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 70 50. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED C OPIES OF RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF POPLAR TREES AT BHAGOOWALA WHIC H WAS SOLD TO ONE, JINDAL TIMBERS THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS CONFRONTED TO THE AO ON WHICH REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR WHICH HAS B EEN OBJECTED BY THE AO. LD. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE GAMUT OF FA CTS HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER:- 9.5 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL . IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS HAVING A LARGE AGRICULTURAL HOLDING IN DISTT. SAHARANPUR. THIS FACT IS ALSO EVI DENT FROM PAGE 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE AO HAS HIMSELF CALCULATED THE LAND HOLDING OF THE APPELLANT AT 13 BIGHA AND 3 BISWA. IN FACT, ON PAGE 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE IS A MENTI ON OF STATEMENT OF ONE SH. M.A. KHAN. IT WAS MENTIONED BY HIM THAT AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, THERE WERE ONLY 5-6 TREES OF MANGOES AND BALANCE TREES WERE OF EUCALYPTUS AND OT HER POPLAR TREES AND THESE TREES WERE CUT AFTER PURCHASE OF LA ND. IT WAS STATED THAT AFTER CUTTING OF THE TREES, THE MANGOES AND GUAVAS TREES WERE PLANTED WHICH WERE NOT READY FOR PRODUCT ION OF FRUITS. THIS INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY ADIT (INV.), SAHARANPUR T HUS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE APPELLANT IN FACT, CUT TREES OF EUCALYPTUS AND POPLAR VARIETIES AND THE NATURAL COROLLARY WOULD BE THAT SHE SOLD THESE TREES. THUS IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES IN THE SHAPE OF SALE OF TREES OF POPLAR IS EVIDENCE TO TALLY IN ISOLATION. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED THE COPY OF BILLS OF SALE OF POPLAR TREES AND THE CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF THESE TREES IS ENTERED IN CASH BOOK OF THE APPELLANT, AND THE CASH IN HAND IS COVERED BY CASH BOOK, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS NOT ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 71 JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE CASH OF RS. 5,12,111/- AS UNEXPLAINED. THE SAME IS DELETED. 51. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND MATERIAL REFERRED TO BEFORE US, W E FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING 13.3 BIGHAS OF LAND AND AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF SAID LAN D THERE WERE TREES IN THE SAID LAND, LIKE MANGO TREES, EUCALYPTUS AN D POPULAR TREES WHICH WAS CUT AFTER THE PURCHASE OF LAND. AFTER THE CUTTI NG OF THE TREES MANGO AND GUAVAS TREES WERE PLANTED AND THE INQUIRY CO NDUCTED BY ADIT (INV.) CLEARLY INDICATE THAT ASSESSEE HAD 7 TREES OF MANGOES AND BALANCE TREES WERE OF EUCALYPTUS AND OTHER POPULAR TRE ES WERE CUT DOWN AND ONCE THEY ARE CUT ASSESSEES VERSION IS THE SAME HAS BEEN SOLD CANNOT BE DENIED. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE EXPLANATIO N WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS AFFIRMED AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE REVENU E IS DISMISSED. 52. LASTLY, COMING TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,00 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND RS. 98,000/- BEI NG UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FDR. SO FAR AS THE ISSUE RELATING TO UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,20,000/-FOR 2200 SHARES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IN M/S. VIKAS WSP LTD. THE AO HAS TAKEN THE FACE VALUE OF EACH SHARE AT RS. 100/- INSTEAD OF RS. 10/-. LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT SINCE SHARES WERE PURCHASED AT FACE VALUE OF RS. 10/- THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,000/- SHOULD BE MADE AND ACCORDINGLY, HE HAS RELIEF OF RS. 1,98,000/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS. 22,000/- REMAINS UNEXPLAINED AND THERE FORE, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. WITH REGARD TO UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN FDR ALSO THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER :- ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 72 11. THE NINTH GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDI TION OF RS. 98,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN FO RS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED TH AT AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENT A-52/45, THE APPELLANT MADE INVESTM ENT OF RS. 50,000 ON 9.6.1999 IN THE NAME OF MS. SOHAER RIZVI AND ALSO PURCHASED FDR OF RS. 48,000/- ON THE SAME DAY BY DE BITING RS. 98,000 IN BANK ACCOUNT NO. 1190015815 SBI, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT MS. SOH AER RIZVI WAS NOT INCOME TAX ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND T HE APPELLANT WAS TAKEN AS CO-OWNER OF THE FDRS. IT WAS MENTIONED THAT MS. SOHAER RIZVI FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE FIR ST TIME ON 31.3.2003 SHOWING ONLY INTEREST INCOME. THE AO OBSE RVED THAT BALANCE SHEET OF MS. SOHAER RIZVI SHOWED CAPITAL OF RS. 6,23,000/- AS ON 31.3.98. SINCE NO EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED, AO HELD THE INVESTMENT IN FDR OF RS. 98,000/- AS UN DISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISS IONS, IT WAS STATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT AO HAS ERRED IN HOLDIN G THAT APPELLANT MADE AN UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS. 98, 000 IN FDRS. NO FURTHER SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD WERE MADE. SI NCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE O F INVESTMENT IN THE FDRS, IN WHICH APPELLANT WAS THE CO-OWNER, ADDI TION OF RS. 98,000/- IS CONFIRMED. 53. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID FINDING, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIR MED THE SAID ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIV E ANY PROPER EXPLANATION AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN F DRS. IN ITA NOS. 305,306/DEL/2005 ITSS NOS. 93, 40/DEL/2006 73 ABSENCE OF ANY PROPER REBUTTAL OF SUCH FINDING WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 54. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH DECEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20/12/2017 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
Guide to Charitable Trusts: Formation, Benefits, and Compliance
₹0
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
Rectification Letter - Application for rectification of mistake under Section 154 of I.T. Act
Mehul₹0
Non-Compete Agreement
₹0
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026