Vijay Kumar Sharma, New Delhi v. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 842/DEL/2009 | 1995-1996
Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 84220114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ABIPS8147D
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 842/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Vijay Kumar Sharma, New Delhi
Respondent DCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 07-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 31-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 31-03-2010
Assessment Year 1995-1996
Appeal Filed On 06-03-2009
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO. 842 /DEL/2009 1/13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH H BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A K GARODIA ACCOUTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 842 /DEL/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96) VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA VS. DCIT CC-12 C/O SUMIT SHARMA NEW DELHI K-57 2 ND FLOOR CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) PAN / GIR NO. ABIPS8147D APPELLANT BY: DR. SARBJIT SHARMA SH. SUMIT SHARMA ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI V K TIWARI CIT DR ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA AM: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) I NEW DELHI DATED 10.10.20 08 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. THE GROUNDS RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE BAD IN LAW CONTRARY TO FACTS AND UNSUSTAINABLE. 2. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSED INCOME AT RS.42181343/- INS TEAD OF RS.2909660/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING AL LEGEDLY THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS AS FOLLOWS:- I.T.A. NO. 842 /DEL/2009 2/13 (A) UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF:- I) JVG DEPARTMENTAL STORES LTD. RS.3 39 60 000/- II) JVG HOUSING FINANCE LTD. RS.4 50 000/- III) JVG LEASING LTD. RS.9 60 000/- (B) INVESTMENT IN WEALTH OUT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME. RS.38 95 683/-. 3. IT IS PRAYED TO DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION AND A LLOW THE APPEAL. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES PERMISSION TO ADD ALTER D ELETE AND/OR AMEND ALL OR ANY AGROUND OF THE APPEAL ON OR BEFORE OR AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 2. REGARDING GROUND 2(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THESE ADDITIONS ARE ON THIS BASIS THAT UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF THREE COMPANIES WERE MADE A ND THIS ADDITION IS ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND SUBSTANTIVE ADD ITIONS WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMPANIES. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THES E THREE COMPANIES HAVE BECOME FINAL AND HENCE THIS PROTECTI VE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE DELETED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DE CISIONS:- (A) SMT. DAYABAI VS CIT 154 ITR 248; (B) PARAMAL DANGI ALIAS PARASMAL JAIN VS ACIT 100 TTJ 608 (CHENNAI); (C) SUNIL KUMAR VS CIT 139 ITR 880 (MUM.) 3. REGARDING FACTUAL ASPECTS AS TO HOW THESE ADDITI ONS HAD ATTAINED FINALITY IN THE HANDS OF THESE THREE COMPA NIES IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT REGARDING INVESTMENT IN JVG DEPARTME NTAL STORES LTD. FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.339.66 LACS THE AS SESSMENT I.T.A. NO. 842 /DEL/2009 3/13 ORDER DATED 15.0.2005 FOR THAT VERY YEAR IN THE CAS E OF THAT COMPANY IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 19-24 OF THE PAPER BO OK AND IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THIS AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THAT COMPANY OF RS.339.66 LACS WAS ADDED IN THE HAN DS OF THAT COMPANY AND IN THAT CASE NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE MATTER HAD ATTAINED FINALITY . 4. WITH REGARD TO PROTECTIVE ADDITION OF RS.4.50 LA CS IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF JVG FIN ANCE LTD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THAT COM PANY IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 25-29 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IT C AN BE SEEN THAT ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THAT COMPANY FOR THAT AMOUNT OF RS.4.50 LACS INVESTED BY THIS ASSESSEE I. E. SHRI V K SHARMA. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT AGAINST THAT ASSESS MENT ORDER APPEAL WAS FILED BY THAT COMPANY BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN THAT CASE DATED 04.01.2007 I S AVAILABLE AT PAGES 30-33 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS POINTED OUT T HAT APPEAL OF M/S. JVG HOSING FINANCE LTD. HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREAFTER NO 2 ND APPEAL HAD BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY THAT COMPANY. 5. REGARDING 3 RD AMOUNT OF RS.9.60 LACS FOR WHICH PROTECTIVE ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THIS ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF JVG LEASING LTD. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS O F THAT COMPANY ALSO AND NO APPEAL WAS FILED BY THAT COMPAN Y AGAINST I.T.A. NO. 842 /DEL/2009 4/13 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSMENT ORDER OF THAT COMPANY IS NOT READILY AVAILABLE. 6. REGARDING GROUND NO.2(B) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THESE ASSETS OF RS.38 95 683/-. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF THESE INVESTMENTS IS DULY EXPLAINED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMIS SION AVAILABLE AT PAGES F TO J OF THE PAPER BOOK. REGAR DING THE JEWELLERY ISSUE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGEME NT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA MADE IN THE CASE OF TARA DEV I GOENKA VS CIT REPORTED AT 122 ITR 14. 7. AS AGAINST THIS LD. D.R. SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- - REGARDING GROUND NO.2(A) REGARDING INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF THE THREE COMPANIES IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T AS PER THE JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CAS E OF LOVELY EXPORTS AS REPORTED IN 216 CTR 195 ADDITION HAS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE INVESTOR AND SINCE T HE ASSESSEE IS THE INVESTOR IN THIS CASE ADDITION HAS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THIS ASSESSEE. REGARDING GROU ND NO.2(B) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IN 2 ND ROUND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE S OURCE OF THESE INVESTMENTS AND HENCE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES I.T.A. NO. 842 /DEL/2009 5/13 BELOW. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS ADMITTED POSITIO N THAT WITH REGARD TO THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF THREE COMPANI ES; M/S. JVG DEPARTMENTAL STORES LTD. RS.339.66 LACS M/S. JVG HOUSING FINANCE LTD. RS.4.50 LACS AND M/S. JVG LEASING LTD. RS.9.60 LACS TOTAL RS.353.76 LACS ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND SUBSTANTIV E ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMPANIES. FOR THIS ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THE CASE OF 1 ST TWO COMPANIES ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE 19-24 AND 25-29 OF THE PAPER BOOK FROM WHI CH IT IS SEEN THAT SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION OF THE EQUAL AMOUNT WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THOSE TWO COMPANIES AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE 3 RD COMPANY I.E. JVG LEASING LTD. IS NOT AVAILABLE. N OW IT IS THE SUBMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT IN THE CASE OF JVG DEPARTMENTAL STORES LTD. NO APPEAL WAS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS IN TH E CASE OF JVG HOUSING FINANCE LTD. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND NO FURTHER APPEAL W AS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. REGARDING 3 RD COMPANY I.E. JVG LEASING LTD. ALSO IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT ALTHOUGH THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THIS COMPANY IS NOT READILY AVAILABLE BUT ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THAT COMPANY AGAI NST WHICH NO APPEAL WAS FILED BY THAT COMPANY. ON THE BASIS OF MERE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WE CAN NOT COME TO A C ONCLUSION THAT WHETHER THOSE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THOSE COMPANY HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY OR NOT BUT AT THE SAME TIME IF T HOSE ADDITIONS IN I.T.A. NO. 842 /DEL/2009 6/13 THE HANDS OF THOSE 3 COMPANIES HAVE ATTAINED FINALI TY THE PRESENT PROTECTIVE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THIS AS SESSEE CANNOT SURVIVE. IT WAS SO HELD BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF M ADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF SMT. DAYABAI (SUPRA). IT WA S HELD IN THAT CASE THAT THE SAME INCOME CANNOT BE ASSESSED TWICE IN LAW. IN THAT CASE THE INCOME FROM THE MATINI SHOW BUSINESS HAS BEEN ASSESSED BOTH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AS ALSO IN THE HANDS OF SMT. DAYABAI AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE SAME IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND HENCE IT WAS HELD THAT THE T RIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSME NT ON SMT. DAYABAI. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ALLEGATION IS TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO SOURCE TO MAKE THIS INVESTMENT OF RS.353.76 LACS IN THE SHARES OF THREE COMPANIES AND AT THE SAME TIME IN THE CASES OF THOSE COMPANIES IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED THAT THE INVES TMENT WAS MADE BY THIS ASSESSEE I.E. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THOSE THREE CASE S ON THIS BASIS THAT INVESTMENT IN SHARES WERE OUT OF UNEXPLA INED INCOME OF THOSE THREE COMPANIES. NOW IN BOTH THE CASES I.E. THIS ASSESSEE SHRI V K SHARMA BEING INVESTOR AS WELL AS IN THE CASES OF RESPECTIVE COMPANIES THIS ALLEGATION IS COMMON THAT THIS INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF RS.353.76 LACS IS OUT OF UN EXPLAINED INCOME AND THERE IS NO INDICATION ABOUT NATURE OF T HE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INCOME. NOW THE SAME CANNOT BELONG TO BOTH. UNEXPLAINED INCOME IS EITHER OF THE PRESENT ASSESSE E OR OF THOSE THREE COMPANIES AND HENCE IF THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDIT IONS IN THE I.T.A. NO. 842 /DEL/2009 7/13 HANDS OF THOSE THREE COMPANIES HAVE ATTAINED FINALI TY THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASS ESSEE CANNOT SURVIVE. BUT WE HAVE NOTICED ABOVE THAT IN THIS CA SES OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERE BASIS OF SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT NO APPEAL WAS FILED BY THOSE COMPANIES IT CANNOT BE H ELD THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION IN THOSE CASES HAVE ATTAINED F INALITY. THIS ASPECT WAS NEVER EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF JVG DEPARTMENTAL ST ORES LTD. IS DATED 15.03.2005 AND THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF JVG HOUSING FINANCE LTD. IS DATED 04.01.2007 AND HE NCE THIS ASPECT HAS TO BE EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER ANY APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE COMPANIES AND WHAT HAS ULTIMATELY HAPPENED. NEITHER THE DEPARTMENT HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD ANYTHI NG TO SHOW THAT APPEAL IS FILED BY THOSE COMPANIES. THE ASSES SEE HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY CLARIFICATION FORM THOSE COMPANIES THAT THEY HAVE ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONS IN QUESTION A ND NO APPEAL WAS FILED. FOR THIS PURPOSE WE FEEL THAT THE MATT ER HAS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. HENCE WE SET ASIDE TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER EXAMINING THIS ASPECT AS TO WH ETHER THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THOSE THR EE COMPANIES HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY OR NOT AND IF IT IS FOUND TH AT SUBSTANTIVE ADDITIONS HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY IN THAT SITUATION THE CORRESPONDING PROTECTIVE ADDITION IN THE PRESENT CA SE HAS TO BE DELETED. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FURNISH NECESSARY EVI DENCE IN THIS I.T.A. NO. 842 /DEL/2009 8/13 REGARD BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND HE SHOULD ALSO MAK E EFFORTS TO FIND OUT THE FACTUAL POSITION FROM THE DEPARTMENT A ND THEREAFTER PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING ADE QUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. REGA RDING JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF LOVE LY EXPORT (SUPRA) WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT SUBSTANTIVE A DDITION WAS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THOSE COMPAN IES WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY AND TO EXAMINE THIS ASPECT ONLY WE ARE RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE O F LD. CIT(A). IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE WARDS OF TH OSE COMPANIES HAVE NOT ATTAINED FINALITY OR ARE DELETED LD. CIT( A) SHOULD DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THIS JUD GEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF LOVELY E XPORTS (SUPRA). GROUND NO.2(A) OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL S TANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. REGARDING GROUND NO.2(B) WE FIND THAT FOLLOWING ASSETS WERE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WEALTH TAX RET URN FOR THIS VERY ASSESSMENT YEAR: A. SHARE IN BASEMENT & GF OF PROPERTY AT ASHOKA PARK RS.3 90 000/- B) JEWELLERY RS.21 06 466/- C) CAR RS. 3 82 823/- D) CASH IN HAND RS.8 96 394/- E) OTHER ASSETS RS.1 20 000/- TOTAL RS.38 95 684/- 10. THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE INVE STMENTS. IN I.T.A. NO. 842 /DEL/2009 9/13 THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE US IT HAS BEEN SUBM ITTED THAT FUND FLOW STATEMENT WAS SUBMITTED AND THE ENTIRE EX PLANATION WAS GIVEN BUT THE SAME WAS WRONGLY REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS FOUND MENTION ED IN PARA 5 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AVAILABLE AT PAGES F TO J OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON THESE PAGES I.E. PAGES F TO J WE FIND TH AT GENERAL SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT FURNISHING ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THESE SUBMISSIONS. 11. REGARDING THE INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS.3.90 LACS IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS P URCHASED THROUGH FINANCE FROM M/S. JVG DEPARTMENTAL STORES L TD. BUT NO EVIDENCE IS FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTI ON. SIMILARLY REGARDING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE JEWELLERY OF R S.21.06 LACS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS INCLUDES JEWELLERY OF RS .16 LACS BEING THE VALUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 BEING THE JEWE LLERY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HIS MARRIAG E IN 1986 AND AT THAT TIME THE VALUE OF THAT JEWELLERY WAS RS.7 LACS. WE FIND THAT IF THE JEWELLERY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A CCOUNT OF MARRIAGE IN 1986 WAS OF THE VALUE OF RS.7 LACS THE SAME WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER WEALTH TAX BECAUSE AT THAT POINT OF TIME WEALTH TAX WAS PAYABLE ON NET ASSETS OF ABOVE RS.2.50 LACS. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR BEFORE US THAT ANY WEALTH TAX RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THOSE YEARS PAYING WEA LTH TAX ON SUCH JEWELLERY. HENCE THE PRESENT CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT I.T.A. NO. 842 /DEL/2009 10/13 SUCH JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE IN 1986 CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF HIS FATHER-IN-LAW WHO IS STATED TO HAVE GIVEN GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE OF JEWELLERY OF RS.7 LACS AT T HE TIME OF MARRIAGE IN 1986. THE RELEVANCE OF CREDITWORTHINES S OF FATHER- IN-LAW WILL ARISE ONLY WHEN THIS FACT IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE THAT IN FACT SUCH JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE IN 1986. WHEN THE ASSESSEE COULD N OT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD REGARDING RECEIPT OF SU CH JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE IN 1986 CREDITWORTHINESS OF H IS FATHER-IN- LAW EVEN IF IT IS ESTABLISHED WILL NOT HELP THE AS SESSEE BECAUSE RECEIPT OF JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE ITSELF IS NOT PROVED. REGARDING THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF TARA DEVI AGGARWAL (SUPRA) WE FIND THAT TH E FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. IN THAT CASE THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE DECLARED THE JEWELLERY IN HER WEALTH TAX RETURN IN THE VERY FIRS T YEAR WHEN THE JEWELLERY BECAME LIABLE TO WEALTH TAX I.E. IN ASSES SMENT YEAR 1964-65. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE MARRIAGE IS SAID TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN 1986 AND IT IS ALSO CLAIMED THAT VALUE OF JEWELLERY AT THAT POINT OF TIME WAS RS.7 LACS. PRIOR TO 1.4.199 3 NET WEALTH IN EXCESS OF RS.2.50 LACS WAS TAXABLE & HENCE THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW THAT SUCH JEWELLERY WAS DECLARED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN IN ANY YEAR PRIOR TO 1.4.1993 BUT IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE PRESENT YE AR THE JEWELLERY I.T.A. NO. 842 /DEL/2009 11/13 IS DECLARED IN WEALTH TAX RETURN & PRIOR TO THAT N O WEALTH TAX RETURN WAS FILED. SINCE JEWELLERY WAS NOT DECLARED IN WEALTH TAX BY FILING WEALTH TAX RETURN IN THE FIRST YEAR WHEN THE SAME WAS LIABLE TO WEALTH TAX SUBSEQUENT DECLARATION CANNOT BE RELATED BACK TO MARRIAGE. THIS JUDGEMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE . REGARDING BALANCE JEWELLERY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SOME PART OF THE SAME WAS GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY FAMILY AND FRIENDS AN D REST WAS BOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE DRUING THE PERIOD OF PAST YE ARS WHICH IS GENERAL SUBMISSION WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. REGARDING THE CAR WORTH RS.383823/- I T WAS SUBMITTED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT 2 ND HAND TOYOTA COROLLA CAR WAS PURCHASED FROM ONE MR. BAGLA DURING THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR 1992-93. NO EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN BROUG HT OUT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CAR IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1992-93 AND WHAT WA S THE SOURCE THEREOF IN THAT YEAR. FOR THE SAME ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE CAR AND IN THE ABSE NCE OF THE SAME THIS CLAIM IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE. REGARDING CASH IN HAND OF RS.8.96 LACS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D WITHDRAWN CASH DURING THE PRESENT YEAR TO THE EXTENT OF RS.28 9704/- BUT THEN HOW MUCH WAS THE ASSESSEES HOUSE HOLD EXPENSE S AND FROM WHERE THE SAME WAS BEING MET HAS NOT BEEN BRO UGHT OUT ON RECORD AND HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY PART OF THE CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSE SSEE AT THE END OF THE YEAR IN THE FORM OF CASH IN HAND. REGAR DING THE I.T.A. NO. 842 /DEL/2009 12/13 BALANCE CASH IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS WIT HDRAWN DURING PAST YEARS BUT NO EVIDENCE IS FURNISHED IN T HIS REGARD ALSO. 12. REGARDING OTHER ASSETS OF RS.1.20 LACS ALSO NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE ASSET S WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. RE GARDING AVAILABILITY OF THOSE ASSETS AT THE END OF THE PRES ENT FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED AVAILABILIT Y OF THESE ASSETS AT THE END OF THE PRESENT YEAR BY DISCLOSING SUCH ASSETS IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN FILED BY HIM IN THE PRESENT Y EAR AND SOURCE THEREOF HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. HENCE GROUND NO.2(B) OF THE ASSESSEES APP EAL STANDS REJECTED. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND S PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH MAY 2010. SD./- SD./- (A. D. JAIN) (A K GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:7 TH MAY. 2010 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT I.T.A. NO. 842 /DEL/2009 13/13 3. CIT TRUE COPY: BY ORDER 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI