M/S. LALJIBHAI VIRJIBHAI PATEL, SURAT v. THE DY,CIT CENT CIR .2(1), SURAT

ITSSA 43/AHD/2002 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 4320516 RSA 2002
Assessee PAN ACFPP4606A
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITSSA 43/AHD/2002
Duration Of Justice 9 year(s) 5 month(s)
Appellant M/S. LALJIBHAI VIRJIBHAI PATEL, SURAT
Respondent THE DY,CIT CENT CIR .2(1), SURAT
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 02-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 02-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 01-09-2011
Next Hearing Date 01-09-2011
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 01-04-2002
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'C' BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A N PAHUJA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.43/AHD/2002 (BLOCK PERIOD ENDING 28.1.1999) SMT. JAYABEN LALJIBHAI PATEL L/H OF LATE SHRI LALJIBHAI V PATEL A-2/203 VASANT VIHAR TOWNSHIP U M ROAD SURAT V/S DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MAJURA GATE SURAT PAN:ACFPP4606A [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI M K PATEL AR REVENUE BY:- SHRI S K GUPTA DR DATE OF HEARING:- 01-09-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:- 02-09-2011 O R D E R A N PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FILED ON 1.4.2002 AGAI NST AN ORDER DATED 18-12-2001 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I I AHMEDABAD RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- [1] ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF CASH BALANCE OF RS26 12 8/- ON THE DAY OF SEARCH AS ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CASH. [2] ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIR MING ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER RS.33 700/- INVESTED IN HOUSEHOLD ITEMS FROM STRIDHAN AS FROM ALLEGED UNEXPLAI NED SOURCES. [3] ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER O F ALLEGED MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF RS.2 00 000/- AS FROM UNDISCLOSED INC OME. [4] ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER O F INTEREST 2 IT(SS)A NO.43/AHD/2002 PAYMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.28 350/- AS FROM ALLEGED UND ISCLOSED SOURCES. [5] ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.7 900/- AS PAYMENT TO VASANT VIHAR OUT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED SOU RCES. [6] ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER O F RS.24 000/- AS ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED BOOKING OF PLOTS IN THE NAME OF SHRI MAHESH G PATEL. [7] ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.8 800/- AS ENTRY NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. [8] IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE ADDITION MA Y PLEASE BE DELETED AS LEARNED MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL DEEM IT PROPER. [9] THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUND(S) EITHER BEFORE OR IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2 AT THE OUTSET WE NOTICED THAT THE APPEAL IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ON 01-04-2002 WHILE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 28-01-2002. ACCORDI NG TO THE REGISTRY APPEAL WAS DELAYED BY THREE DAYS AND WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A CHALLAN FOR PAYMENT OF THE FEE OF RS.8762/- STI PULATED UNDER SEC. 253(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961[HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT]. EVEN THOUGH THESE TWO DEFECTS WERE NOTICED BY THE REGISTRY ON 0 1-04-2002 THESE WERE POINTED OUT TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER FOUR YE ARS VIDE LETTER DATED 04-04-2006. MEANWHILE THE ASSESSEE SHRI LALJI BHAI V PATEL EXPIRED ON 15-06-2004 AS MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATI ON FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BY THE LEGAL HEIR[LH] ON 18.4.2007. IMMEDIATELY ON RECEIPT OF DEFECT NOTICE THE LH ALS O PAID TRIBUNAL FEES OF RS.8762/- ON 20-04-2006. THUS WITH THE PAY MENT OF TRIBUNAL FEES THE APPEAL STOOD VALIDATED. 3 IT(SS)A NO.43/AHD/2002 2.1 AS ALREADY STATED THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS STATE D TO HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED ON 28-01-2002 WHILE THE APPEAL WAS FIL ED ON 01-04- 2002. 30-03-2002 AND 31-03-2002 BEING SATURDAY & SU NDAY WHILE THE STIPULATED AMOUNT OF FEES HAVING BEEN PAID IMM EDIATELY AFTER POINTING OUT APPARENTLY THE APPEAL IS WITHIN TI ME. 3. NOW COMING TO GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL AT THE OUTSET THE LEARNED AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 4 5 & 7 IN THE APPEAL NOR THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE THREE GROUNDS WERE PRESSED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN THESE CI RCUMSTANCES THESE THREE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 4 ADVERTING NOW TO GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL FACT S IN BRIEF AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT A SEARCH U/S 132 OF TH E OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ] WAS CONDUCTED ON 28-1-1999 IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESS EE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TWISTING WEAVING & PLASTIC MOULDIN G. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH A NUMBER OF PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED AS PER ANNEXURE-BS TO PANCHNAMA DATED 28-01-1999 BE SIDES THE FOLLOWING VALUABLES :- SR.NO. DESCRIPTION FOUND (RS.) SEIZED (RS.) -------- -------------- --------------- ---------- ----- 1 CASH 96 128/- 50 000 2 JEWELLERY 2 18 334/- -- 4.1 IN PURSUANCE TO THE SEARCH A NOTICE U/S 158 BC OF THE ACT WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 29-04-1999 WITH THE REQ UEST TO FILE BLOCK RETURN OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHIN SIXTEEN D AYS OF THE SERVICE OF NOTICE. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN DECLARING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.5 00 000/- ON 17-05-1999. AS ALREADY MENTIONED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CASH OF RS. 96 128/- WAS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE FAMILY. ON THE DAY OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE HAVING CASH IN THEIR 4 IT(SS)A NO.43/AHD/2002 RESIDENCE THE DETAILS OF WHICH NARRATED IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER ARE AS UNDER:- SR. NO. NAME AMOUNT (RS.) DETAILS --------- --------- ---------------- ------------- ---------- 1 LALJIBHAI 50 000 RS.30 000/- BELONGS SHRI KANTIBHAI J RABARA; NO EXPLANA- TION FOR REST IS GIVEN 2 JAYABEN 30 000 RS.7 000/- SELF; RS.3 000/- SAVINGS; RS.20 000/- BABUBHAI VIRJIBHAI 3 NILESH 20 000 BELONGING TO ANITA TEX. 4 NAYNABEN 2 000 SELF 5 BRIJESH 2 000 SELF ----------- TOTAL 1 04 000 4.2 DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF CASH OF RS.96 128/-; RS.30 000 BELONGED TO ONE MR. KANTIBHAI RABARA. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT HE WAS PERSONALLY CALLED UPON AT THE TIME OF SEARCH QUESTIONED AND W AS HANDED BACK HIS RS.30 000/- BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER. RS.20 00 0/- BELONGED TO SHRI BABUBHAI VIRJIBHAI (ELDER BROTHER). THE BALANC E CASH WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED CAREFULLY THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD. MY OBSERVATIONS I S AS BELOW:- [I] AT THE TIME OF SEARCH & ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT IS CL AIMED THAT RS.30 000/- BELONGS TO SHRI KANTIBHAI RABARA. IT IS AL SO OBSERVED FROM THE ANNEXURE TO PANCHANAMA THAT RS.49 1287- WAS RELEASED TO THE ASSESSEE. [II] SIMILARLY IT IS CLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE I T PROCE EDINGS THAT CASH OF RS.20 000/- BELONGS TO ASSESSEE'S ELDER BROTHER SHRI BABUB HAI VIRJIBHAI. IT IS CONSISTENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS MONEY IS KEPT WITH THE 5 IT(SS)A NO.43/AHD/2002 ASSESSEE FOR SAFE KEEPING. IN THIS REGARD A PAPER WAS SEI ZED FROM THE ASSESSEE'S PREMISES (INVENTORIED AS PAGE NO. 79 OF AN NEXURE BS-5) WHERE IT IS NOTED THAT RS.50 000/- IN THE DENOM INATION OF RS.500/- WAS GIVEN ON 18.1.98 BY SHRI BABUBHAI TO THE ASSESSEE. [III] IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT RS.20 000 WAS CLAIMED AS CASH OF THE BUSINESS CONCERN M/S ANITA TEX. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE CASH BOOK OF M/S ANIT A TEX. FROM THIS IT IS OBSERVED THAT ON THE DATE OF SEA RCH THERE IS CASH BALANCE OF RS.30 401.82 IN THE BOOKS OF M/S ANITA TE XTILES PROP. SMT. JAYABEN L PATEL. [IV] REGARDING REST CASH OF RS.26 128/- [RS.96 128 - RS.3 0 000 - RS.20 000 - RS.20 000] CONFLICTING SUBMISSION WERE MADE DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHILE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IT WAS CLA IMED TO BE BELONGING TO DIFFERENT FAMILY MEMBERS AT THE TIM E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS CLAIMED TO BE BELONGING TO DIFFEREN T BUSINESS CONCERNS. THIS CONFLICTING CLAIM ITSELF REFLECT THAT THE R EST CASH OF RS.26 128/- IS UNACCOUNTED. [V] THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH AS TO WHY CASH OF BUSIN ESS CONCERNS WERE BROUGHT TO HOME. IF THAT WAS THE CASE THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE SAID SO THAT THE TIME OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS I TSELF. 2.3 UNDER THIS CIRCUMSTANCES I TREAT RS.26 128/- AS UNDISCL OSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. 5. ON APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITIO N IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 03. THE FIRST GROUND IS REGARDING AN ADDITION OF RS.2 6 128/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH. THE APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO EXPLAI N THE SAME BY STATING THAT PART OF THE CASH REPRESENTS PAST SAVINGS OF SEVER AL FAMILY MEMBERS. THE EXPLANATION DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY FRESH MATE RIAL OR EVIDENCE. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE ADDITION OF RS.26 128/- IS SUSTAINED. 6. THE LEARNED AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE CARRYING US THROUGH THE RELEVANT PAGES IN THE PAPER BOOK MEREL Y REITERATED THEIR SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE THE LEA RNED DR SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. TO A QUERY BY THE BEN CH THE LD. AR ASSURED TO SUBMIT COPY OF STATEMENTS RECORDED AT TH E TIME OF SEARCH. HOWEVER THESE WERE NOT SUBMITTED UNTIL THE WRITIN G OF THIS ORDER. 6 IT(SS)A NO.43/AHD/2002 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS IS APPARENT FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IT WAS CLAIMED THAT OUT OF CASH OF RS. 50 00 0/- (LALJIBHAI) RS.30 000/- BELONGED TO SHRI KANTIBHAI RABARA WHILE NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.20 000/- . DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 26 128/- SINCE DURING THE SEARCH IT WAS CLAIMED TO BE BELONGIN G TO DIFFERENT FAMILY MEMBERS WHILE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT W AS CLAIMED TO BE BELONGING TO DIFFERENT BUSINESS CONCERNS. BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) IT WAS CLAIMED THAT PART OF THE CASH BELONGED TO DIFFERENT FAMILY ME MBERS. BEFORE US THE LD. AR STATED THAT CASH OF RS. 70 000/-BELONGED TO THREE DIFF ERENT BUSINESSES CARRIED ON BY SMT.JAYABEN PATEL SHRI NILESH PATEL AND SHRI LAL JIBHAI PATEL. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED THE SAID CLAIM OF CASH OF RS. 70 0 00/- AS MENTIONED IN PARA 4.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE FORE GOING ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LD. AR DID NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US SO AS TO E NABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFER E. THEREFORE GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL RELATES TO AN ADDITION OF RS.33 700/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN HOUSEHOLD ITEMS. THE AS SESSEE STATED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT A SAMSUNG FRIDGE WAS PURCHASED BY SMT. JAYABEN L PATEL IN 1997 OUT O F HER STRIDHAN. HOWEVER THIS CLAIM WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED. ACCORDIN GLY THE AO TREATED AN AMOUNT OF RS.33 700/- AS UNDISCLOSED I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. ON APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITIO N IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 04. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING AN ADDIT ION OF RS.33 700/-ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENTS IN HOUSEHOLD ITEMS. T HE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE SAME WAS OUT OF THE 'STRIDHAN OF HIS WIFE IS NOT TENABLE. NO EVIDENCE REGARDING INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSEHOLD ITEMS I S GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS.33 700/- MAD E BY THE A.O. IS SUSTAINED. 7 IT(SS)A NO.43/AHD/2002 10 THE LEARNED AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE MERELY REITERATED THEIR SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) WHILE THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS NARRATED BE FORE US COPY OF BILL SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH REVEALED THAT A SAMSU NG FRIDGE WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF SMT. JAYABEN IN 1997. SMT. JAYABEN IS STATED TO BE PROPRIETOR OF THE CONCERN ANITA TEXTIL ES. NEITHER BEFORE THE AO NOR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUB STANTIATED HIS EXPLANATION REGARDING SOURCE OF PAYMENT MADE FOR PU RCHASING THE SAID FRIDGE. THE SITUATION IS NO BETTER BEFORE US. SINCE THE LD. AR DID NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER NOR EVEN COPY OF STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE WE ARE NOT INCLINE D TO INTERFERE. THEREFORE GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 12. GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL RELATES TO AN ADDITIO N OF RS.2 00 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES. IT W AS NOTICED THAT THE MARRIAGE OF ASSESSEES SON TOOK PLACE IN THE YE AR 1995. TO A QUERY BY THE AO VIDE SUBMISSION DATED 10.1.2001 T HE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT APPROXIMATE RS.1.50 TO RS.2.00 LACS W AS SPENT. HOWEVER IN THE SUBMISSION DATED 22-01-2001 THE EX PENSES WERE REDUCED TO RS.1 32 000/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED TH AT THESE EXPENSES WERE MADE FROM REGULAR WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE FAMILY SINCE FY 1991-92 AS WELL AS THROUGH CASH GIFTS. HOW EVER THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THESE SUBMISSIONS AND ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 00 000/- IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 5.1 HOWEVER THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION IS NOT FOUND CORRECT COMPLETELY AS [I] SMT. JAYABEN L PATEL STATED WITHOUT ANY DOUBT TH AT APP. RS.1.50 TO RS.2.00 LACS WERE SPENT IN THE SONS MARRIAGE. 8 IT(SS)A NO.43/AHD/2002 [II] THE WITHDRAWALS IS FOUND TO BE TOO INADEQUATE TO FUND MARRIAGE EXPENSES. THE WITHDRAWALS ARE AS BELOW:- AY TOTAL (RS.) ------ ---------------- 1989-90 22 500 1990-91 23 000 1991-92 40 800 1992-93 58 820 1993-94 54 000 1994-95 69 000 BEFORE MARRIAGE THE ASSESSEES FAMILY CONSIST OF FIVE ADU LT MEMBERS. HENCE THE WITHDRAWALS CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS ADEQUATE TO MEET HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE (IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS). 5.2 THEREFORE RS.2.00 LACS IS CONSIDERED AS UNACCOUNTED EX PENSES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MARRIAGE OF HIS SON SHRI NIL ESHBHAI IN THE YEAR 1995 AND ADDED TO HIS TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. 13. ON APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITI ON IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 05. THE THIRD GROUND IS REGARDING AUDITION OF R.2 L ACS ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES. THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT HI S WIFE MADE A STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE I.T. ACT ADMITTING MARRIAG E EXPENSES OF HIS SON IN 1995 AT RS.2 00 000/- WHICH WAS A ROUGH ESTIMATE . THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE MARRIAGE WAS VERY SIMPLE AND PA YMENTS REGARDING GROCERY WERE MADE OUT OF CHANDLA I.E. CASH GIFTS RECEIVE D AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. THE LADY MIGHT HAVE MADE A VERY CONSERVATIVE EST IMATE THOUGH THE EXPENSES COULD BE MORE. THE APPELLANTS REASONS REGAR DING MEETING MARRIAGE EXPENSES ARE DEVOID OF ANY TRUTH. THE AO WAS J USTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.2 LACS. THUS THE ADDITION OF RS.2 00 000 /- IS SUSTAINED. 14. THE LEARNED AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE REITERATING THEIR SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T(A) CONTENDED THE AMOUNT WAS ADDED ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECO RDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT AND IN ANY CASE BEING AN ESTIMATE ADDITION COULD BE RESTRICTED TO LOWER EST IMATE OF RS. 1.50 LACS. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED T HE FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 9 IT(SS)A NO.43/AHD/2002 15. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AT THE OUTSET WE MAY POINT OUT THAT DES PITE REQUEST MADE BY US THE LD. AR DID NOT PLACE COPIES OF STATEMENT S RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 LACS TO WARDS EXPENSES ON MARRIAGE OF SON OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT(S) RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF MEETING TH E MARRIAGE EXPENSES THE AMOUNT WAS ADDED ON THE BASIS OF ST ATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THEIR DECISION IN N. R . PAPER AND BOARD LIMITED AND OTHERS. VS. DCIT 234 ITR 733(GUJ) OBSERVED THAT UNDER SECTION 158BB OF THE ACT FOR COMPUTING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE RE LEVANT PREVIOUS YEARS ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS AND SUCH OTHER MATERIALS OR INFORMAT ION AS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE EVIDENCE FOUND AS A RESUL T OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION WOULD BE THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN GATHE RED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SECTIONS 132 AND 132A OF THE ACT. THIS WOU LD ALSO INCLUDE THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT WHICH EMPOWERS HI M TO RECORD THE STATEMENT OF ANY PERSON IN POSSESSION OF SUCH ASSETS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS ON OATH AND WHICH CAN BE USED IN EVIDENCE IN AN Y PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT. NEITHER BEFORE THE AO NOR BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBSTANTIATED HIS EXPLANATION REGARDING SO URCE OF MEETING THE AFORESAID EXPENDITURE .THERE IS NO IMPROVEMENT BEFORE US. SINCE THE LD. AR DID NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US SO AS T O ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER NOR EVEN A COPY OF STA TEMENT(S) RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH H AVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE. THUS GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 16. GROUND NO.6 IN THE APPEAL RELATES TO AN ADDITIO N OF RS.24 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOOKING OF PLOT IN THE NAME OF SHRI M AHESHBHAI. THE 10 IT(SS)A NO.43/AHD/2002 AO NOTICED THAT PAGE NOS. 59 TO 66 OF ANNEXURE BS-5 OF THE PANCHNAMA REVEALED BOOKING OF PLOTS IN THE NAME OF SHRI MAHESHBHAI WHEREIN ON 12-06-1990 A TOTAL AMOUNT O F RS.24 000/- IS MENTIONED TO HAVE BEEN PAID. THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT ONLY BOOKING AMOUNT WAS PAID AND NO FURTHER AMOUNT WAS PAID AS THE BOOKING WAS LATER ON CANCELLED. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE BOOKING AMOUNT OF RS.24 000/- WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ACCOR DINGLY ADDED THE SAME TOWARDS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. 17. ON APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITI ON IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- 06. THE FOURTH GROUND IS REGARDING AUDITION OF RS.24 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED BOOKING OF PLOT THE APPELLANT HAS PLEASED TH AT THE SAME WAS BOOKED OUT OF CASH IN HAND AND IT COULD NOT BE INCLUD ED IN THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AT THE TIME OF REFUND. LOOKING TO THE FACTS THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ABOVE ADDITION. THUS ADDITION OF RS.24 000/ - IS SUSTAINED. 18. THE LEARNED AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE REITER ATED THEIR SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED O RDER. 19. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 24 000/- WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PLEA OF THE LD. AR THAT AMOUNT WAS PAID OUT OF CASH IN HAND IS NOT SUPPORTE D BY ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ESPECIALLY W HEN THE LD. AR DID NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO UPHOLD THE FI NDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).CONSEQUENTLY GROUND NO.6 IN THE APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. 20. GROUND NO. 8 BEING MERE PRAYER NOR ANY SUBMISSI ONS HAVING BEEN MADE ON THIS GROUND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPA RATE ADJUDICATION AND IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 11 IT(SS)A NO.43/AHD/2002 21 NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE U S IN TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO. 9 IN THE APPEAL ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 22. NO OTHER PLEA OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE US. 23 IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 2-09-2011 SD/- SD/- ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( A N PAHUJA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 2-09-2011 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT. JAYABEN LALJIBHAI PATEL L/R OF ASSESSEE LA TE SHRI LALJIBHAI V PATEL A-2/203 VASANT VIHAR TOWNSHIP U M ROAD SURAT 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCL E-2(1) SURAT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-II SURAT 5. DR ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH-C AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD