Sri Sajan Kumar Gupta, Cuttack V. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

ITSSA 97/CTK/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9971 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K TULSIYAN
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Application of stay; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record; Onus to prove; Documents seized
• Section: 68; 69C; 153A

Judgement Text

P A G E 1 | 35 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.P. NO.33/CTK/2018 IT (SS) A NO.97/CTK /201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 SHRI SAJAN KUMAR GUPTA, SAI ENCLAVE, SATI CHOURA, CUTTACK - 753002 VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK PAN/GIR NO. AAZPG 8147 R (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.K.TULSIYAN, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI S.M. KESHKAMAT, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 0 4 / 1 2 / 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 / 1 2 / 2018 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, BHUBANESWAR D ATED 2.7.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 4 - 15. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED STAY PETITION FOR STAY OF DEMAND OF RS.55,50,117/ - BY THE DEPARTMENT . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1 . THAT THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN HAVING RELIED AND ACTED ON SOME ROUGH NOTINGS ON SOME LOOSE PAPERS FOUND DURING SEARCH OPERATION CONDUCTED U/S.132 OF THE ACT AND IN ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS. P A G E 2 | 35 1,48,92,950/ - AS AGAINST DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT OF RS.35,97,950/ - U/S.153A OF THE ACT WITHOUT CORROBORATING SUCH ADDITION TO THE INCOME WITH ANY AUTHENTICATED DOCUMENTS. 2. THAT, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES FURTHER ERRED IN HAVING MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,12,95,000/ - U/S.69C OF THE ACT PRESUMING UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON THE MARRIAGE OF THE APPELLANT'S DAUGHTER HELD IN JULY, 2013 BY COMPLETELY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE PERIOD MENTIONED IN THE ROUGH LOOSE SHEETS OF SGBLR - 12 WAS 15.02.2006 AND HAD NO NEXUS WITH THE MARRIAGE OF THE APPEL LANT'S DAUGHTER AND HENCE THE ADDITION MADE ON SURMISE AND CONJECTURE IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 3. THAT, THE LD. C.L.T.(A) ERRED IN NOT HAVING PROPERLY APPRECIATED THAT THE PAGES, CONTAINING ROUGH INCOMPLETE NOTHINGS WITHOUT SIGNATURE AND STRUCK OFF, DO N OT PROVIDE THE MONETARY UNIT IN WHICH THE ALLEGED FIGURES ARE WRITTEN AND SUCH NOTINGS ARE DEVOID OF ANY INGREDIENT OF TRANSACTIONS AND HENCE THE ADDITION MADE ON SUCH DUMB DOCUMENTS, PRESUMING THAT THE FIGURES ARE IN LAKHS IS MISNOMER, HAVING NO RELEVANCE TO THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 4. THAT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDIT OF THE DISCLOSURE OF RS.9,79,875/ - MADE U/S. 153A OF THE ACT BY THE BROTHER OF THE APPELLANT, SRI SHANKAR GUPTA, ON A CCOUNT OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE APPELLANT. 5. THAT, WITHOUT ANY PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN LAW IN HAVING ENDORSED THE PRESUMPTION APPLIED BY THE A.O. U/S.292C OF THE ACT ON THE SEIZED ROUGH LOOSE SHEETS, HOLDING THE CONTENTS TO BE INDICATIVE OF APPELLANT'S CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT S.292C APPLIES ON 'BOOKS OF ACCOUNT' AND 'OTHER DOCUMENTS' AND NOT 'LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPER' AS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH CANNOT BE CALLED 'BOOK'. 6. THAT, IN ABSENCE OF THE SEIZURE OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENT, PRESUMPTION U/S.292C OF THE ACT WAS INAPPLICABLE AND THUS THE LD. C.L.T.(A) WRONGLY PRESUMED P A G E 3 | 35 THAT THE IMPUGNED LOOSE SHEETS CONTAINED NOTINGS OF THE UNEXPLAINED MARRIAGE EXPENSES. 7 . THAT, AS THE ORDER OF LD. C1T(A) SUFFERS FROM ILLEGALITY AND IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT, THE SAME SHOULD BE QUASHED AND YOUR APPELLANT BE GIVEN SUCH RELIEFFS) AS PRAYED FOR. 3 . THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,12,95,000/ - U/S. 69C OF THE ACT. 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT A SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION U/S.132 OF THE I.T.ACT W AS CONDUCTED ON 6.8.2014 IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF ASSESSEE AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE DIRECTORS AT NEEM CHAURI, OLD COLLEGE LANE, CUTTACK. ACCORDINGLY, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 31.7.2015 TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 3.2.216 DISCLOSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.35,97,950/ - . 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION, IT WAS FOUND FROM THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED (.E. SGBLR - 1 & 12 THAT MS. SNEHA GUPTA'S MARRIAGE WAS HELD IN JULY 2013 FOR WHICH EXPENSES A TUNE OF RS 1,43,95,000/ WAS INCURRED. OUT OF THE TOTAL MARRIAGE EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED AN P A G E 4 | 35 AMOUNT OF RS 21,00,000/ - IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FI LED U/S 153A OF THE IT ACT. IN THIS CONTEXT, A SHOW - CAUSE LETTER DATED 13.10.2016 WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE OF RS 1,22,95,000/ - SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME AS UNDER: 'MS. SNEHA GUPTA, YOUR DAUGHTER, WAS MARRIED IN JULY 2013. THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED WERE FOUND RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. PAGE NO.12 - 14 OF SGBLR - 1, CONTAINS A SAMPLE OF INVITEES FOR THE PURPOSE. PAGE NO. 16 - 21 OF THE SAME BUNCH CONTAINS THE LIST OF OTHER INVITEES TO THE EVENT. THE SCHEDULE OF EVENT INCLUDES 'JAGRAN POOJA'WHICH WAS HELD IN CUTTACK, FOLLOWED BY THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY AT HOTEL HINDUSTAN INTERNATIONAL IN KOLKATA. PAGE 6 OFSGBLR - 12, CONTAINS PART OF EXPENDITURE TO BE MADE DURING THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY. PAGE 7 OF SAME SGBLR - 12, CONTAINS DETAILED ITEM - WISE EXPENDITURE MADE IN THE MARRIAGE. THIS PAGE INCLUDES THE GENERAL EXPENDITURE ITEMS LISTED AT PAGE - 6. THE TOTAL EXPENDITUR E AS FOUND FROM THAT PAGE WAS 158.95 LAKHS. THE SOURCE OF THIS EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. FURTHERMORE, PAGE 8 OF SGBLR - 12 CONTAINS THE LIST OF ITEMS GIFTED TO SNEHA'S HUSBAND TOTALING TO RS.19.95 LAKHS. ON PAGE 9 OF SAME BUNCH, THERE IS A LIST O F JEWELLERY ITEMS FOR GIFT TO SNEHA GUPTA TOTALING TO RS.19.5 LAKHS. THERE IS NEITHER BANK WITHDRAWLS NOR PERSONAL DRAWINGS TO EXPLAIN IT. PAGE 11, 12,13 OF THE SAME BUNCH CONTAINS THE LIST OF INVITEES TO THE EVENT. A TRANSCRIPT OF PAGE NO. 7 IS GIVEN FOR READY REFERENCE AS UNDER: - ' 'HOTEL, FRUITS, CHAIN, GINII, MILINI, SWEETS (NEG) TOTAL 1 1.25 1 2.31 0.10 0.50 6.16 CUTTACK KE RAHENE AANEJANE KA KHARCHA [EXPENDITURE TOWARDS CUTTACK I.E. HOTEL,TO AND FRO JOURNEY 15.00 RECEPTION PARTY 35.00 PHOTOGRAPHER AND VIDEO 1.00 CARD 500 @160 / - 0.80 P A G E 5 | 35 SNEHA KA DAIPA (BRIDE BASKET) 15.00 JEWELLERY 20.00 MILINI 3 3TIMES, 36 COPIES 0.28 LADKA KA NEG KE SAMA Y HATH ME 0.51 CHANDI KA MEVADAN 0.50 J HOLA BHARAI (CUSTOM FOR BRIDE) 0.51 LUGAIAKI MILINI (CUSTOM FOR LADIES) 2.00 JAMAI KA SAMAN (CUSTOM FOR SON IN LAW) 1 . 00 KYOLA DIKHAI KA NEG (TIKA, JHUMKA) 0.11 JAMAI KA TILAK TIKA JHUMKA PAR AUR CHANDI KA NARIAL (TILAK OF SON IN LAW) 0.21 JAMAI KA TILAK KA RATH KE SAMAYA AUR CHANDI KA NARIAL (TILAK OF SON IN LAW IN TIME OF RATH) 0.21 SAGJALABI KE NEG MEGINITI 0.21 CHANDI KE MATA KE COIN SAJAMGOTH ME (SILVER COIN OFMAT 0.20 PSRABATI KA SAMAN 6.00 MISC. EXP. 2.00 LADKA WALA KO RING 2.00 BAHAN BETI KA JEWAR (JEWELLERY OF SISTER'S DAUGHTER) 14.00 BHUA LOGO KA (IN CASE OFBHUA) 1.00 SASU NANAD KI BHET ( CUSTOM IN CASE OF MOTHER IN LAW AND SISTER IN LAW) 5.00 DAD AUR SASU BAHU CHANDI KA SAMAN 7.00 SASU KI SADI ( DAIYA)(SADI OF MOTHER IN LAW) 1.25 KADE AND SWEETS 7.00' HERE, THE TOTAL OF ITEMS COMES TO 143.95. SO THIS AMOUNT IN LAKHS IS THE EXPENDITURE AS PER THIS PAGE. FURTHER THERE ARE CERTAIN OTHER ITEMS, HEADING ' SNEHA KA DAIPA ' AND 'SO ME KA SAMAN' MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED MATERIALS WHICH WERE FOUND TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED LIST. IN THE LETTER D ATED 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2014, ADDRESSED TO THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (LNV)UNIT - 2(L), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHUBANESWAR, ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED FOLLOWING AMOUNT UNDER THIS HEAD OF MARRIAGE: M ARRIAGE EXPENSES : THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR THE MARRIAGE OF MISS SNEHA GUPTA HELD IN JULY, 2013. THESE EXPENSES WERE SHARED AS UNDER: PARTICULARS AMOUNT THROUGH DISCLOSED FUND OF THE FAMILY. 10,00,000 BY SHRI SANKAR GUPTA (OUT OF UNDISCLOSED P A G E 6 | 35 FUND AS DISCLOSED ABOVE) 9,79,875 BY SHRI SAJAN GUPTA 21,00,000 TOTAL 40,79,875 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.21,00,000/ - HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, HE REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE BALANCE AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO HIS RETURNED INCOME AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE . IN THIS CONTEXT, THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSION ON 10.06.2016 AND ALSO ON 21.10.2016 IN THE SUPP ORT OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES WHICH ARE PRODUCED AS UNDER: '10.06.2016: IN THE DISCLOSURE PETITION AN AMOUNT OF RS.21,00,000/ - HAS BEEN ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME UNDER MARRIAGE EXPENSES AND THE SAME AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.21,00,000/ - FOR THE A.Y - .2014 - 15 WHILE FILLING THE RETURN U/S 153A.THERE WAS A MARRIAGE OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH EXPENSES HAS BEEN INCURRED PRIMARILY FROM THE ASSESSEE. WITHDRAWAL HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF THE ASSES SEE AGAINST MARRIAGE EXPENSES. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF EXACT DETAILS AND TO COVER UP ANY POSSIBILITY OF EXPENSES NOT ACCOUNTED FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY ADMITTED UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES IN THE MARRIAGE OF THE DAUGHTER TO THE TUNE OF RS 21,00,000/ - .T HE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND OFFERED TO TAX' 21.10.2016: PRIMARILY BASING UPON THE ROUGH NOTING OF SEIZED DOCUMENT SGBLR - 12, YOUR HONOUR HAS ALLEGED THAT THE ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE IN THE MARRIAGE OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS 198.40 LAKHS. THE ALLEGATION IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THE NOTING REFERRED IN SGBLR - 12 HAS NO NEXUS WITH THE MARRIAGE OF ASSESSEE'S DAUGHTER. P A G E 7 | 35 THIS IS VERY MUC H CLEAR FROM PAGE NO. 7 OF SGBLR - 12, WHERE IN THE DATE OF 15/02/2006 WAS NOTED. THE SCANNED PORTION OF THE SAID PAGE IS AS UNDER. THE AFORESAID NOTING IS CLEARLY CERTIFYING THAT THE NOTINGS ARE FOR AN EVENT OF 2006 WHEREAS THE MARRIAGE OF THE ASSESSE E'S DAUGHTER WAS IN 2013. FOR THIS SIMPLE REASON THE NOTINGS CANNOT BE RELATED TO THE MARRIAGE OF DAUGHTER OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE GROUP IS AN OLD REPUTED FAMILY OF THE CUTTACK & SRI SRINIWAS GUPTA FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE IS SOCIALLY WELL ESTABLISHED PERSON OF THE SOCIETY WHO REGULARLY USED TO ARRANGE/ COORDINATE/ ESTIMATE MARRIAGE CEREMONY OF OTHERS OF THE SOCIETY. T HE PRESENT NOTING IN SGBLR - 12 RELATES TO ANY SUCH ROUGH CALCULATION OF ANY EVENT WHICH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE YEAR 2006 OR 2007. THIS NOTING IS NO WAY RELATED TO THE MARRIAGE OF ASSESSEE. FROM THE AFORESAID QUESTION ANSWER IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THE ALLEG ED NOTING ARE NOT RELATED TO ASSESSEE'S DAUGHTER MARRIAGE. MORE OVER THE STYLE OF NOTING ITSELF CLEARLY INDICATES THAT, IT IS A ROUGH ESTIMATE ONLY. EVEN THE FIGURES NOTED ARE IN THOUSAND, LAKHS OR CRORES IS NOT AVAILABLE AND ONLY TO BE MATTER OF PRE SUMPTION/ASSUMPTION. NOTING THE NEVER INDICATES ANY INGREDIENT OF THE TRANSACTIONS SUCH AS, DATE, PAYEE, PAYER, DETAILS OF PAYMENT, AMOUNT PAID/PAYABLE ETC. IN ABSENCE OF THE AFORESAID FACTS ROUGH NOTING CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH EXECUTED TRANSACTION FO R LEVY OF TAX. HYPOTHETICAL FIGURES NOTED FOR ESTIMATING ANYTHING CAN NEVER BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE FOR LEVY OF TAX. MORE OVER THE TOTALING OF NOTING IS ALSO NOT MATCHING TO THE ALLEGED FIGURE OF 106.6 LAKHS AND 51.25 LAKHS. THE SCANNED COPY OF THE NOTICE CONTAINING THE FIGURES IS AS FOLLOWS - . YOUR HONOUR HAS NOTED THE FIGURES I.E. HERE THE FIGURES ON LEFT SIDE COLUMN ADD UP TO 106.6. SIMILARLY, THE TOTAL OF ITEMS WRITTEN AS 'TO BE GIVEN TO BOY'S SIDE' IS 51.25. THERE ARE OTHER MI NOR INCIDENTAL EXPENSES. ADDING UP ALL THESE THE TOTAL CO M ES TO 158.95. P A G E 8 | 35 BUT TOTALING OF ALL FIGURES IN FIRST LINE COMES TO 20.66, SECOND LINE COMES TO 54.2 9 AND THIRD LINE CO M ES TO 19. TAKING ALL TOGETHER THE TOTAL FIGURE COMES TO RS. 93.95. HENCE , THE ALLEGED SOME TOTAL OF RS. 158.95 IS NOT CORRECT. THE ALLEGED FIGURE AS NOTED AT PAGE NO.8 OF SAME DOCUMENT UNDER THE HEADING 'SNEHA KA DAIPA' HAS BEEN SUMMED UP TO RS. 9,95,000 / - WHICH IS NOT AN ADDITIONAL ESTIMATE BUT DETAILING OF 15.00 NOTED AT PAGE NO.7 UNDER THE HEAD 'SNEHA KA DAIPA' HENCE THE PRESUMPTION OF SEPARATE ESTIMATE OF RS. 19,95,000/ - IS NOT CORRECT BUT IT IS ONLY THE BREAKUP DETAILING OF 15.00 NOTED UNDER THE SA ME HEAD AT PAGE NO.7. SIMILARLY NOTING AT PAGE NO.9 OF THE SAME DOCUMENT UNDER THE HEADING 'SNEHA KA SONE KA SAMAN TOTALING TO 19.50 IS AGAIN NOT AN ADDITIONAL ESTIMATE BUT DETAILING OF 20.00 NOTED AT PAGE NO.7 UNDER THE HEAD 'JEWELLERY'. HENCE THE PRESUM PTION OF SEPARATE ESTIMATE OF RS. 19,95,000/ - IS NOT CORRECT BUT IT IS ONLY THE BREAKUP DETAILING OF 20.00 NOTED UNDER THE SAME HEAD AT PAGE NO.7. SO, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, DETAILING AT PAGE Q NO.8 (19,95,000/ - ) AND PAGE NO.9 (19.50) ARE NOT SEPARATE FIGU RES BUT ONLY THE DETAIL BREAKUP OF FIGURES AT PAGE NO.7. HENCE SEPARATE COUNTING OF THE AFORESAID FIGURES IS NOT CORRECT. EVEN ON A CLOSE LOOK OF THE NOTING AT PAGE Q NO.7 OF SGBLR - 12 AND ALSO AS PER THE TRANSCRIPT GIVEN IN THE NOTICE THE AMOUNT NOTED AGA INST JEWELLERY AT DIFFERENT PLACES IS AS FOLLOWS. PARTICULARS OF ITEM FIGURES NOTED CHAIN 1.00 GINI 2.31 JEWELLERY JEWELLERY OF SISTER'S DAUGHTER 20.00 14.00 RING 2.00 DAD OUR SASU BAHU CHANDI KA SAMAN 7.00 TOTAL AGAINST JEWELLERY AND SILVER 46.31 THE ALLEGED AMOUNT IN NOTICE INCLUDES THE AFORESAID FIGURES AGAINST JEWELLERY AND SILVER ITEMS WHICH WERE TO BE GIFTED BY DIFFERENT PERSONS TO DIFFERENT PERSONS AS PER THE NORMAL CUSTOM OF THE P A G E 9 | 35 SOCIETY. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION ONE CAN PRESUME THAT THE ENTIRE JEWELLERY USED IN MARRIAGE WAS INSTANTLY PURCHASED AGAINST CASH. BECAUSE ALMOST A MAJOR PART OF JEWELLERY WAS OUT OF ANCESTRAL JEWELLERY AVAILABLE IN FAMILIES AN D OLD JEWELLERIES SPECIFICALLY KEPT FOR MARRIAGE BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS. HENCE THE ELEMENT OF OLD JEWELLERY OUT OF THE AFORESAID ESTIMATE ANNOT BE TAXED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN THE YEAR OF MARRIAGE. E LEMENT OF MISTAKE OF NOTING IS ALSO THERE BECAUSE FIGURE OF 1.25 WAS NOTED AGAINST FRUITS AND 7.00 AGAINST SWEETS, APPLYING THE PRESUMPTION, FIGURE COMES TO RS. 1,25,000/ - FOR FRUITS AND RS. 7,00,000/ - AGAINST SWEETS WHICH APPARENTLY LOOKS INCORRECT. MORE OVER THE NOTINGS AT ALLEGED PAGE NO.7 SPECI FICALLY CONTAINS THE DATE OF 15/02/2006 ... THE WORD 'ROUGH' AND ALSO CROSSED ACROSS THE PAGE. NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND IN THE ENTIRE SEARCH PROCEEDING IN SUPPORT OF ANY OF THE FIGURE NOTED AT PAGE 7, 8, OR 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE FIGURES NOTED AT PAGE 7, 8, OR 9 ARE NEITHER CORRECT NOR RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE'S DAUGHTER MARRIAGE AND HENCE NOT RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT THERE WAS A MARRIAGE OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH EXPENSES HAS BEEN INCURRED PRIMARILY FROM THE ASSESSEE. WITHDRAWAL HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST MARRIAGE EXPENSES. THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE WAS RS. 40,79,875 / - WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE & BY OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE JOINTLY. THE SHARE OF EXPENDITURE MADE BY OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS HAS BEEN DULY DISCLOSED IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE DETAIL SOURCE OF EXPENSES IS NOTED HERE UNDER. PARTICULARS OF SOURCE AMOUNT [RS.) AMOUNT DISCLOSED BY ASSESSEE IN DISCLOSER PETITION WELL AS IN RETURN 21,00,00 AMOUNT SPENT BY SHANKER GUPTA AGAINST HIS DISCLOSER OF RS. 15,00,000/ - . AFTER DEDUCTING HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES OF RS. 5,20,125/ - , BALANCE 9,79,875/ - P A G E 10 | 35 RS. 9,79,875/ - SPENT FOR MARRIAGE WITHDRAWAL FORM CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 10,00,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURE 40,79,000/ - 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT T HE WRITINGS WERE MADE BY ONE PERSON AND APPARENTLY THOSE ENTRIES WERE RELATING TO SAME PERIOD. ALTHOUGH, ASSESSEE MADE CERTAIN CLAIM TO LINK IT TO A PRIOR PERIOD, NOTHING WAS PRODUCED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM EXCEPT WRITTEN SUBMISSION. IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT ASSESSEE'S WRITTEN SUBMISSIO N. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT A S PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4A), THE FINDINGS AND NOTING IN THE D OCUMENT SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS PRESUMED TO BE TRUE. SO THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE EXPLAINED EACH ENTRY MADE IN HIS NOTE BOOK, AND LINK THE ENTRIES TO THE EARLIER MARRIAGE IF ANY. IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT SAME NOTE BOOK IS USED FOR TWO MARR IAGES HELD WITHIN A GAP OF MORE THAN FIVE YEARS. FURTHER IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, ASSESSEE FAILED TO MENTION THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE MADE TOWARDS STAYING IN CUTTACK I.E. HOTEL, TO AND FRO JOURNEY OF RS.15,00,000/ - AND RECEPTION PARTY OF RS. 35,00,000/ - AS NOTED IN THE SEIZED P A G E 11 | 35 DOCUMENT. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENTIRE SEIZED DOCUMENT WERE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE COULD HAVE SUBMITTED CLARIFICATION REFERRING THE SAID DOCUMENTS. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED AN AMOUNT OF RS 21,00,000/ - AS MARRIAGE EXPENSES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 153A OF THE IT ACT AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,00,000/ - IS ALLOWED TO BE CONTRIBUTION OF FAMILY MEMBERS OUT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS AND DISCLOSURES. BUT, THE BALANCE MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF RS .1 ,12,95,000/ - [RS. 1 ,43,95,000/ - MINUS RS.21,00,000/ - (DISC L OSED IN THE RETURN) MINUS RS. 10,00,000/ - (REGULAR WITHDRAWAL FORM CAPITAL ACCOUNT)], THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT OF THE SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED RS 1,12,95,000/ - TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E, AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69C OF THE IT ACT . 8. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THESE TWO DOCUMENTS ARE NOT RELIABLE. ACCORDING TO THE A SSESSEE , THE DOCUMENT SGBLR - 1 IS A MAILING LIST FOR THE PURPOSE OF CUSTOMARY GIFTS FOR DIWALI AND THE DOCUMENT SGBLR - 12 IS NOT RELATED TO THE MARRIAGE OF A SSESSES DAUGHTER, BUT, IT IS REGARDING P A G E 12 | 35 SOME FUNCTION IN THE PAST. FUR THER, ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE DATE MENTIONED IN ON PAGE 7 OF DOCUMENT SGBLR IS 15.02.2006 AND IT IS MENTIONED AS 'ROUGH' AND THEREFORE, IT NOWHERE RELATES TO THE MARRIAGE FUNCTION OF HIS DAUGHTER HELD IN JULY, 2013. THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED SUBMISSION STATING THAT THESE ARE LOOSE PAGES AND CANNOT BE CALLED AS 'BOOK' OR 'DOCUMENT' AND AS SUCH THEY ARE DUMB DOCUMENTS. BY RELYING UPON SEVERAL JUDG EMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE ENTRIES IN SUCH DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR MAKING ADDITION IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE SEIZED MATERIAL SGBLR - 1 AND SGBLR - 12. AS FAR AS THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,43,95,000/ - IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS REPRODUCED THE DET AILS ON PAGE - 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE DOCUMENT SGBLR - 12 IS NOT A BUNCH OF LOOSE SHEETS, BUT, IT IS A DOCUMENT WHICH IS BOUND AT THE TOP. IT IS TRUE THAT ON PAGE 7 OF THIS DOCUMENT 'ROUGH' AND DATE '15 . 02.2006' ARE MENTIONED. BUT, THES E TWO WORDS ARE ABSOLUTELY IN 'CONGRUENT WITH THE REST OF THE NOTINGS IN THE DOCUMENTS SGBLR - 12, IN TERMS OF INK AND WRITING STYLE. THE DOCUMENT SGBLR - 12 HAS 15 WRITTEN PAGES AND EACH AND EVERY PAGE AND WRITING THEREIN ARE REGARDING MARRIAGE CEREMONY. FURT HER, ON PAGE - 10 AND ON PAGE - 14 THE DATES MENTIONED ARE 15.07.2013 AND 05.07.2013 RESPECTIVELY. ON PAGE - 10, A LIST OF PENDING PAYMENTS OF 2.05 LAKHS ARE MENTIONED AND ON PAGE - 14 ITEMS REQUIRED FOR 'MANGALPATH' ARE MENTIONED. FURTHER ON PAGE - 7, THE ENTRY 'SNEHA - KA - DAIPA' (BRIDE BASKET) AGAINST WHICH EXPENDITURE OF RS. 15 LAKH IS MENTIONED. FURTHERMORE, BREAK UP OF 'SNEHA - KA - DAIPA' IN TERMS OF CLOTHS, WATCHES, ELECTRONIC ITEMS, GOLD AND OTHER ARTICLES TOTALLING TO RS. 19,95,000/ - IS MENTIONED. IN ADDITION, ON PAGE - 9, THERE IS ENTRIES OF 'SNEHA KA SONEKA SAMAN' ARE WRITTEN. THE BREAK UP CONSISTS OF DIAMOND SET, MANG - TIKKA, BRACELET AND DIAMOND NOSE P A G E 13 | 35 STUD. THIS IS A CLINCHING EVIDENCE THAT THE EXPENDITURE MENTIONED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS ON ACCOUNT OF MA RRIAGE OF APPELLANT'S DAUGHTER SNEHA GUPTA IN JULY, 2013. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT ALL THESE ENTRIES PERTAIN TO THE MARRIAGE OF SNEHA GUPTA, THE DAUGHTER OF THE APPELLANT, HELD IN JULY, 2013. 3.4 IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED, THE ASSESSING O FFICER WANTED TO MAKE SEPARATE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE ON 'SNEHA - KA - DAIPA'. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE CREDENCE TO APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION THAT THIS AMOUNT IS ALREADY SUBSUMED IN THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,43,95,00 0/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ALLOWED THE SOURCE OF RS. 21,00,000/ - DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF HIS DAUGHTER'S MARRIAGE AS WELL AS RS. 10 LAKHS BEING REGULAR WITHDRAWAL FROM THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THESE FACTS INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS BEEN JUST, FAIR AND REASONABLE IN DETERMINING UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,12,95,000/ - . DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING NEW ON RECORD TO FURTHER EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF MARRIAGE EXPENDITURE. THE APPELLANT H AS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT SHRI SHANKAR GUPTA HAS DECLARED UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,79,875/ - IN HIS HANDS AND HAS PAID TAXES ON IT . 3.5 THE APPELLANT HAS FILED DISCLOSURE PETITION IN CONNECTION WITH SEARCH AND SEIZURE OP ERATION CONDUCTED ON 06.08.2014, BEFORE THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INV), UNIT - 2(1), BHUBANESWAR ON 22.09.2014. IN THIS DISCLOSURE PETITION, HE HAS DISCLOSED RS. 21 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER SNEHA GUPTA HELD IN JULY, 2013. IF ALL THE EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH MARRIAGE WERE OUT OF DISCLOSED SOURCES, THEN THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THE APPELLANT TO MAKE DISCLOSURE ON THIS ISSUE. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE SOURCE OF ENTIRE EXPENDITURE FULLY. 3.6 CONSIDERING THESE ASPECTS, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,12,95,000/ - AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION I S CONFIRMED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. * 10. BEFORE US, LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH READS AS UNDER: BEFORE GOING ON TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO FIRSTLY STATE BEFORE YOUR HONOURS IN FULL DETAILS, THE CONTENTS OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS SGBLR - 1 & 12 FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH WHICH HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LD. A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A) IN ALLEGING THAT THE P A G E 14 | 35 SAME DETAILED THE UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO MARRIAGE OF ASSESSEE'S DAUGHTER, MS. SNEHA GUPTA, HELD IN JULY 2013. (I) SGBLR - 1 BEING A MAILING LIST MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESS EE FOR PURPOSES OF CUSTOMARY GIFTS - PAGE NOS. 12 - 14 OF SGBLR - 1 (PAGES 45 - 47 OF PAPER BOOK) CONTAINED A GENERAL LIST OF INVITEES FOR SOCIAL PURPOSES LIKE DIWALI GREETINGS ETC. ALLEGED BY THE ID. A.O. TO BE INVITEES FOR THE ALLEGED WEDDING. NO ADVER SE COMMENT ON THE SAME HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) - PAGE NOS.16 - 21 OF SGBLR - 1 (PAGES 48 - 53 OF PAPER BOOK) O CONTAINED ANOTHER LIST OF INVITEES O ALLEGED BY THE ID. A.O. TO BE INVITEES FOR THE ALLEGED WEDDING. NO ADVERSE COMMENT ON THE SAME HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ID. CIT(A) (II) SGBLR - 12 CONTAINING ROUGH NOTINGS OF EXPENDITURE. PAGE NO. 6, 7, 8 AND 9 (PAGES 38 - 41 OF PAPER BOOK) O CO NTAINS ROUGH NOTINGS REGARDING ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE O THE TERM 'ROUGH' IS WRITTEN ON THE SAID SHEET ON PAGE 6 THE TERM 'ROUGH 15/2/2006'' IS WRITTEN ON PAGE 7 SCANNED COPY OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THE PAGE 7 IS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER DATED 27/12/2016 O THE NOTINGS IN ALL THE PAGES ARE ALL STRUCK OFF NO MONETARY UNIT IS MENTIONED . THE PAGES DO NOT SHOW WHETHER THE ALLEGED FIGURES ARE IN THOUSANDS, LAKHS OR IN SOME OTHER UNIT. THE CLAIM OF THE LD.AO THAT THE FIGURES ARE IN LAKHS IS MERELY BASED ON PRESUMPTION AND ASSUMPTION. O THE ROUGH NOTINGS ARE DEVOID OF ANY INGREDIENT OF TRANSACTIONS SUCH AS DATE, PAYEE, PAYER, DETAILS OF PAYMENT ETC. THE DOCUMENT DOES NOT CARRY SIGNATURE OF ANY PERSON. P A G E 15 | 35 IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY DETAIL, NO TRANSACTION CAN BE INFERRED FROM THAT DOCUMENT. O THE FIGURES ARE ALL IN FULL FIGURES, INDICATING THAT WERE ESTIMATES AND NOT EXACT FIGURES BEING THE ACTUALS PAGES 11 TO 13 (PAGES 42 - 44 OF PAPER BOOK) CONTAINS NAMES OF VARIOUS PERSONS KNOWN TO ASSESSEE AS RELATIVES FRIENDS AND BUSINESS ASSOCIATES NO DATE MENTIONED PAGE 10 (NOW RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A)) ENCLOSED WITH THIS SUBMISSION AS ANNEXURE CONTAINS CERTAIN NOTINGS WITH REGARD TO PENDING PAYMENTS THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE SAID PAGE IS INELIGIBLE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ON NO BASIS, WITH A PREDETERMINED MIND HELD THE SAME TO BE '15/7/13' O NO MONETARY UNIT MENTIONED O NO SNEHA MENTIONED NO WEDDING MENTI ONED PAGE 14 (NOW RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A)) ENCLOSED WITH THIS SUBMISSION AS ANNEXURE 2 O CONTAINS CERTAIN NOTINGS DATED 5/7/2013 WITH REGARD TO MATERIALS NEEDED FOR A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY NAMELY 'MANGAL PATH' O NO FIGURES MENTIONED O NO CONNECTION TO ANY WEDDING CEREMONY NO SNEHA MENTIONED 2. HAVING UNDERSTOOD BRIEFLY THE CONTENTS OF THE RELEVANT SEIZED PAGES, MOVING ON TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CTT(A), IT IS SEEN THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE PAGE 7 OF SGBLR - 12 ALONE, I.E. PAGE - 7 OF SEIZED DOCUMENT AND PAGE - 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.112.95 LAKHS WAS MADE BY THE LD. A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS THE UNEXPLAINED MARRIAGE EXPENDITURE U/S.69C OF THE ACT. 2.1. PERUSAL OF THE SAID PAGE 7(AT PG 3 9 OF P/B) AMPLY REVEALS THAT THE SAME CONTAINS SOME ROUGH AND DULY STRUCK OFF NOTINGS MADE IN HINDI ON 15/2/2006. IT IS VERY CLEARLY WRITTEN ON TOP OF THE PAGE THAT THE SAME IS 'ROUGH' AND IT IS DATED '15/12/2006. P A G E 16 | 35 THE SAID ENTRIES WITHOUT ANY MONETARY UNIT WERE MERE ROUGH NOTINGS MADE IN THE YEAR 2006 AND THEY HAD NO NEXUS WITH THE MARRIAGE OF ASSESSEE'S DAUGHTER IN THE YEAR 2013. 2.2. THE LD. A.O. ON PAGE - 3 OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS TRANSCRIBED THE SAID ROUGH NOTINGS DATED 15/2/2016 TO ENGLISH AND THE T OTAL AGAINST SUCH ENTRIES WAS TAKEN AT 143.95 WHICH HE PRESUMED IN LAKHS. 2.3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE PAGE 7 OF THE SGBLR - 12 CONTAINED THE SYNOPSIS OF THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES AND RELYING UPON THE SAID PAGE ALLEGED THAT THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON THE ALLEGED MARRIAGE OF SNEHA IN THE YEAR 2013 WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.143.95 L AKHS. IT WAS HELD BY HIM THAT THE DATE '15.02.2006' AND THE WORD 'ROUGH' AS WRITTEN ON THE PAGE 7 OF THE DOCUMENT WAS INCONGRUENT WITH THE REST OF THE NOTINGS IN SGBLR - 12 IN TERMS OF INK AND WRITING STYLE. THE LD. CIT(A), IN PLACING RELIANCE ON THE SAID P AGE 7, HAS TRIED TO DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE OTHER PAGES IN SGBLR - 12 AND STATED THAT THE ENTIRE SET OF 15 PAGES OF SGBLR - 12 WERE REGARDING THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY OF THE ASSEESSEE'S DAUGHTER. LISTING OUT THE NOTINGS ON PAGES 6,7,8 AND 9 OF SGBLR - 12, THE LD. CLT (A) HAS HELD THAT THE SAME WHEREIN 'SNEHA KA DAIJA', SNEHA KA SONE KA SAMAAN' WAS WRITTEN , WERE CLEARLY ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE OF THE ASSESSEE'S DAUGHTER, SNEHA IN JULY 2013. NEXT, RELYING ON PAGES 10 AND 14 OF THE SAID SET, HE HAS STATED THAT PAGE 10, ALLEGEDLY DATED 15/07/2013 WAS A LIST OF PENDING PAYMENTS OF RS.2.05 LAKHS AND PAGE 14 DATED 05/07/2013 LISTED OUT ITEMS REQUIRED FOR 'MANGALPATH' ALL OF WHICH WERE IN CONNECTION WITH THE MARRIAGE OF THE ASSESSEE'S DAUGHTER. 3. NOW IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ALLEGATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A), SUBMITTING FOR THE ASSESSEE, FIRST AND FOREMOST, YOUF HONOURS ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE SPECIFIC PAGE 7 OF THE SGBL R - 12, ENCLOSED AT PAGE 39 OF THE P/B. 3.1. A VERY SIMPLE PERUSAL OF THE SAME WILL REVEAL THAT THE SAID PAGE DOES CONTAIN CERTAIN ROUGH ESTIMATES WITH REGARD TO A MARRIAGE BUT ALL THE SAID ENTRIES ON THE SAID PAGE ARE ALL STRUCK OFF AND IT WAS CLEARLY WR ITTEN ON TOP OF THE PAGE 'ROUGH 15/2/2006'''. THE SAID NOTINGS APPEARING ON THE SAID PAGE CLEARLY AND MOST EVIDENTLY REVEAL THAT THE SAID PAGE WAS A ROUGH PAGE CONTAINING SOME ESTIMATES WHICH WERE ALL STRUCK OFF AND DELETED. THE DOCUMENT CLEARLY HAS THE DATE 15/2/2006 WRITTEN ON IT AND THUS IT UNDOUBTEDLY PERTAINS TO THE YEAR 2006 P A G E 17 | 35 FURTHER A PER USAL OF THE FIGURES WILL AGAIN REVEAL THAT ALL THE FIGURES ARE ALL IN FULL FIGURES, INDICATING THAT WERE ESTIMATES AND NOT EXACT FIGURES BEING THE ACTUAL. IF AS ALLEGED BY THE A.O. AND THE CIT(A), THE SAME WERE ACTUAL EXPENDITURES RECORDED, THEN THE FIGURES WOULD BE MORE REALISTIC AND NOT ROUNDED TO FIGURES SUCH AS 15.00, 35.00, 0.51, 0.21, ETC. A READING OF THE FIGURES WILL AMPLY REVEAL THAT THEY ARE MERE ESTIMATES. THE FIGURES HAVE NO UNIT MENTIONED TO THEM AND THE A.O. AND THE CIT(A), ON NO BASIS HAVE ASSUMED THEM TO BE IN LAKHS. 3.2. THE ID. C1T(A), ON ABSOLUTE NO BASIS WHATSOEVER, SIMPLY ON PRESUMPTION AND PREJUDICE, HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE 'ROUGH' AND THE DATE NOTED THEREIN OF '15/2/2006'. THE ID. CIT(A) ON NO BASIS, WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HAS STAT ED THAT THE TWO WORDS ARE ABSOLUTELY INCONGRUENT WITH THE REST OF THE NOTINGS IN TERMS OF INK AND WRITING STYLE. IN THIS CONNECTION IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE FACT THAT THE WRITING IS OF THE SAME PERSON, BEING THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF, HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ID. CIT(A) HIMSELF WHEREIN HE HAS COMMENTED ON THE INK AND THE STYLE OF WRITING. THE A.O. HAD CLEARLY AT PAGE 7, LAST PARA OF HIS ORDER STATED THAT 'THE WRITINGS WERE MADE BY ONE PERSON'. WITH A CLEAR ACCEPTANCE AND ADMISSION THAT THE SAM E PERSON HAD WRITTEN THE ENTRIES, THE BASELESS COMMENT THAT THE INK AND WRITING STYLE WAS INCONGRUENT IS PURELY BASED ON PREJUDICE AND SURMISES. THERE IS NOTHING TO PROVE THAT THE PAGE WAS FABRICATED. 3.3. NEXT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISMI SSING THE DATE AND THE ROUGH NOTING AND HOLDING THAT THE SAME WAS FABRICATED, HAS HOWEVER CHOSEN TO PLACE COMPLETE AND TOTAL RELIANCE ON THE CONTENT OF THE SAID SAME PAGE 7, WHEREIN THE FIGURES RELATING TO HEADS OF EXPENSES ARE MENTIONED AND TOTALLING THE SAME, HAS ARRIVED AT THE FIGURE OF RS. 1.43 CRORES WHICH IS THE SOLE BASIS OF THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS THUS CONVENIENTLY PICKED AND CHOSEN THE NOTINGS OF THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES TO BE TRUE BUT THE NOTING OF THE YEAR 2006 AND THE NOTING 'ROUGH' TO BE UNTRUE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS APPLIED PRESUMPTION U/S 292C OF THE ACT AND HOLDING THE SAID PAGE 7 TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT (IN PART) HAS THUS BASED HIS ADDITION ON THIS SOLE DOCUMENT. P A G E 18 | 35 3.4. IN CONNECTION TO THE ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITT ED BEFORE YOUR HONOURS THAT IF PRESUMPTION U/S. 292C OF THE ACT APPLIES IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONTENTS OF THE ALLEGED LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPER ARE ASSUMED TO BE TRUE, THEN THE DOCUMENT HAS A WHOLE HAS TO BE RELIED UPON. THE PRESUMPTION U/S 292C OF THE ACT IS ABSOLUTE AND HAS TO BE APPLIED UNIFORMLY TO THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. IT IS NOT AT THE DISCRETION OF THE LD. A.O. TO LAY PART RELIANCE ON THE DOCUMENT AND TO PICK AND CHOOSE PORTIONS OF THE SAME DOCUMENT TO BE TRUE AND THE OTH ER PORTIONS TO BE FALSE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CHOSEN TO RELY PARTLY ON THE SAME DOCUMENT AND HAS CONVENIENTLY PICKED AND CHOSEN THE NOTINGS OF THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES TO BE TRUE BUT THE NOTING OF THE YEAR 2006 AND THE NOTING 'ROUGH' TO BE UNTRUE. THUS SINCE T HE IMPUGNED DOCUMENT HAD NOTING OF 2006 AND NOT 2013 AND SINCE THE PRESUMPTION OF THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE DOCUMENT IS ABSOLUTE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE DATE IS WRONG WHILE THE OTHER CONTENTS ARE TRUE. THE DATE AS MENTIONED AT PAGE 7 OF SGBLR - 12 BEING T HE YEAR 2006 HAS TO BE ACCEPTED TO BE TRUE AND HENCE, THE SAME RELATING TO THE YEAR 2006, THERE CAN BE NO ADDITION IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING THE A.Y. 2014 - 15 IN WHICH THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE. 4. NEXT IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A), I N PLACING RELIANCE ON THE SAID PAGE 7, HAS TRIED TO DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE OTHER PAGES IN SGBLR - 12 WHEREIN LISTING OUT THE NOTINGS ON PAGES 6,8 AND 9 OF SGBLR - 12, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE SAME HAD MENTIONED THEREIN 'SNEHA KA DAIJA', SNEHA KA SONE KA SAMAAN'. NOW, PERUSAL OF THE SAID PAGES (AT PAGES 38,39,40 AND 41 OF THE P/B) ALL WILL REVEAL THAT ALL THE SAID ENTRIES HAVE BEEN STRUCK OFF BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PAGE 6 AGAIN HAS 'ROUGH' WRITTEN ON IT. THE PAGES 8 AND 9 HAVE NO DATE WRITTEN ON IT. THEY W ERE ALL MERE ESTIMATES. A PERUSAL OF THE FIGURES WILL AGAIN REVEAL THAT ALL THE FIGURES ARE ALL IN FULL FIGURES, INDICATING THAT WERE ESTIMATES AND NOT EXACT FIGURES BEING THE ACTUAL. THE LD. CIT(A), VERY CONVENIENTLY, TO SUIT HIS PURPOSE, CHOSEN TO IGNOR E CERTAIN PARTS OF THE SAME PAGE WHILE ACCEPTING CERTAIN OTHER PARTS. 5. NEXT AGAIN, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE LD. C1T(A) HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON PAGES 10 AND 14 OF THE SAID SGBLR - 12 AND STATED THAT PAGE 10, ALLEGEDLY DATED 15/07/2013 WAS A LIST OF PEN DING PAYMENTS OF RS.2.05 LAKHS AND PAGE 14 DATED 05/07/2013 LISTED OUT ITEMS REQUIRED FOR 'MANGALPATH' ALL OF WHICH WERE IN CONNECTION WITH THE MARRIAGE OF THE ASSESSEE'S DAUGHTER. P A G E 19 | 35 ANALYSING THE SAID TWO PAGES, IT IS SEEN THAT THE PAGE 10 (ENCLOSED AS ANNE XURE 1 TO THIS SUBMISSION) IS SIMPLY A PAGE LISTING THEREIN CERTAIN DUE PAYMENTS. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE TO ANY WEDDING, FORGET IT TO BEING IN CONNECTION WITH SNEHA'S WEDDING. ALSO IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE DATE MENTIONED THEREIN IS CLEARLY INEL IGIBLE AND BY NO MEANS CAN BE CONSTRUED TO BE '15/7/2013', AS HAS BEEN ALLEGED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) IN DRAWING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS ALLEGATION HAS IN VAIN TRIED TO MISINTERPRET DOCUMENTS WITH NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER. THE PAGE 14 AS STATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES CONTAIN THE DATE 05/7/13 BUT A PERUSAL OF THE SAME WILL REVEAL THAT THE SAME MERELY LISTS OUT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CERTAIN POOJA, 'MANGAL PATH' WHICH IS TO BE CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. NOWHERE IS IT MENTIONED T HAT ITIS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WEDDING. NOWHERE IN THE SAID PAGE IS ANY SUM OF MONEY MENTIONED. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO HOW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ESTABLISHED CONNECTION OF THE SAME WITH THE MARRIAGE OF THE DAUGHTER AND BASED ON THE SAME IT IS NOT UNDERSTO OD AS TO HOW THE SAID PAGE SUPPORTS THE ALLEGATION OF THE LD. CT(A) THAT THE PAGE 7 REPRESENTED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIS DAUGHTERS MARRIAGE. HERE AGAIN IT IS SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE SAID PAGES 10 AND 14 IN TOTALITY AS SUCH, AS IS WRITTEN ON THE SAID PAGE. HERE THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DOUBTED ANY PARTICULAR NOTING TO BE A MISTAKE, AN AFTERTHOUGHT OR A FABRICATION. THE DATES THEREIN, THE AMOUNTS THEREIN, INFACT THE ASSUMED PURPOSES OF THE SAME, HAVE ALL*BEEN COMPLETELY RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE SAME BREATH, PAGE 7 WHICH CLEARLY CONTAIN THE NOTING OF IT BEING OF THE YEAR 2006, OF PAGES 6 AND 7 OF BEING ROUGH IN NATURE AND P AGES 6 TO 8 O F THEY BEING STRUCK OFF, ARE ALL DENIED AND DOUBTED UPON BY THE LD. CIT( A). 6. ANALYSING THE ACTION OF THE ID. A.O. AND THE CIT(A) AND APPLYING THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE SAID PAGE 7 HAD THE YEAR 2006 REC ORDED THEREIN, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HONOURS THAT IT STANDS AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT UNDISPUTEDLY, MARRIAGE OF THE APPELLANT'S DAUGHTER TOOK PLACE IN JULY, 2013. THIS BEING A FACT, IT ALSO STANDS AS A FACT THAT THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCUR RED ON THE OCCASION OF MARRIAGE DURING JULY, 2013 COULD NOT BE FORESEEN AND RECORDED IN WRITING 7 YEARS BACK ON 15.02.2006 IN ANY PAPER/SHEET. THEREFORE, THE ROUGH AND STRUCK OFF NOTINGS WITHOUT ANY SIGNATURE FOUND IN LOOSE SHEET OF A DIARY BEING DUMB DOCU MENT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR MAKING AN IMPOSSIBLE THING TO BE AN ACTUAL OCCURRENCE AFTER 7 YEARS IN THE GUISE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION. P A G E 20 | 35 EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO, THE DOUBT OF THE ID. REVENUE AUTHORITIES, ON WHICH THE ENTIRE ADDITION U/S.69C STANDS, IS FU TILE IN COMMON PARLANCE. IT IS A COMMON PHENOMENON THAT AMOUNT IS EXPENDED AND SUCH EXPENDITURE IS RECORDED AFTER ITS OCCURRENCE ONLY. IT WAS ALSO NOT EVEN THE SUPPOSITION OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT SUCH NOTINGS, THAT TOO 7 YEARS BACK, WERE TOWARD S ADVANCE OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURE ON MARRIAGE. THEIR ALLEGATION/DOUBT WAS THAT ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNTS FOUND WRITTEN IN THE ROUGH PAPER DID NOT REFLECT THE MONETARY UNIT IN THOUSANDS OR LAKHS, BUT THE SAME WOULD PARTAKE THE SHAPE OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURE IN LAKH I NCURRED ON DAUGHTER'S MARRIAGE. TO REITERATE, NOTINGS DATE WAS 15.02.2006 AND MARRIAGE DATE WAS JULY, 2013 WHEN EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED. THEREFORE, THE SHEER DOUBT DID NOT HAVE A REMOTE RATIONALE WITH THE ACTUALITY/REALITY OR HUMAN CONDUCT. 7. IT IS FU RTHER PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT ROUGH PAGE NO. 7 (P/B PAGE 39) WAS DATED 15/2/2006 AND THE SEARCH TEAM MARKED THE SUBSEQUENT SEIZED PAGES AS NOS.8 AND 9 (P/B PAGES 40 & 41) WHICH WAS IN CONTINUATION OF PAGE - 7 AND NATURALLY, THEREFORE, THE DATE WOULD BE SAME, I.E. 15/2/2006. FURTHERMORE, THE NOTINGS IN THE SUBSEQUENT PAGES 8 & 9 OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE WRITTEN BEFORE PAGE - 7 OF SEIZED DOCUMENT, WHICH WAS DATED 15.02.2006. THAT BEING SO, THE ROUGH AND STRUCK OFF NOTINGS WITHOUT REFLECTING MONETARY UNIT I N THOUSAND OR LAKH CANNOT EVEN BE PRESUMED TO BE THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE YEAR 2013 ON DAUGHTER'S MARRIAGE. 8. FURTHER, EXPENDITURE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED ON DAUGHTER'S MARRIAGE MUST HAVE AT LEAST SOME INGREDIENTS OF TRANSACTIONS, VIZ., DATE OF TRANSACTION, PAYMENTS MADE TO WHOM, MODE OF PAYMENT ETC. IT IS HIGHLY IMPRACTICAL EVEN TO ASSUME THAT ALL THE PAYMENT OF SUCH HIGH RANGE OF RS. 143.95 LACS (AS CHOSEN BY THE DEPARTMENT) HAVE BEEN MADE ON A SINGLE DAY OUT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH. NO SUPPORTING BILLS/VOUCHERS OR ANY SUCH RELATED DOCUMENTS COULD BE FOUND DURING SEARCH OPERATION. NO RECIPIENT PERSON ALLEGEDLY CONNECTED WITH SUCH SUPPOSED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES FROM THEM WERE NAMED OR EXAMINED TO MAKE BELIEF OF THE SUSPICI ON, WHICH HAS ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN ADDITION OF RS.1,12,95,000/ - U/S. 69C OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S. 1 53A VIDE ORDER DATED 27.12.2016. 9. IN CONTEXT TO THE ABOVE, IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH REGARDING ANY AMOUNT OF SUCH INCOMES EARNED AT ANY TIME UPTO THE DATE 15/02/2006 OR EVEN TILL MARRIAGE DATE IN JULY, 2013 WHICH COULD HAVE SUPPORTED ANY PROBABILITY OF EARNING AND HAVING SO MUCH OF CASH AS WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SU CH EXPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1 12.95 LAKHS. P A G E 21 | 35 IT IS APPARENT THAT THE UNSIGNED ROUGH AND STRIKE OFF DOCUMENTS, WHICH WERE DUMB DOCUMENTS, HAVE BEEN UNREASONABLY USED TO GIVE A COLOUR OF EXPENDITURE HAVING BEEN INCURRED ON DAUGHTER'S MARRIAGE, THE SOURCE O F WHICH ACCORDING TO THE TD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THAT BEING SO, THERE IS STRONG DOUBT ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS AND TRUTHFULNESS OF THOSE ROUGH NOTINGS/WRITINGS IN THE DUMB DOCUMENTS AND NATURALLY, THEREFORE, THERE REMAINS HARD LY ANY SCOPE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS ACTUALLY NOT INCURRED. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE ON MERE SUSPICION BY INVOKING SEC.69C OF THE ACT. THAT TOO ON SUCH UNPROVEN ROUGH . THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ID. A.O. AND THE CIT (A), AT THEIR OWN WILL AND CONVENIENCE, IGNORING PARTS OF THE SEIZED PAGES AND RELYING UPON SOME, BASED ON THE PAGE 7 OF THE SGBLR - 12 , APPLYING THE PRESUMPTION U/S 292C OF THE ACT ON THE SAME, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,12,95,000/ - U/S 69C OF THE ACT IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ID. CIT(A) IN APPLYING THE PRESUMPTION U/S 292 C OF THE ACT ON THE LOOSE DOCUMENT SGBLR - 12 HAS STATED THAT THE SAME WAS NOT A BUNCH OF LOOSE SHEET BUT IT WAS A DOCUMENT BOUND AT THE TOP. 10. NOW, IN CONTEXT TO THE ABOVE ACTI ON OF THE ID. A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A),, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO POINT OUT LD. A.O. AND THE CIT(A) HAS APPLIED THE PRESUMPTION U/S 292C OF THE ACT ON THE ROUGH PAGES IN FORM OF LOOSE SHEETS BOUND ON THE TOP ONLY FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AND HELD THE CONTENTS TO BE INDICATIVE OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID SGBLR - 12, WAS IN THE FORM OF ROUGH LOOSE SHEETS MERELY BOUND LIGHTLY AT THE TOP. 10.1. IN CBI VS. V. C. SHUKLA [1998] 3 SCC 410, THE APEX COURT HELD THAT LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPERS CONTAINED IN FILES ARE NOT THE BOOKS. RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SAID DECISION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ''BOOK' ORDINARILY MEANS A COLLECTION OF SHEETS OF PAPER OR OTHER MATERIAL, BLANK, WRITTEN, OR PRINTED, FASTENED OR BOUND TOGETHER SO AS TO FORM A M ATERIAL WHOLE. LOOSE SHEETS OR SCRAPS OF PAPER CANNOT BE TERMED AS 'BOOK' FOR THEY CAN BE EASILY DETACHED AND REPLACED. IN DEALING WITH THE WORD 'BOOK' APPEARING IN SECTION 34 IN MUKUNDRAM VS. DAYARAM [AIR 1914 NAGPUR 44], A DECISION ON WHICH BOTH SIDES H AVE PLACED RELIANCE, THE COURT OBSERVED: - P A G E 22 | 35 ' IN ITS ORDINARY SENSE IT SIGNIFIES A COLLECTION OF SHEETS OF PAPER BOUND TOGETHER IN A MANNER WHICH CANNOT BE DISTURBED OR ALTERED EXCEPT BY TEARING APART. THE BINDING IS OF A KIND WHICH IS NOT INTENDED TO THE M OVEABLE IN THE SENSE OF BEING UNDONE AND PUT TOGETHER AGAIN. A COLLECTION OF PAPERS IN A PORTFOLIO, OR CLIP, OR STRUNG TOGETHER ON A PIECE OF TWINE WHICH IS INTENDED TO BE UNTIED AT WILL, WOULD NOT, IN ORDINARY ENG LISH, BE CALLED A BOOK ............................................................... I THINK THE TERM 'BOOK' IN S. 34 AFORESAID MAY PROPERLY' BE TAKEN TO SIGNIFY, ORDINARILY, A COLLECTION OF SHEETS OF PAPER BOUND TOGETHER WITH THE INTENTION THAT SUCH BINDING SHALL BE PERMANENT AND THE PAPERS USED COLLECTIVELY IN ONE VOLUME. IT IS EASIER HOWEVER TO SAY WHAT IS NOT A BOOK FOR THE PURPOSES OF S . 34, AND I HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT UNBOUND SHEETS OF PAPER IN WHATEVER QUANTITY, THOUGH FILLED UP WITH ONE CONTINUOUS ACCOUNT, ARE NOT A BOOK OF ACCOUNT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF S. 34. ' WE MUST OBSERVE THAT THE AFORESAID APPROACH IS IN ACCORD WITH GOOD REASONING AND WE ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH IT. APPLYING THE ABOVE TESTS IT MUST BE H ELD THAT THE TWO SPIRAL NOTE BOOKS (MR 68/91 AND 71/91) AND THE TWO SPIRAL PADS (MR 69/91 AND MR 70/91) ARE 'BOOKS' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 34, BUT NOT THE LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPERS CONTAINED IN THE TWO FILES (MR 72/91 AND MR 73/91)...' REFERRING TO TH E DEFINITION OF 'BOOK' AS CONTAINED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: '(12A) 'BOOKS OR BO OKS OF ACCOUNT' INCLUDES LEDGERS, DAY - BOOKS, CASH BOOKS, ACCOUNT - BOOKS AND OTHER BOOKS, WHETHER KEPT IN THE WRITTEN FORM OR AS PRINT - OUTS OF DATA STORED IN A FLOPPY, DISC, TAPE OR ANY OTHER FORM OF ELECTRO - MAGNETIC DATA STORAGE DEVICE ;' IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE DEFINITION AS CONTAINED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IT IS CLEAR THAT 'BOOK' REPRESENT LEDGERS, DAY - BOOKS, CASH BOOKS, ACCOUNT - BOOKS ETC. BUT NOT LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPER CONTAINING ROUGH SCRIBBLING. THUS, IT FOLLOWS FROM ABOVE, LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPER [MA RKED AS SGBLR - 1 & 12] BOUND MERELY AT THE TOP IMPOUNDED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE A 'BOOK' AND AS SUCH, NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE CAN BE ATTACHED TO IT SO AS TO FASTEN ANY LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE. 10.2. ANALYSING THE WORD 'DOCUMENT' AS CONTAINED IN THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872, IT READS AS UNDER: P A G E 23 | 35 'SEC. 3: 'DOCUMENT' MEANS ANY MATTER EXPRESSED OR DESCRIBED UPON ANY SUBSTANCE BY MEANS OF LETTERS, FIGURES OR MARKS OR BY MORE THAN ONE OF THOSE MEANS, INTENDED TO BE USED, OR WHICH MAY BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECORDING THAT MATTER.''' AGAIN, AS PER MITRA 'S LEGAL & COMMERCIAL DICTIONARY, SIXTH EDITION, ANY DECIPHERABLE INFORMATION WHICH IS SET DOWN IN A LASTING FORM WOULD BE A DOCUMENT. [REFER PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V T. AMRATH RAO AIR 1960 AP 176] THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DEFINITIONS, UNDOUBTEDLY BY THE TERM DOCUMENT IT MEANS ANY LETTERS/ FIGURES CONVEYING CLEAR INFORMATION. IN OTHER WORDS IT SHOULD CONTAIN PROPER NARRATION, DATE, MONETARY UNIT IF ANY ETC. 10.3. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IS CONCERNED THE LIGHTLY BOUND LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPER IMPOUNDED IN COURSE OF SEARCH NEITHER CONTAINS ANY NARRATION NOR ANY MONETARY UNITS ARE WRITTEN. ONLY TWO DIGIT FIGURES ARE WRITTEN AND NOWHERE IS IT WRITTEN THAT THE FIGURES ARE IN LAKHS AS HAS BEEN WRONGLY PRESUMED BY THE LD.AO. AS SUCH, THE ALLEGED LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPER EVEN DO NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF 'OTHER DOCUMENTS ' ALSO SO AS TO CALL FOR APPLICATION OF SEC.292C OF THE ACT. 10.4. THUS BASED ON THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEARLY THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAGES MARKED AS SGBLR - 1 & 12 ARE NOTHING BUT LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPERS AND THE PRESUMPTION U/S 292 C CLEARLY DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM AND THUS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE CAN BE ATTACHED TO THEM. THEY ARE SIMPLY SOME DUMB DOCUMENTS BASED ON WHICH THE ID. A.O. HAS SOUGHT TO MAKE THE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESEE. 11. NOW AT THIS JUNCTURE, ARISES THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER ANY ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF DUMB DOCUMENTS. 11.1. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT WOULD BE OF RELEVANCE TO THROW LIGHT IN THE CASE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX V. SATYAPAL WASSAN REPORTED IN [2007] 295 ITR (A.T.) 352 (ITAT JAB ), WHEREIN THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT A DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF A SEARCH MUST BE A SPEAKING ONE AND WITHOUT ANY SECOND INTERPRETATION , MUST REFLECT ALL THE DETAILS ABOUT THE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. UNLESS THE DOCUMENT IS P A G E 24 | 35 CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, IT IS ONLY A DUMB DOCUMENT AND NO CHARGE CAN BE LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF A DUMB DOCUMENT. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT A DOCUMENT SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS AS BUSINESSMEN MAY CHOOSE TO RECORD MINIMUM DETAILS ON A DOCUMENT AND KEEP THE REST IN THEIR MEMORY. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CARRY OUT THE NECESSARY INVESTIGATIONS B Y CORRELATING THE DOCUMENT WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS SEIZED, WITH REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WITH RECORD KEPT BY OUTSIDE AGENCIES ETC., SO AS TO FILL UP THE GAPS IN CONFIRMING THE INFERENCE ARISING FROM THE DOCUMENTS FOR A PROPER CHARGE OF TAX. SUCH CORRELATION IS NECESSARY UNLESS THE DO CUMENT IS CAPABLE OF GIVING FULL DETAILS SO AS TO ENABLE ANY INTELLIGENT PERSON TO FIND OUT THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION, THE YEAR OF THE TRANSACTION, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE TRANSACTION AND QUANTUM THEREOF . EVEN IN THAT SITUATION, IT IS NECESSARY TO GIVE OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO OFFER HIS EXPLANATION AND CARRY OUT INVESTIGATION TO STRENGTHEN THE DIRECT INFERENCE ARISING FROM THE DOCUMENT. THEREFORE, IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE LD.AO HAS MADE PRESUMPTIONS ON PRESUMPTION, WHICH IS TOTALLY WHI MSICAL AND ARBITRARY. 11.2. REFERENCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ASHOK KUMAR PODDAR, IT AT KOLKA TA 'D' BENCH (2008) 16 DTR 0055 IN THIS CASE, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF PROFITS SHOWN IN THREE LOOSE PAPERS MERELY ON THE PRESUMPTION UNDER S. 132(4A) WITHOUT VERIFYING THE HANDWRITING AND WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY OR BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A CTUALLY EARNED THE INCOME RECORDED IN THE SAID LOOSE SHEETS. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE PRESUMPTION MADE UNDER S. 132(4A) THAT THE LOOSE SHEETS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT VERIFYING THE HANDWRITING AND WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY OR BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD ACTUALLY EARNED THE INCOME RECORDED IN THOSE LOOSE SHEETS. IT IS A FACT THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL SEIZURE IN THE FORM OF ANY INVESTMENT IN ANY MOVABLE OR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AS REFLECTED IN THE ANNEXURES TO THE PANCHNAMAS. IF THE ASSESSEE P A G E 25 | 35 HAD SO MUCH OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME, SUCH INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN SOME INVESTMENT IN ONE FORM OR THE OTHER. BUT, NO SUCH INVESTMENT OR ASSET WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THEREFORE THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF THE LOOSE SHEETS WITHOUT ANY MATCHING ASSETS FOUND ON SEARCH CANNOT BE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION WAS WHOLLY JUSTIFIED ........' S.P. GOYAL VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, IT AT - MUMBAI REPORTED IN (2002) 82ITD 008 5 (TM): IN THE SAID CASE, ADDITION OF RS. 60 LAKHS WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF NOTING ON LOOSE SHEETS OF DIARY SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: 'LOOSE SHEET OF PAPER TORN OUT OF A DIARY COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS BOOKS FOR THE PURPOSE OF S. 68 ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN NOTINGS ON LOOSE SHEETS OF A DIARY WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF EXTRA CASH, JEWELLERY OR INVESTMENT OUTSI DE THE BOOKS...' PRARTHANA CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, IT AT, AHMEDABAD REPORTED IN (2001) 70 TTJ 0122: IN THIS CASE, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: 'IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION, AS HELD BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES, THAT RIGOURS OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE EVIDENCE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOME - TAX PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER THE PRINCIPALS CONTAINED IN THE EVIDENCE ACT, INCORPORATED FROM RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE FORMING PART OF THE COMMON LAW WOULD NATURALLY BE APPLICABLE TO INCOME - TAX PROCEEDINGS. IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CONSTRUED AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS REGULARLY KEPT IN THE COURSE OF BUSINE SS. SUCH EVIDENCE WOULD, THEREFORE, BE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF S. 34 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1872. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN RESTING ITS CASE ON THE LOOSE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF A THIRD PARTY EVEN IF SUCH DOCUME NTS CONTAIN NARRATIONS OF TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY.' RELIANCE HERE IS ALSO PLACED ON A RECENT DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRAVEEN JUNEJA, ITA NO.57/2011, PRONOUNCED ON JULY 14, 2017: (ORDER COPY ENCLOSED) P A G E 26 | 35 IN THIS CASE, A SEARCH TOOK PLACE IN THE PREMISES OF THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO WHICH CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED. THE DOCUMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ABOVE ADDITION WAS MADE WAS A PIECE OF PAPER (IDENTIFIED AS ANNEXURE - 2. THIS WAS A HAND WRITTEN PAPER PUR PORTEDLY CONTAINING DETAILS OF HOUSE CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES OF RS. 49 LAKHS OUT OF WHICH RS. 29. 70 LAKHS HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID PAPER WAS NOT RELATED TO HIM THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS WORKING AS A PROFESSIONAL DIRECTOR IN SHAMKEN MULTIFAB LTD. AND USED TO HANDLE VARIOUS PROJECTS OF THE SAID COMPANY. THE CIT (A) REJECTED THE ABOVE EXPLANATION. SINCE THE SAID DOCUMENT HAD BEEN SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF ASSESSEE, THE CIT (A) DREW A PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 292 C OF THE ACT WAS THAT IT BELONGED TO HIM. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT RS. 49 LAKHS CONSTITUTED THE UNEXPLA INED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE LIKE A CONFIRMATION LETTER OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENT TO SHOW THAT EXPENDITURE RELATED TO ANY PROJECT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED COMPANY. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: '5. TH E IT AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER NOTED THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT 'DOES NOT INDICATE IF IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSEE NOR THE ADDRESS AND LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IS MENTIONED THEREIN NOR SUCH PROPERTY HAS BEEN LOCATED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. T HE AO HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY FORENSIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE HANDWRITING OF THE LOOSE PAPER RELIED UPON BY HIM TO MAKE THE ADDITION, WHICH IS EXCLUSIVELY MADE ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION AND GUESSWORK. EVEN NO CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ADDITION NOR THE CTT(A) HAS CALLED FOR ANY REMAND REPORT SEEKING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, IF ANY. 6. IN THE CONSIDERED VIEW OF THE COURT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 49 LAKHS TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BASED O N SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND THAT TOO ON THE BASIS OF A SINGLE DOCUMENT WITHOUT MAKING ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY. NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE BY THE AO TO FIND OUT IF IN FACT IT CONSTITUTED THE CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES OF ANY PROJECT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED COMPANY OF WHIC H THE ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR. P A G E 27 | 35 7. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE IT AT SUFFERS FROM NO LEGAL INFIRMITY AND DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. ' 11.3. ANALYSING ALL THE ABOVE DECISIONS IT IS SEEN THAT THE CRUX OF T HESE DECISIONS IS THAT A DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH MUST BE A SPEAKING ONE AND NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF DUMB DOCUMENTS. ALSO IN ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE SO AS TO SUPPORT HIS INFERENCE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY THE AO. 12. IT WOULD BE RELEVANT AT THIS JUNCTURE TO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CB1 VS V C SHUKLA (1998) 3 SCC 410, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHALL NOT ALONE BE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CHARGE ANY PERSON WITH LIABILITY. ENTRIES EVEN IF RELEVANT ARE ONLY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE AS TO THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THOSE ENTRIES AR E NECESSARY TO FASTEN THE LIABILITY. RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF ENTRIES RELEVANT UNDER SECTION 34 WAS ALSO CONSIDERED IN HIRALAL MAHABIR PERSHAD (SUPRA ) L.D. DUA, /. (AS HE THEN WAS ) SPEAKING FOR THE COURT OBSERVED THAT SUCH ENTRIES THOUGH RELEVANT WERE ONLY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AND IT IS TO BE SHOWN FURTHER BY SOME INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE THAT THE ENTRIES REPRESENT HONEST AND REAL TRANSACTIONS AND THAT MONIES WERE PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE ENTRIES. A CONSPECTUS OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS MAKES IT EVIDENT THAT EVEN CORRECT AND AUTHENTIC ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT WITHOUT INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE OF THEIR TRUSTWORTHINESS, FIX A LIABILITY UPON A PERSON. ' THUS FROM THE ABOVE IT IS SEEN THAT IN EVEN WHEN ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE HELD TO BE AUTHENTIC AND CORRECT, THEN TOO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE WAS REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT THE ENTRIES WERE IN FACT CORRECT. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, CLEARLY THE IMPUGNED N OTINGS WERE MERELY ROUGH NOTINGS IN SOME LOOSE SHEETS, ABSOLUTELY INCOMPLETE IN THEMSELVES. THE NOTINGS CLEARLY SAID 'ROUGH' AND ALSO THAT THEY WERE DATED 2006 WHICH IS INFACT DISPUTED BY THE A.O. ON ABSOLUTELY PREJUDICED MINDSET. THERE IS NOTHING FOUND IN THE ENTIRE SEARCH CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE GROUP AND ALSO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH SUBSTANTIATES THE P A G E 28 | 35 ALLEGED NOTINGS IN THE PAPERS TO BE THE EXPENSES RELATING TO THE WEDDING OF THE DAUGHTER IN 2013. THERE IS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE ALLEGED EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE MARRIAGE IN THE YEAR 2013. IN FACT IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE DETAILED STATEMENTS RECORDED IN COURSE OF SEARCH OF THE ASSESSEE (DATED 05/11/2014) AND SHRI SUML GUPTA (DATED 07/08/2014), NONE OF THE QUESTIONS AS CONTAINED THEREIN REFERRED TO ANY QUERY RELATING TO THE ALLEGED SEIZED LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPER. COPIES OF THE AFOREMENTIONED STATEMENTS ARE ENCLOSED AT PAGE NOS. 69 - 134 OF THE P/B, THEREFORE, IT STANDS TO BE THE CASE OF THE ASSESEE THAT THE ALLEGED PAPERS BEING MERELY ROUGH NOTINGS HAD NO SIGNIFICANCE FOR PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT AS HAD BEEN ALREADY UNDERSTOOD BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) AND THUS THEY NEVER QUESTIONED THE ASSESSEE EVER IN RESPECT OF THE NOTING IN THE SAME TILL THIS DATE. ALSO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THERE IS NO ADVERSE OPINION MADE BY THE LD.AO IN ANY STAGE OF THE SAID PROCEEDINGS WHERE THE CONTENTS IN THE ALLEGED LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPER HAS BEEN S UBJECT MATTER OF ANY VERIFICATION. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE IMPUGNED SHEETS OF PAPERS HAD NO SIGNIFICANCE, IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO WHAT LED THE LD.AO TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE AND WHIMSICALLY PROCEED TO HOLD THAT NOTING IN THE ALLEGED LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPER PERTAINED TO THE PERIOD 2013 AND NOT TO THE YEAR 2006, AS MENTIONED THEREIN ITSELF. 13. NEXT IT IS SUBMITTED BEFORE YOUR HONOURS THAT THE PRESUMPTION U/S 292C OF THE ACT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. THE WORDS 'MAY PRESUME' LEAV E IT TO THE COURT TO MAKE OR NOT TO MAKE THE PRESUMPTION ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. SUCH PRESUMPTION IS OPTIONAL AND THE COURT IS NOT BOUND O MAKE IT. EVEN IF SUCH PRESUMPTION IS MADE, IT IS ONLY A REBUTTABLE ONE. A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIO N IS CLEARLY A RULE OF EVIDENCE WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF BY LEADING THE EVIDENCE. INITIALLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE JUSTIFIED TO MAKE SUCH PRESUMPTION, IF DRAWN AFTER JUDICIAL APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE FACT OF THE CASE. THEREAFTER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE LEADS THE EVIDENCE, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONSIDER IT JUDICIALLY. THUS 'REBUTTABLE' MEANS THAT THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM IT LIES CAN REBUT IT WHEN CALLED UPON TO PROVE IT. THE PARTY WHO DENIES AND DOUBTS THE DOCUMENT CAN CLAIM THAT THE CONTENT OF IT IS NOT TRUE. FOR THAT HE HAS TO HOWEVER ADDUCE EVIDENCE. P A G E 29 | 35 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. A.O. HAS PRESUMED THAT THE NOTINGS RELATE TO THE YEAR 2013 AND NOT TO THE YEAR 2006 BUT HE HAS ABSOLUTELY FAILED TO ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE THAT NOTING IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT PERTAINED TO THE YEAR 2013 AND WERE MADE N THE YEAR 2013 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE COULD PROVE THAT MARRIAGE DID NOT TAKE PLACE IN 2006. IF THAT BE SO HOW CAN AN ADDITION BE FASTENED ON THE BASIS OF THIS LOOSE SHEET W HICH PERTAINS TO 2006 WHILE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED RELATES TO 2014 - 15. 14. LASTLY, BEFORE CONCLUDING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS STATED BEFORE YOUR HONOURS THAT THE LD. A.O. AND THE CIT(A), ON THE BASIS OF THE PAGE 7 OF THE SGBLR - 12 HELD THAT THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON THE ALLEGED MARRIAGE OF SNEHA IN THE YEAR 2013 WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 143.95 LAKHS. FROM THE SAID TOTAL EXPENDITURE, A DEDUCTION OF RS.21,00,000/ - BEING THE AMOUNT OF DISCLOSURE MADE M THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION TO HIS DA UGHTER'S MARRIAGE AND FURTHER AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10,00,000/ - BEING WITHDRAWAL FROM CAPITAL ACCOUNT WAS ALLOWED AND THE UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,12,95,000/ - AS DETERMINED BY THE A.O. WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE DISCLOSURE OF RS.9,79,875/ - MADE IN THE HANDS OF SH RI SHANKAR GUPTA WITH REGARD TO THE WEDDING WAS NOT ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN ARRIVING AT THE FIGURE OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,12,95,000/ - BASED ON THE ALLEGATION THAT NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT SH RI SHANKAR GUPTA HAD DECLARED THE SAID EXPENDITURE IN HIS HANDS AND PAID TAXES ON THE SAME. IN CONNECTION TO THE ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED BEFORE YOUR HONOURS THAT THE DISCLOSURE PETITION DATED 10/06/2016 SUBMITTED BY SHN SHANKAR KUMAR GUPTA IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH WITH THE SUBMISSION WHERE IN AT PAGE 5, PARA F, IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT RS.9,79,875/ - SPENT ON THE MARRIAGE OF SNEHA GUPTA IN THE YEAR 2013 WAS COVERED FROM THE ADDITIONAL INCOME RECEIVED BY SHRI SHANKAR GUPTA AS ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS. 15. THUS, BASED ON ALL OF THE ABOVE, CO NCLUDING THE SUBMISSION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ABSOLUTELY MADE WITH A PREJUDICED MINDSET AND BEING TOTALLY BASELESS, AGAINST THE LAW AND NOT BACKED BY ANY EVIDENCES, SUCH ADDITION SHOULD B E QUASHED AND PRAYED RELIEF MAY BE KINDLY GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. P A G E 30 | 35 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT SOME OF THE WRITINGS IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS MARKED AS SGBLR - 1 2 PAGE 33 TO 40 ARE IN HNDI. THE WORD ROUGH HAS BEEN WRITTEN BY SOMEBODY ELSE. IT WAS SUBMITTED TH A T IT IS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE ARE ROUGH NOTINGS BUT IF THEY WERE ROUGH NOTINGS THEN DETAILS TO THE EXTENT AS FOUND AND WRITTEN IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE. HE RELIED ON PARA 3.3 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AT PAGE 3. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON PERUSAL OF PAGE 39 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS SGBLR - 12, IT WILL BE SEEN THAT IT IS WRITTEN CARDS 500 @ RS160/ - = RS.80,00/ - THOUGH THE AMOUNT MAY BE WRONG BUT THIS SHOWS IT IS ACTUAL EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD E CONFIRMED AND T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, A SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON 6.8.2014. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS COMPLETED ON 27. 1 2.2016 U/S.153A OF THE ACT. IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT, ADDITION OF RS.1,12,95,000/ - WAS MADE BASED O N PAGE - 7 OF SEIZED DOCUMENT MARKED SGBLR - 12 BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. P A G E 31 | 35 13. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENTS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,43,95,000/ - AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER SNEHA GUPTA, WHICH TOOK PLACE IN JULY, 2013. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE COULD EXPLAIN THE SOURCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.31,00,000/ - ONLY COMPRISING OF RS.10,00,000/ - OUT OF WITHDRAWAL OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND RS.21,00,000/ - BEING AMOUNT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE DISCLOSURE PETITION AS WELL AS IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME. HE, THEREFORE, MADE ADDITION OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,12,95,000/ - BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 14. THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 15. FURTHER, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT O N THIS SHEET PAGE NO.7 ON THE TOP ROUGH WAS WRITTEN AND THE DATE MENTIONED THEREIN WAS 15.2.2006. FURTHER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT WRITTEN AGAINST EACH OF THE ITEM MENTIONED THEREIN ARE IN MULTIPLE OF 1000 A S ALSO INTERPRETED BY THE REVENUE. THERE IS NO FIGURE IN 100, 1 0 OR UNIT. COUPLED WITH THE ABOVE FACT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT NO CORROBORATIVE BILLS, VOUCHERS OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL WAS FOUND AFTER P A G E 32 | 35 THOROUGH SEARCH TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED SHEET WAS ACTUALLY INCURRED OR PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT S MENTIONED IN THE SAID SHEET WERE ONLY A N ESTIMATE OR PROJECTION MADE IN THE YEAR 2006 CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. 16. A PERUSAL OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C SHOWS THAT THE PRE - CONDITION FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION IS FINDING OF ANY ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED OR PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE INVOKING THE SAID SECTION, THE REVENUE HAS TO BRING ON RECORD COGENT MATERIAL TO SHOW T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY INCURRED OR PAID AN AMOUNT AS EXPENDITURE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT AFTER THOROUGH SEARCH ALSO, NO SUCH MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY PAID EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,43,95,000/ - DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 17. IN THE CASE OF CBI V C SHUKLA (1998) 3 SCC 410, HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHALL NOT ALONE BE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CHARGE ANY PERSON W ITH LIABILITY. ENTRIES EVEN IF RELEVANT ARE ONLY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. P A G E 33 | 35 INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE AS TO THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THOSE ENTRIES ARE NECESSARY TO FASTEN THE LIABILITY. 18. T HUS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ENTRIES MADE IN PAGE NO.7 OF SEIZED DOCUMENT MARKED AS SGBLR - 12 WAS ENTRY OF ACTUAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTION AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY INCURRED EXPENSES OF RS.1,43,95,000/ - DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER. 19. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED OF HAVING INCURRED EXPENSES OF RS.4 0 ,79,000/ - DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER. IN ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER ADMISSIBLE MATERIAL, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENSES OF RS. 40,79,000/ - DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER. 20. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE COULD EXPLAIN THE SOURCE TO TH E EXTENT OF RS.31,00,000/ - . IN RESPECT OF BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.9,79, 875 / - , THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SAME WAS INCURRED BY HIS BROTHER SHRI S K ANK E R P A G E 34 | 35 GUPTA. THAT SAID SHRI S H ANK E R GUPTA DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.15,00,000/ - DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH. OUT SAID INCOME OF RS.15,00,000/ - , RS.5,20,125/ - WAS UTILISED FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND BALANCE RS.9,7 9 ,875/ - WAS UTILISED FOR INCURRING EXPENSES ON MARRIAGE OF ASSESEES DAUGHTER. 21. WE FIND IN RESPECT OF ABOVE EXPLANATION, THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF DISCLOSURE OF RS.15,00,000/ - IN THE RETURN FLED BY SAID SHRI S H ANK E R GUPTA AND OF PAYING OF TAX THERE O N, THE EXPLANATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 22. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE RESTORE BACK THE ISSUE OF ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9,7 9 , 875/ - BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE ASSESSMENT RECORD S OF SHRI S H ANK E R GUPTA AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE RELATED MATERIAL. THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS .1,03,15,125/ - BEING FOUND TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE IN VIEW OF DISCUSSION MADE HEREINABOVE, THE SAME IS DELETED. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED AS ABOVE. 23. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED STAY APPLICATION FOR STAY OF DEMAND. AS WE HAVE HEARD AND D ECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE STAY PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE HA S BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY , IT IS DISMISSED P A G E 35 | 35 24. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND STAY PETITION IS DISMISSED. ORDE R PRONOUNCED ON 05 / 1 2 /2018. SD/ - SD/ - ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ( N.S SAINI) JUDICIALM EMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 05 /12/2018 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER SR. PVT. SECRETARY, ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : SHRI SAAN KR GUPTA, SAI ENCLAVE, SATI CHOURA, CUTTACK 2. THE RESPONDENT. ACIT, C.C. CUTTACK 3. THE CIT(A) - 2, BHUBANESWAR 4. PR.C 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//