Smt. Omwati Goyal, Bhopal v. The A.C.I.T. 1(1), Bhopal

CO 30/IND/2013 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 3022723 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN ABAPG6410F
Bench Indore
Appeal Number CO 30/IND/2013
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Omwati Goyal, Bhopal
Respondent The A.C.I.T. 1(1), Bhopal
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 26-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 26-07-2013
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 18-02-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A A.M. PAN NO. : ABAPG6410F I.T(SS).A.NOS. 406 TO 4 09 /IND/201 2 A.Y. : 2005-06 TO 2008-09 ACIT 1(1) BHOPAL. VS. SMT.OMWATI GOYAL BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O.NOS. 30 TO 33/IND/2013 (ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 406 TO 412 /IND/2013 ) A.Y. : 2005-06 SMT.OMWATI GOYAL BHOPAL VS. ACIT 1(1) BHOPAL. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT B Y : S MT. MRIDULA BAJPAI ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.S.DESHPANDE AND SHRI RAJENDRA SHARMA C. AS. DATE OF HEARING : 20.06. 201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 . 0 7 .201 3 -: 2: - 2 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA A.M. THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROS S OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) DATED 30.8.12 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 TO 2008-09 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 153A/143(3) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT 1961. 2. THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORDS PERUSED. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND REGULAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND DERIVES INCOME FROM HER BUSINESS OF BU ILDERS CONTRACTORS AND DEALING IN LAND. A SEARCH U/S 132 O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 FOR SHORT (THE ACT) WAS COND UCTED ON THE ASSESSEES SON SHRI ASHOK GOYAL IN MAY 2008. DU RING SUCH SEARCH THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE FAMILY ME MBERS OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSE E WERE ALSO SEARCHED AND THEIR RECORDS WERE ALSO SEIZED. SEARCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO ON 9.6. 2008 FOR SEARCH OF LOCKER NO. 47A WHICH WAS EXECUTED ON 9.6 .2008 AND A PANCHNAMA WAS DRAWN ON THE SAME DATE. SUBSEQUENTL Y -: 3: - 3 NOTICES U/S 153A WERE ISSUED AND AFTER ISSUING OTHE R STATUTORY NOTICES THE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED AFTER MAKIN G VARIOUS ADDITIONS. MOST OF THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE LD.CIT(A) FOR WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. CONTENTION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE US WAS AS UNDER :- THE MAIN ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK GOYAL. VARIOUS ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE APPROPRIATE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN OTHER CASES. ON SOME OF THE ITEMS THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK GOYAL ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND IN OTHER CASES ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT WOULD BE SEEN THAT VARIOUS ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR DIFFERENT YEARS ON THE GROUND THAT REGISTRATION EXPENSES ARE NOT DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS SUBMITTED THAT A GENERAL QUERY WAS -: 4: - 4 RAISED ABOUT THE PURCHASE OF VARIOUS PROPERTIES AND THE SAME WAS SUBMITTED IN DETAILS TO THE LD. AO. TH E LD. AO DID NOT VERIFY THE EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE BOOKS AND MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED AND VERIFIED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CASH BOOK WAS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN ALL THE CASES. THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEV ER VERIFIED SUCH DETAILS AND HAS DELETED THE SAID ADDITIONS WHEREVER HE FOUND THAT THE EXPENSES ARE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. IN ALL THE YEARS IN MAJORITY OF THE GROUND S THE DEPARTMENT IS CHALLENGING THE ADMISSION OF ADDITION AL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A. AS WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. AO THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. AO AND THE COPIES OF THE CASH BOOK WERE ALSO FILED. (S EE PAGE 105-106 OF THE PB). FURTHER FROM THE ASSESSMENT OF MR. ASHOK GOYAL IT WOULD BE SEEN THAT -: 5: - 5 IN LARGE NUMBER OF CASES THE PAPERS SEIZED HAVE BEE N REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS ON VARIOUS POINTS HAVE ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE SAME. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO HAVE BEEN REITERATED BY THE CIT (A) AND ON THE BASIS OF FACTU AL POSITION THE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. THUS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46 A AND NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED. IN TH E GROUNDS OF THE DEPARTMENT AN ASSERTIONS HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT THE INFRINGEMENT OF RULE 46A WITHOUT POINTING OUT AS TO WHAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED OR CONSIDERED BY THE CIT (A). THE ASSESSMENT OF THE GROUP CASES WERE COMPLETED BY THE SAME AO AND ALL ENTRIES EXPLAINING THE DETAILS ARE VERIFIABLE FROM THE RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS FILED IN THE GROUP CASES. 1. A.Y. 2005&06 -: 6: - 6 I. THE LD. AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 68 435/- IN PARA 4.34 PG. 77 HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS.68 435/- BEING REGISTRY AND OTHER CHARGES FOR PURCHASE OF 1.56 ACRES LAND AT NEORI. THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 6.3 PG. 9 HAS DELETED AN ADDITION OF RS. 27 775/- AFTER FINDING THAT THE SAID EXPENSES WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. BALANCE OF RS. 40 660/- WAS CONFIRMED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSE OF RS. 27 775/- WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. (PG.152 144 OF PB). II. THE LD. AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 37 50 000/- ON PROTECTIVE BASIS BEING ALLEGED PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND IN PARA 4.27 PG. 68-69 ON THE GROUND THAT THE -: 7: - 7 ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION ON PG. 10 PARA 7.3 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION WERE MADE IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK GOYAL AND HAVE ADJUDICATED IN THAT CASE VIDE PARA 12.3 PG. 17 OF THAT ORDER. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED ON MERITS IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK GOYAL AND AS SUCH THE SAID ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 2. 2006-07 I. THE LD. AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 85 127/- IN PARA 4.29 PG. 71 HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS.85 127/BEING REGISTRY AND OTHER -: 8: - 8 CHARGES FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AT NEORI. THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 11.3 PG. 12 HAS DELETED AN ADDITION OF RS. 85 127/AFTER FINDING THAT THE SAID EXPENSES WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSE OF RS. 85 127/- WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. (PG.180 178 OF PB) II. THE LD. AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1 39 815/- IN PARA 4.30 PG. 72 HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS.1 39 815/- BEING REGISTRY AND OTHER CHARGES FOR PURCHASE OF 3 ACRES OF LAND AT NEORI. THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 12.3 PG. 13 HAS DELETED AN ADDITION OF RS. 1 39 815/AFTER FINDING THAT THE SAID EXPENSES WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSE OF RS. -: 9: - 9 1 39 815/- WERE INCURRED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. (PG.191 144 OF PB). ADDITION WAS WRONGLY MADE IN A.Y. 2006-07. III. THE LD. AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1 72 735/- IN PARA 4.31 PG. 72-73 HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS.1 72 735/- BEING REGISTRY AND OTHER CHARGES FOR PURCHASE OF 3.73 ACRES OF LAND AT NEORI. THE LD. C1T(A) IN PARA 13.3 PG. 13-14 HAS DELETED AN ADDITION OF RS. 86 065/- AFTER FINDING THAT THE SAID EXPENSES WERE PAID BY THE SELLER WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT. BALANCE OF RS. 86 670/- WAS CONFIRMED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSE OF RS. 86 065/- WERE PAID BY THE SELLER WHO HAVE CONFIRMED THE SAME ON AFFIDAVIT WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO. (PG.190 188 OF PB) -: 10: - 10 IV. THE LD. AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 21 34 000/- IN PARA 4.35 PG. 78-82 HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED 7.76 ACRES LAND AT VILLAGE NEORI FOR A SUM OF RS.38 80 000/- OUT OF WHICH 17 46 000/- WAS PAID BY CHEQUE AND RS. 21 34 000/- WAS PAID BY CASH. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE STATEMENTS OF ONE OF THE SELLERS MR. DEEPAK SEWADIYA WHO HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR RS.38 80 000/-. THUS THE CASH PAYMENT CONFIRMED BY ONE OF THE SELLER WAS ADDED AS PAYMENTS MADE OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 14.3 PG. 15-16 HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OBSERVING THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 131 OF ONE OF THE TEN SELLERS. NO OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE SUCH PERSON IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC DEMAND. THE OTHER CO-SELLERS HAVE CONFIRMED THE FACT OF SALE AT RS. 17 46 000/- THROUGH AFFIDAVIT -: 11: - 11 WHICH WERE REJECTED WITHOUT CROSS EXAMINING THE DEPONENTS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM SHRI DEEPAK SEWADIYA CONFIRMING THE FACT THAT THE SALE OF LAND WAS MADE FOR RS.17 46 000 ONLY (PG 183 OF PB). AFFIDAVIT OF TOTAL FIVE CO-SELLERS WAS FURNISHED CONFIRMING THE SALE AT RS.17 46 000/(PG. 192 181-189 OF PB). VIDE LETTER DATED 27.12.2010 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI DEEPAK SEWADIYA ALONG WITH OTHER THREE MAIN CO- OWNERS AND SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THE AO IS NOT SATISFIED THEN SHRI DEEPAK SEWADIYA MAY BE EXAMINED AGAIN BEFORE THE ASSESSEE SO THAT THE TRUE AND CORRECT FACTS COULD BE BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE LD. AO GAVE THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT ON 23.12.2010 TO COMMENT UPON. 25 TH AND 26 TH OF DECEMBER 2010 WERE HOLIDAYS AND ON 27 TH THE ASSESSEE FILED FOUR AFFIDAVITS AS -: 12: - 12 MENTIONED ABOVE. THE LD. AO MERELY BRUSHED ASIDE THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE ON A SHORT GROUND OF LIMITATION. THUS IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT AFFORDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE AND ON THE FACT THAT THE SAME PERSON HAS SUBSEQUENTLY FILED AN AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMING THE SAME AT RS. 17 46 000/- NO ADDITION COULD BE SUSTAINED ON THE FACTS ON THE RECORD. V. THE LD. AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 61 662/- IN PARA 4.52 PG. 102-104 HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS.61 662/- BEING REGISTRY AND OTHER CHARGES FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AT NEORI. THE LD. CIT{A) IN PARA 15 PG. 16 HAS DISMISSED THE GROUND AFTER CORRECTING THE TOTALLING MISTAKE MADE BY THE LD. AO. 3. 2007-08 I. THE LD. AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. -: 13: - 13 11 00 000/- IN PARA 4.44 PG. 91 ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENT LPS-1/11 PG. 15-22 WHICH IS THE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED (PG. 282-288 OF PB) WHICH STATES THAT THE PARTIES WILL CONTRIBUTE THE INITIAL CAPITAL AT RS. 11 00 000/- EACH. THE LD. AO ADDED THIS AMOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTRIBUTED RS. 11 00 000/- IN CASH FROM HER UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE LD. CIT{A) IN PARA 16 PG. 17 HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OF RS. 6 50 000/- TO ANKUR AND RS. 4 50 000 TO MADHU AND AKASH THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THESE PERSONS ARE THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM AND AS SUCH THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 11 00 000/- IS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS INVESTMENT IN LAND (PG. 303304 281 OF PB). IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTS AND THE BALANCE SHEETS FILED ON -: 14: - 14 RECORD AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. AO THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE HYPOTHETICAL GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID CASH OF RS. 11 00 000/-. THUS THE ADDITIONS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. II. THE LD. AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 18 94 045/- IN PARA 4.52 PG. 102-104 ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2007 THE VALUE HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 81 56 503/- WHILE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2006 THE VALUE IS SHOWN AT RS. 64 69 267/- (PG. 178 281 OF PB). HE THUS CONCLUDED THAT THIS LAND IS NOT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND THEREFORE THE SAID AMOUNT AND THE REGISTRATION CHARGES ARE ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE LD. CIT{A) IN PARA 17 PG. 18 HAS DELETED THE SAID ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS ARE ALREADY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AND THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH -: 15: - 15 BANKING CHANNELS. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON SURMISES AND HYPOTHETICAL GROUNDS WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTS ON RECORD. SINCE THESE AMOUNTS ARE APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THEY ARE ALL ENTERED IN THE BOOKS AND THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IS PROVED (PG. 289299 305 281 OF PB). THE LD.AO HAS ON SURMISES ASSERTED THAT THIS LAND OF RS. 18 94 045/- MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT LAND WHICH IS NOT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET. ON THIS WRONG ASSUMPTION THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. III. THE LD. AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 89 27 500/- ON PROTECTIVE BASIS BEING ALLEGED PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND IN PARA 4.53 PG. 104-106 (WRONGLY MENTIONED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PARA 4.6). THE ASSERTION THAT THERE IS A FIXED PRICE OF RS. 175 PER -: 16: - 16 SQUARE FEET IS TOTALLY ON ASSUMPTIONS AND WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION ON PG. 9 PARA 7 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION WERE MADE IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK GOYAL AND HAVE ADJUDICATED IN THAT CASE VIDE PARA 23 PG. 28 OF THAT ORDER. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED ON MERITS IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK GOYAL AND AS SUCH THE SAID ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 4. 2008-09 I. THE LD. AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 75 00 000/- ON PROTECTIVE BASIS BEING ALLEGED PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND IN PARA 4.26 PG. 63-68 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION ON PG.10 PARA 7.3 ON THE GROUND THAT THE -: 17: - 17 SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION WERE MADE IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK GOYAL AND HAVE ADJUDICATED IN THAT CASE VIDE PARA 29.3 PG. 35 OF THAT ORDER. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED ON MERITS IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK GOYAL AND AS SUCH THE SAID ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. II. THE LD. AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1 75 000/- ON PROTECTIVE BASIS BEING ALLEGED PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND IN PARA 4.28 PG. 69-71 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION ON PG.10 PARA 7.3 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION WERE MADE IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK GOYAL AND HAVE ADJUDICATED IN THAT CASE VIDE PARA 30 PG. 35-36 OF THAT ORDER. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK GOYAL AND -: 18: - 18 AS SUCH THE SAID ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AN ADDITION OF RS. 68 435/- WAS MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE T HIS ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER (LPS 1/23 PAG ES 22-45) HOLDING THAT THE REGISTRATION CHARGES OF THE PROPER TY PURCHASED AT VILLAGE NEVRI OF RS.65860 + 2575/- WAS PAID BY THE APPELLANT FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THOUGH AS STATED IN PARA 4.35 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER THE A.O. HAS ASKED ABOUT THE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY BUT HE NEVER ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF REGISTRATION EXPENSES HENCE NO SPECIFIC REPLY W AS GIVEN. IT WAS STATED THAT INITIALLY THE SELLER HAD CONFIRMED AMOUNT OF REGISTRATION CHARGES TOWARDS THE SAID PROPERTY AT R S. 27 775/- AND THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. HOWEV ER LATTER ON THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY HAD INFORMED THAT THE REGISTRATION FEE PAYABLE ON THE PROPERTY WAS RS. 65 860/-. THEREFORE WHEN THE APPELLANT EXPRESSED HIS DISINTE REST TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AND REQUESTED THE SELLER TO R ETURN HER -: 19: - 19 MONEY ALONG WITH RS. 27 775/- THE SELLER AGREED TO PAY THE DIFFERENCE AND PAID ACCORDINGLY. THEREFORE ACCORDI NG TO THE APPELLANT NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR IN THE CASE. 5. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 27 775/- AND CONFIRMED A SUM OF RS. 40 660/- AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT FILED. IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT REPRODUCED AT PAGE 78 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK GOYAL THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION WAS DULY RECORDED IN HER REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT FILED THE REGISTRATION EXPENSES ARE FOUND RECORDED AT RS. 27 775/-. AS REGARDS BALANCE OF RS. 40 660/- (RS. 68 435 - 27 775) THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUPPORT HER STAND. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THE -: 20: - 20 SELLER OF THE PROPERTY. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS. 27 775/- AND ADDITION OF RS. 40 660/- IS CONFIRMED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE TRANSACTION WITH REGARD TO LPS -1/23 PAGES 22 TO 45 WERE ALREADY FOUND TO BE RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF SHRI ASHOK GOYAL. AS PER THE FINDI NGS RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) THE LEDGER ACCOUNT SO FI LED INDICATED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 27 775/- ON ACCOUNT OF REGISTRAT ION. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIO N TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 27 775/- AS THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WIT H REGARD TO EXPENDITURE OF RS. 40 660/- THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. AN ADDITION OF RS. 37.50 LAKHS RS. 89 27 500/- AND RS. 76 75 000/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 200 7-08 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSES SEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE SU BSTANTIVE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASHOK GOYAL. BY THE IMPUGN ED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- -: 21: - 21 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATING TO THESE ADDITIONS WERE ADJUDICATED IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK GOYAL WHERE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN HIS FAVOUR. SINCE THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS WERE DISCLOSED IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT APPELLANT NO SEPARATE ADDITION IS CALLED FOR IN HER CASE EVEN ON PROTECTIVE BASIS HENCE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 8. AS THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN TH E HANDS OF ASHOK GOYAL THE SAME WAS DULY CONSIDERED WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT/APPELLATE ORDER IN THE CASE OF A SHOK GOYAL. ACCORDINGLY THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION MADE IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT WHICH HAVE ALREAD Y BEEN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASHOK GOYAL ON SUBSTANTIVE BA SIS. 9. AN ADDITION OF RS. 85 127/- WAS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE AO HAS MADE THIS ADDIT ION ON -: 22: - 22 THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER NO. LPS 1/25 PAGE 1-35 FOR THE REASON THAT THE REGISTRATION EXPENSES OF THE PROPER TY PURCHASED AT NEVRI HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF UNEXPLAINE D SOURCES. 10. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE CONTENTION OF LD. AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO IS NOT CORRECT. THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED THE SAID PROPE RTY AND HAVE PAID THE STAMP DUTY AND OTHER EXPENSES OF RS. 85 427/- WHICH WAS DULY RECORDED IN HER BOOKS OF AC COUNT WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND A COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT WAS ALSO GIVEN TO HIM ON HIS DIRECTION. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LEDGER WAS SUBMITTED. 11. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- I HAVE GONE THROUGH OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. AND CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR ALONG WITH COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT FILED AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BEFORE ME. AS PER THE SAID ACCOUNT THE APPELLANT HAS INVESTED -: 23: - 23 TOTAL RS 880427/- (7 95 000 PURCHASE PRICE + 85 427 REGISTRATION EXPENSES) ON PURCHASE OF 1.63 ACRE LAND AT NEWRI. AS THE REGISTRATION EXPENSES ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE COPY OF THE SAME WAS FILED WITH HIM THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING SUCH EXPENSES AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 85127/- IS DELETED. 12. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND RECORDS PERUSED. FROM THE RECORD WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS PURCHASED LAND MEASURING 1.63 CRORES AT NEWRI FOR W HICH REGISTRATION CHARGES OF RS. 85 127/- WAS INCURRED B Y OBSERVING THAT REGISTRATION CHARGES WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND COPY OF WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE -: 24: - 24 CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INF IRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 13. AN ADDITION OF RS. 1 39 815/- WAS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. AS PER SEIZED PAPER LPS 1/ 25 IT WAS FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED 3 ACRE O F LAND AT VILLAGE NEWRI FOR RS. 795000/- ON 4.2.2005 AND FURT HER AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1 39 815/- WAS INCURRED ON REGISTRATI ON OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXPL ANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS. 139815/- AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM UN DISCLOSED SOURCE. 14. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE CONTENTION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT THE SAID ADDITI ON WAS WRONGLY MADE IN A. Y 2006-07. AS PER THE DETAILS ME NTIONED IN PARA 4.30 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE PAYMENT O F REGISTRATION CHARGES WAS MADE ON 04.02.2005 WHICH FALLS IN F.Y 2004-05 CORRESPONDING TO A.Y 2005-06. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS REGARDS ITS TAXABILITY IN A. Y 20 05-06 IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED T HE SAID PROPERTY FOR RS. 7 50 000/- AND NOT RS. 7 95 000/- AS -: 25: - 25 MENTIONED IN THE ORDER. COPY OF THE SAID LOOSE PAPE R (LPS 1/25 PAGE 36-47) WAS SUBMITTED. THE APPELLANT HAD F URTHER PAID RS. 1 40 000/- TOWARDS REGISTREE AND OTHER EXP ENSES OF THE SAID PROPERTY WHICH WAS DULY RECORDED IN HER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. (COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LEDGER W AS ALSO SUBMITTED). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS ALSO GIVEN T O HIM ON HIS DIRECTION. 15. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR ALONG WITH COPY OF LOOSE PAPER SEIZED AND COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT FILED AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BEFORE ME. AS PER THE LOOSE PAPERS THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FOR RS.7 50 000/-ON 04.02.2005. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION -: 26: - 26 IN A.Y 2006-07 IS DELETED. THE OTHER SUBMISSIONS ARE FOUND VERIFIABLE FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AS THE REGISTRATION EXPENSES ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2005-06 AND WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. AND COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT WAS FILED THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING SUCH EXPENSES AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 39 815/- IS DELETED. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT PROPERTY OF RS. 7.50 LAKHS W AS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 4.2.2005. THE REGISTRA TION EXPENSES WERE FOUND TO BE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COPY OF WHIC H WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). AFTER RECORDING FINDING AT PARA 12.3 -: 27: - 27 THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. KEEPING IN VIE W THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT EXPENDITURE ON REGISTRAT ION WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06 IN WHICH EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED THERE C ANNOT BE ADDITION ON THE PLEA OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ACCORDINGLY NO INFIRMITY IS FOUND IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE SAME. 17. AN ADDITION OF RS. 1 72 735/- WAS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSE RVED THAT AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS LPS 1/25 PAGE 66-8 0 WHICH IS A REGISTRATION DOCUMENT THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED A PROPERTY FOR RS. 9 32 500/- AND PAID ST AMP DUTY AT RS. 1 72 735/-. THE A.O. HELD THAT THE SAME WAS NOT FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HENCE HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 72 735/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 18. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE CONTENTION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT THE REGISTRATI ON CHARGES OF THE SAID PROPERTY WERE INCLUDED IN THE PURCHASE VALUE FIXED AND THE SAME WAS ACCORDINGLY PAID BY THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLA NT HAS -: 28: - 28 DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FURNISHED AN AFFI DAVIT FROM THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY IN CONFIRMATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 14.12.2010 FILED WITH THE AO WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. 19. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 86 065/- WHEREAS HE HAS CONFIRMED ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 86 670/- AF TER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE AO. THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT WAS DISREGARDED EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE SELLER SHRI GULAB SINGH. THE SELLER HAS CONFIRMED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THE STAMP DUTY OF RS. 86 065/- ON THE TRANSACTION WAS PAID BY HIM. THE AFFIDAVIT WAS REJECTED WITHOUT CROSS-EXAMINING THE DEPONENT. IN THIS CONTEXT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PAREKH & CO VS. CIT -: 29: - 29 (1956) 30 ITR 181 THAT DULY SWORN AFFIDAVIT CANNOT BE REJECTED WITHOUT CROSS EXAMINING THE DEPONENT. THE SAME VIEW WAS FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GLASS LINES EQUIPMENTS CO. LTD. VS. CIT (2001) 170 CTR 470. THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISREGARDING THE AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORDS THE REASONS FOR DOING SO. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ANY ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT CONFIRMED BY THE SELLER AS HAVING PAID BY HIM. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL REGISTRATION EXPENSES WERE INCURRED OF RS. 1 73 735/- AND THE SELLER HAS CONFIRMED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 86 065/ AS HAVING PAID BY HIM. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION REGARDING BALANCE EXPENSES OF RS.86 670/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR BEFORE ME. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT -: 30: - 30 THE ADDITION TO RS.86670/-. THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS. 86065/-. 20. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND RECORDS PERUSED. AFTER RECORDING DETAILED FINDING THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD ADDITION OF RS. 86 670/- BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EXPLANATION. BALANCE ADD ITION OF RS. 86 065/- WAS DELETED BY OBSERVING THAT AFFIDAVI T OF SELLER SHRI GULAB SINGH WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WHEREIN HE HAS CONFIRMED THAT STAMP DUTY OF RS. 86 065/- WAS PAID BY HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT CROSS EXAMINING THE DEPONENT. FOLLOWING THE VERDICT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PARI KH & COMPANY (SUPRA) THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIO N. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THIS PART OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). IN THE RESULT GROUND TAKEN BY ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REV ENUE IS DISMISSED. 21. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AN ADDITION OF RS . 21 34 000/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SAID ADDITION IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF PAPER SEIZED ( LPS 1/23 PAGE 1-24) WHICH WAS A COPY OF REGISTRY FOR PURCHASE OF 7.76 ACRES -: 31: - 31 OF LAND AT VILLAGE NEORI FROM TOTAL 10 PERSONS FOR RS. 17 46 000/-. THE ADI HAS RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE SELLERS SHRI. DEEPAK SAWADIYA U/S 131 ON 18.12 .2008 IN WHICH THE SAID PERSON HAS STATED THAT THE SAID PROP ERTY HAS IN FACT BEEN SOLD BY THEM FOR RS. 38 80 000/-. BASE D ON THIS STATEMENT AN ADDITION OF RS. 21 34 000/-(38 80 000 / - 17 46 000) WAS MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME. 22. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT THE 'THE APPELL ANT HAS FURNISHED AFFIDAVIT FROM THE SAME PERSON ALONG WITH AFFIDAVITS OF OTHER CO-SELLERS NAMELY BHAGIRATH DHANNO BAI L AXMI BAI AND PARWATI BAI. THUS AFFIDAVITS OF TOTAL 5 CO-OWNE RS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFIRMING T HE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY THEM FOR RS. 17 46 000/- O NLY. IT WAS ALSO REQUESTED TO THE AO THAT IN CASE HE STILL WANTS TO DISREGARD THE AFFIDAVIT FILED AND RELY ON THE STATE MENT RECORDED AN OPPORTUNITY BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SAID PERSON. THE COPY OF SUCH LETTER WA S ALSO SUBMITTED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HOW EVER HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE AFFIDAVITS AND HAVE NOT PROVI DED THE -: 32: - 32 APPELLANT WITH ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SAID PERSON AND MADE THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT 'SINCE TH E LIMITATION TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT SUBSISTS TILL 31.12.2010 ONLY THE STATEMENT OF THE SELLER WHO HA VE ALLEGEDLY SIGNED THIS AFFIDAVIT COULD NOT BE RECORD ED. SINCE THIS AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM THEM WITHOUT TELLING THEM THE CONTEXT THE SAME CANNOT BE ADMITTED. SHRI DEEPAK SAWADIYA HAS NO WHERE MENTIONED ANYTHING IN HIS AFF IDAVIT THAT HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT EARL IER WAS NOT CORRECT. UNLESS AND UNTIL SHRI. DEEPAK SAWADIYA RETRACTS HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT; THERE IS NO NEED TO ADMIT SUCH SELF SERVING AFFIDAVITS.' THE A.O. HAS REJECTED THE SUBMISSION WITHOUT PROPER JUSTIFICATION AND WITHOUT CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE DEPONENTS WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. THE APPELLANT HAS REITERATED THAT THE PROPERTY UNDER RE FERENCE WAS CO-OWNED BY 10 PERSONS IN WHICH SHRI DEEPAK HAD LESS THAN 4 % (1/28) SHARE. THE AO HAS RELIED ON HIS STATEMENT WITHOUT PROVIDING REASONABLE TIME AND WITHOUT AFFOR DING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM IN SPITE OF SPECIF IC REQUEST. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED AFFIDAVITS OF FIVE OTHER CO -OWNERS -: 33: - 33 BEFORE THE AO AND WITH SUFFICIENT TIME IN CASE OF AT LEAST ONE PERSON TO EXAMINE THE SAID PERSON IF DESIRED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER OF SHRI ASHOK GOYAL THAT REGISTRATION DUTY PAID OF RS.3 74 527/- IS INVESTMENT OUT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCES AND THE ADDITION WILL BE MADE FOR THE SAME IN A. Y 2006 -07. HOWEVER NO SUCH ADDITION IS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE APPELLANT. NO SUCH ADDITION IS OTHERWISE WAR RANTED ON THIS ISSUE AS THE SAID EXPENSES HAVE BEEN BORNE BY THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE APPELLANT HAD FILED AN AFFI DAVIT FROM ONE OF THE CO OWNERS CONFIRMING THE SAID FACT. COPY OF THE SAID AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER UNDER WHI CH SUCH AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED WITH THE AO WERE FILED. 23. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR ALONG WITH COPY OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND AFFIDAVITS OF SELLERS DEEPAK SAWADIA -: 34: - 34 BHAGIRATH DHANNO BAI LAXMI BAI AND PARWATI BAI. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF ONE OF THE TEN SELLERS VIZ. SHRI DEEPAK SAWADIA. THE APPELLANT FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE SAID PERSON IN THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE TIME STATING THAT THE SALE WAS MADE AT RS. 17 46 000/- ONLY ON 27.12.2010. THE APPELLANT ALSO DEMANDED A CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PERSON WHOSE STATEMENT WERE RECORDED U/S 131 HOWEVER NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED. SOME OF THE OTHER CO-SELLERS HAVE CONFIRMED THE FACTS IN APPELLANT'S FAVOUR THROUGH AFFIDAVIT BUT THE AFFIDAVITS WERE REJECTED WITHOUT CROSS- EXAMINING THE DEPONENTS. IN THIS CONTEXT THE HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PAREKH & CO VS. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 THAT DULY SWORN AFFIDAVIT CANNOT BE REJECTED WITHOUT CROSS-EXAMINING THE DEPONENT. THE -: 35: - 35 SAME VIEW WAS FOLLOWED BY THE HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GLASS LINES EQUIPMENTS CO. LTD. VS. CIT(2001) 170 CTR 470. THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISREGARDING THE AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORDS THE REASONS FOR DOING SO. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ANY ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED. SIMILARLY AS THE SELLERS HAVE CONFIRMED ON AFFIDAVIT THAT STAMP DUTY HAS BEEN PAID BY THEM NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED ON THE AMOUNT OF STAMP DUTY PAID OF RS. 3 74 527/-.THUS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION OF RS.21 34 000/- MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY DELETED. 24. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND RECOR DS PERUSED. FROM THE RECORD WE FOUND THAT THE ADDITIO N WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF ONE OF THE TEN SELLERS VIZ. SHRI DEEPAK SAWADIYA. BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT THAT PROPERTY -: 36: - 36 WAS PURCHASED FOR RS. 17 46 000/- ON 27.12.2012. TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALSO REQUIRED TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI DE EPAK SAWADIYA WHOSE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED U/S 131 HOW EVER NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. THE OTHER CO-SELLERS HAVE CONFIRMED THE FACT OF PRO PERTY HAVING BEEN SOLD OF RS. 17 46 000/- BY FILING AN AF FIDAVIT BUT THE SAME WERE REJECTED WITHOUT CROSS EXAMINING THE DEPONENT. NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS STAND THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS. 38 80 000/- AFTER CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 21 34 000/- TO THE SELLERS. IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AT PARA 14.3 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) RESULTING INTO DELETION OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 25. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AN ADDITION OF RS. 61 662/- WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER NO. L PS 1/62 PAGES 34 TO 87 BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS F AILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF THE STAMP DUTY. -: 37: - 37 26. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE CONTENTION OF LD. AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF STAMP DUTY PAID 53 100/- AND OTHER CHARGES 5 231/-. HOWEVER T HE AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 61 662/- AGAINST THE CO RRECT TOTAL OF RS. 58 331/-. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T THE AMOUNT OF 58 331/- WAS PAID BY THE APPELLANT FROM H ER PAST SAVINGS AND WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BUSINESS. 27. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE BALANCE OF RS. 58 331/- AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOW ING OBSERVATIONS :- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS MENTIONED ON PAGE 103 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK GOYAL THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS. 53100/- AND RS. 5231/- BEING REGISTRATION AND OTHER CHARGES. THEREFORE AN ADDITION OF RS. 61662/- IS HEREBY MADE ..... ' THUS -: 38: - 38 OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A TOTAL MISTAKE AND THE CORRECT AMOUNT WOULD BE RS.58 331/ONLY. AS REGARDS THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH AMOUNT WAS PAID BY HER FROM PAST SAVINGS IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DETAILS REGARDING THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BY HER IN PAST AND EXPENSES INCURRED BY HER TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT SUCH AMOUNT WAS AVAILABLE WITH HER TO MAKE SUCH PAYMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DETAILS SUCH EXPLANATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS.58 331/- . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 28. BOTH THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 29. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF EXPENDITURE HAVING BEEN INCURRED -: 39: - 39 FOR REGISTRATION CHARGES. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRM ITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). FOR CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 58 331/-. 30. AN ADDITION OF RS. 11 LAKHS WAS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 31. THE AO HAS MADE THIS ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF LOO SE PAPER NO. LPS 1/11 PAGE 15-22 WHICH IS A COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED BETWEEN SEVEN PERSONS. AS PER THE SAID DEED THE APPELLANT WAS TO ENTER INTO A PARTNERSHIP WITH 6 OTHER PERSONS MENTIONED IN THE DEED. THREE OF THE S AID PARTIES WERE TO CONTRIBUTE THEIR LAND AT VILLAGE KA NASAYYA AND THE OTHER FOUR PARTNERS INCLUDING THE APPELLANT WAS TO CONTRIBUTE RS.11 00 000/- EACH AS THEIR CAPITAL. TH E AO OBSERVED THAT THE PAPER SEIZED WAS A DULY EXECUTED PARTNERSHIP DEED DULY SIGNED ON ALL PAGES BY ALL SE VEN PARTNERS AND AS PER THE SAID DEED THE THREE PARTNE RS HAVE CONTRIBUTED THEIR LAND TO THE FIRM. IT WAS ALSO OBS ERVED THAT A POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 28.07.2006 IN FAVOUR OF SHR I VINOD SHARMA WAS ALSO FOUND DURING SEARCH FROM WHICH IT W AS INFERRED THAT THE PARTNERSHIP REALLY STARTED ITS BU SINESS OTHERWISE THE LAND OWNERS WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN THE POA. IT -: 40: - 40 WAS THUS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN HER SHAR E OF RS. 11 00 000/- IN CASH WHICH IS HER UNDISCLOSED INVEST MENT. 32. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CONTENTION OF LD. AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT THE SAID PARTNERSHIP DID NO T COMMENCE ITS BUSINESS. THE APPELLANT HAD PAID RS. 11 00 000/- ON 26.07.2006 VIDE ACCOUNT PAYEE DRAFT S IN FAVOUR OF ANKUR MADHU AND AAKASH THE PERSONS MENTI ONED AS PARTY NO.5-7 IN THE SAID DEED FOR PURCHASE OF T HE SAID LAND. ALL SUCH PAYMENTS ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE RE GULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. THE SAID BOOKS W ERE PRESENTED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS AND A COPY THERE OF WAS FILED WITH HIM WHICH IS STILL PLACED ON RECORDS. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CASH BOOK AND LEDGER ALONG WITH COPY OF AUDITED BAL ANCE SHEET IN WHICH SUCH LAND IS APPEARING IS ENCLOSED F OR YOUR HONORS READY REFERENCE. THE POA WAS ALSO GOT EXECUT ED IN FAVOUR OF MR. VINOD SHARMA ON 28.07.2006. HOWEVER THE LAND FOR WHICH THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE WAS FOUND TO BE A DISPUTED ONE AND THE DISPUTE COULD NOT BE SETTLED BY THE CONCERNED PERSONS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE -: 41: - 41 PARTNERSHIP FIRM COULD NEVER COMMENCE ITS BUSINESS. THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. A.O. IS NOT CORRECT. 33. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE COPY OF CASH BOOK LEDGER AND THE RELEVANT LOOSE PAPERS. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE CASH BOOK THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE A PAYMENT OF RS. 6 50 000/- TO ANKUR & RS.4 50 000/- TO MADHU AND AKASH BY DO NO 1098555 & 1098554 IN JULY 2006 WHICH HAS BEEN RECORDED AS INVESTMENT IN LAND KANASAIYA. ALL THE THREE PERSONS TO WHOM SUCH PAYMENT ARE MADE WERE PARTNERS IN THE PARTNERSHIP DEED MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED LOOSE PAPER. THUS IT IS FOUND THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 11 00 000/- IS DULY RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS INVESTMENT IN LAND. AS REGARDS FORMATION OF PARTNERSHIP NO MATERIAL IS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE SAID FIRM COMMENCED BUSINESS AT ANY TIME OR THE APPELLANT MADE ANY OTHER/ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT IN THE SAID FIRM. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 00 000/- IS DELETED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL -: 42: - 42 IS ALLOWED. 34. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMEN T OF RS. 6.50 LAKHS TO ANKUR RS. 4.50 LAKHS TO MADHU AN D AKASH BY DD NO. 1098555 AND 1098554 IN THE MONTH OF JULY 2006. THE TRANSACTION WAS RECORDED AS INVESTMENT IN LAND AT KANASAYYA. ALL THESE THREE PERSONS TO WHOM SUCH PAY MENT WAS MADE WERE PARTNERS. AS PER THE PARTNERSHIP DEED MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED LOOSE PAPERS SINCE INVESTME NT OF RS. 11 LAKHS WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS INVESTMENT IN LAND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION SO MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 35. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AN ADDITION OF RS. 18 94 045/- WAS MADE THE AO HAS MADE THIS ADDITION AFTER OBSERVING THAT 'IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLA NT THE VALUE OF LAND AT NEORI AS ON 31.3.2007 HAS BEEN SHO WN AS RS. 81 56 503/- WHICH IS RS. 16 87 236/- MORE THAN THAT SHOWN AS ON 31.3.2006. BREAKUP OF THE LAND HAS NOT BEEN G IVEN. -: 43: - 43 SINCE THE INVESTMENT MADE IN 4.44 ACRE LAND AT NEOR I INCLUDING REGISTREE CHARGES IS 18 94 045/- IT CANNO T BE THE SAME LAND THAT IS APPEARING IN THE APPELLANT'S BALA NCE SHEET. 36. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE COPY OF THE RELEVAN T SEIZED DOCUMENT NO. LPS 1/2 PAGE 163 WAS FURNISHED BY THE AR AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHAS ED THROUGH CHEQUES ISSUED IN DIFFERENT YEARS AND HENCE THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN COMPARING THE OPENING BALANCE AND CLOSING BALANCE OF A PARTICULAR YEAR FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. AS PER THE DETAILS APPEARING IN THE SAID SEIZED PAPER WHICH IS A REGISTRATION DOCUMENT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CH EQUE ISSUED IN VARIOUS YEARS AS SUMMARIZED HERE IN BELOW : F.Y 1997 - 98. RS 1 00 000 F.Y 1999-00. RS . 1 00 000 F.Y 2004-05. RS . 69 000 F.Y 2006-07. RS. 13 00 000 TOTAL RS. 15 69 000 IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR THE PURCHASE OF SAID LAND ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOK S AS PER DETAILS GIVEN HERE IN BELOW: -: 44: - 44 SIMILARLY THE APPELLANT HAD SPENT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3 30 309/- ON STAMP DUTY AND OTHER REGISTRATION EXPENSES WHICH ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF F. Y 200607. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO TH E APPELLANT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT. 37. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- DATE IN THE BOOKS AREA PURCHASED AMOUNT PAID CHEQUE NO. 19.10.2006 .5024 2 00 000 183665 24.11.2006 .3284 1 50 000 183667 05.12.2006 .6568 3 00 000 183668 669 22.11.2006 .5000 2 00 000 159585 13.09.2007 .3284 1 50 000 REPLACED CHEQUE 183666 13.09.2007 .3284 1 50 000 REPLACED CHEQUE 183670 13.09.2007 .3284 1 50 000 REPLACED CHEQUE 183671 03.12.2004 .4600 69000 OPENING BAL .5000 1 00 000 IN NAME OF NEVRI KAUSHALYA AMOUNT (1 47 915) OPENING BAL .5000 1 00 000 IN NAME OF NEVRI AMOUNT ( 1 47 915) TOTAL 4.4328 15 69 000 -: 45: - 45 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET PRODUCED BEFORE ME. IT IS SEEN THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS MENTIONED IN THE DEED ARE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND ARE FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE DETAILS MENTIONED IN THE SAID SALE DEED PAYMENTS OF RS. 2 69 000/. WERE MADE IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS AND WERE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE OPENING BALANCE. CHEQUES OF RS.4 50 000/- HAVE BEEN REPLACED AND PAID IN A. Y 200809 WHICH IS FOUND VERIFIABLE FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE CHEQUES WERE REPLACED AND THE AMOUNT WAS PAID IN CASH SPECIALLY WHEN THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID BY REPLACED CHEQUE IN THE NEXT YEAR. THUS ONLY RS. 850000/- (15 69 000- 2 69 000- -: 46: - 46 4 50 000) WERE PAID DURING THE YEAR AND THAT IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE REGISTRATION EXPENSES WERE ALSO FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING SUCH PAYMENTS AS MADE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 38. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT AS PER AUDITED BALANCE SHEET THE INVESTMENT WAS PROPERLY REFLECTED THEREIN. DETAILED FINDINGS HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO M ODE OF PAYMENT AND DIFFERENT PAYMENTS MADE IN THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07 TO 2008-09. AS PER FINDINGS OF CIT(A) ALL PAYMENTS MENTIONED IN THE DEED WERE MADE BY THE A/C PAYEE CHEQUES WHICH FOUND ENTERED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT PAYMENT OF RS. 2.69 LAKHS WAS MADE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN THE OPENING B ALANCE. FURTHER CHEQUE OF RS. 4.50 LAKHS WAS REPLACED AND PAID IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WHICH WERE ALSO ENTERED IN THE -: 47: - 47 BOOKS. BY RECORDING FINDING THAT NO MATERIAL HAS BE EN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBST ANTIATE THAT CHEQUES WERE REPLACED AND AMOUNT WAS PAID IN C ASH ESPECIALLY WHEN THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY REPLACED CHE QUE IN THE NEXT YEAR. THUS WE FOUND THAT ONLY PAYMENT OF RS. 8.50 LAKHS WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR WHICH IS ALSO VERIF IABLE FROM THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO F OUND THAT REGISTRATION EXPENDITURES WERE ALSO FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING SUCH PAYMENT AS MADE FROM UND ISCLOSED SOURCES. THE DETAILED FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD.CI T(A) HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY BRINING ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT F IND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 39. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION THE ASSESSEE IS BASICALLY AGGRIEVED FOR CIT(A)S ACTION IN HOLDING THAT NOTIC E ISSUED U/S 153A WAS NOT WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTION AND THAT ASSE SSMENT ORDER WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A/153B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. -: 48: - 48 40. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THESE ISSUES AND DISMISSED THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH READ AS UNDER :- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT IS RESIDING WITH HER SON SHRI ASHOK GOEL IN WHOSE NAME THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED. FURTHER SEPARATE WARRANT IS NOT REQUIRED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292CC OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT SEARCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT ON 09.06.2008 WITH REGARD TO LOCKER NO. 47A AND SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUE OF SUCH SEARCH WARRANT A PANCHNAMA WAS DRAWN ON 09.06.2008 WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAME LOCKER. THUS A VALID SEARCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED AND EXECUTED. HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A IS ILLEGAL OR INVALID. AS REGARDS MISMATCH OF DATES IN THE PANCHNAMA/SEARCH WARRANT THE -: 49: - 49 SAME IS MERE VENIAL MISTAKE AND SUCH MISTAKE WOULD NOT INVALIDATE THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS AS THE SAME IS COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B. AS REGARDS NON-AVAILABILITY OF VALID JURISDICTION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS VESTED WITH THE JURISDICTION BY THE CIT BHOPAL VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 14.07.2010. THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BARRING ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153A WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENT TO SUCH DATE. THUS IT CANNOT B E SAID THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED B TO WITHOUT VALID JURISDICTION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 41. WITH REGARD TO ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT ORDER PAS SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE SAME AFTER HAVING THE FOLLO WING OBSERVATIONS :- -: 50: - 50 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153D THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT PASS ANY ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF JT. COMMISSIONER. THE FACT THAT THE JT. COMMISSIONER HAS APPROVED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31.12.2010 IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY CHANGES TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER SUCH DATE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE TREATED AS COMPLETED ON THAT DATE. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 281B(1) IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE SAID NOTICE ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS PENDING ON 31.12.2010 AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY THAT THE SAID NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN THE MORNING AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED IN THE EVENING OBVIOUSLY FOR -: 51: - 51 SAFEGUARDING THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. THUS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 42. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED ASSESSEES CONTENTION T HAT ORDER PASSED WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 153A/153B AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERV ATIONS :- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE . IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ONE CONSOLIDATED ORDER AND AT THE END OF THE ORDER HAS COMPUTED THE INCOME SEPARATELY FOR ALL YEARS COVERED BY THE ASSESSMENT. HE HAD ALSO ISSUED DEMAND NOTICES COMPUTING THE TAX LIABILITY SEPARATELY FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR. THIS SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 153A(1) WHICH STATES THAT PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS. -: 52: - 52 THEREFORE I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CORRECT AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 43. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292CC SEPARATE WARRANT WAS NOT REQUIRED. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT SEARCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ON 9 .2.2008. WITH REGARD TO LOCKER NO.46A AND SUBSEQUENT TO ISSU E OF SUCH SEARCH WARRANT A PANCHNAMA WAS DRAWN ON 9.6.2008 W ITH REFERENCE TO THE SAME LOCKER. FURTHER THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS VESTED WITH THE NECESSARY JURISDICTION BY THE C IT BHOPAL VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 14.7.2010. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS MADE ONE CONSOLIDATED ORDER AND AT THE END OF THE O RDER HE HAS COMPUTED INCOME SEPARATELY FOR ALL THE YEARS CO VERED BY THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ISSU ED DEMAND NOTICE COMPUTING THE TAX LIABILITY SEPARATELY FOR E ACH ASSESSMENT YEAR AS PER REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 153A( 1). ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS -: 53: - 53 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. CROSS OBJECTIONS WITH REFER ENCE TO MERITS OF ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WE HAVE ALREADY DEALT WITH EACH SUCH ADDITION WHILE DISPOSING THE G ROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE. 44. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOW ED IN PART WHEREAS CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH JULY 2013. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA) JUDICIA L MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 26 TH JULY 2013. CPU* 1516267