TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 982
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CIT, PR on 17.04.2018 as per necessary evidence being enclosed herewith in the form of receipt evidencing the fact that the appeals were filed on 17.04.2018 in the office of the CIT(DR) ITAT. 3. However, when no notice was received by the assessee from the registry and the above said mistake was noticed by the undersigned, we immediately prepared another set and filed the requisite appeals on 04.02.2019 in the office of ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. 4. Then, we moved an application to the CIT(DR), ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh vide application, dated 15.02.2019 and, thereafter, the said original appeals as filed before the CIT (DR) were returned back to us as per necessary evidence in this regard being enclosed herewith. 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, it is very clear that the appeals were prepared in time and even the prescribed fees were also deposited in time, but the said appeals were filed on 17.04.2018 inadvertantly in the Office of CIT (DR), ITAT, Chandigarh, due to mistake on the part of the staff of the Assessee's counsel and which has now been confirmed by the office of the CIT (DR) and, as such, the dela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9. All the aforesaid documents were furnished by the assesse which are placed on record. We therefore are of the view that there was a reasonable cause for filing the appeal belated and the assessee has a plausible explanation. We therefore by considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove, condone the delay and the appeal is admitted. 6. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1a) That the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained Jewellery amounting to Rs. 59,59,890/- U/S 69A of the Act as per Ground No.2, Para 5 of her order. b) That the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon has failed to appreciate the explanation given by the assessee during the course of post search enquiries that the Jewellery was, in fact, acquired after the search and redemption of Gold Bond, which was distributed by his father among the various family members and the same explanation was given during the course of assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings, but the same has been rejected on flimsy grounds. c) That the Ld. CIT(A)-2, has ignored that the same Jewellery had been declared in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....92,740/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the A.O. noticed that at the time of search conducted on 07/11/2013, Jewellery with gross weight 669.650 gms valued at Rs. 15,92,977/- was found from the residential premises of the assessee and in the locker belonging to the assessee Jewellery including gold bars with gross weight of 3349.800 gms valued at Rs. 94,90,152/- was found. He asked the assessee to explain the source of Jewellery. In response the assessee submitted that the source of gold bars found in the locker was the redemption of Gold Bond Scheme. The A.O. observed that the serial numbers of the gold bars mentioned in the redemption certificate were different from one mentioned in the Gold Bond physically found from the locker and as the assessee could not offer any plausible explanation, the Jewellery from the locker valuing Rs. 94,90,152/- was seized. The A.O. asked the assessee to give source and year of purchase of Jewellery found during the course of search. In response the assessee submitted as under: "Regarding your Honour's query relating to the source of gold/gold Jewellery found from the Locker No. AA00006 with Punjab National Bank, Barnala valu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble on this account" 8.1 However the explanation given by the assessee was not acceptable to the A.O. for the following reasons: i) Neither the assessee nor any of its family members were filing their wealth tax returns before the search. Wealth Tax Returns have been filed only by Rakesh Bansal (HUF) and that to upto the A.Y.2002-03. The assessee and his family members filed their wealth tax returns after the search was conducted upon unearthing Jewellery / gold with gross weight of 4019.45 gms. The details of filing of Wealth Tax Return as per returns are as under:- Sr. No. Name of the person A.Y. Gold declared in Wealth Tax Return Date of filing wealth tax return 1. Shri Bansal Rakesh 2008-09 to 2011-12 1444 gms 11.12.2013 2012-13 & 2013-14 26.11.2013 2014-15 29.12.2014 2. Smt. Bansal Kavita 2008-09 & 2009-10 1978 gms 11.12.2013 2010-11 & 2011-12 1446 gms 11.12.2013 2012-13 & 2013-14 1446 gms 26.11.2013 2014-15 1446 gms 30.12.2014 3. Shri Mohit Bansal 2008-09 & 2009-10 886 gms 26.11.2013 2010-11 to 2013-14 (except 2009-10 & 2011-12) 1418 gms. 26.11.2013 2014-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he A.Y.2002-03, the HUF was in possession of gold weighing 900 gms, which was deposited in State Bank of India, Chandigarh. Therefore, the assessee is being allowed the credit of the gold to the extent of 900 gms being available with its HUF. Taking into consideration the decision of jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court reported at 371 ITR 201 in the case of CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Kohli dated 17.11.2014, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the order of Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh in which 400 gms of Jewellery has been considered as Istridhan received at the time of marriage from parents and also held that appellant can get benefit of Rs. 4 lacs as savings from his past income and the benefit of such savings has been given for acquisition of the Jewellery. The referred case pertains to A.Y 1987 to 1997, taking the gold rate of Rs. 400 to Rs. 500 per gm, the savings of Rs. 4 lac at that time would mean Jewellery weighing approximately 800 gms. Hence, effectively the Hon'ble Court has accepted 400 gms of Jewellery as Istridhan for wife and 800 gms of Jewellery as to be purchased from assume savings of past of husband. Therefore, credit for 1200 gms is given to Smt. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding the same prior to 01.04.2007. Copies of Wealth Tax Assessment Orders from AYs 2008-09 to 2011-12 in the case of the appellant and his family members are enclosed for Your Honour's ready reference along with copy of Wealth Tax Return filed by the appellant and his family members for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 evidencing Jewellery owned. Copy of income tax return for A.Y. 20015-16 and computation of income of Sh. Mohit Bansal is also enclosed, where the factum of sale of Jewellery owned by him is depicted. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the Jewellery found from the appellant during the course of search is in any way unexplained or acquired during the year under appeal and liable to be assessed as deemed income u/s 69A of the Act. The addition made on this account deserves to be deleted. Vide the third ground of appeal, the appellant is agitating against the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in treating the cash found from the residence of the appellant to the extent of Rs. 5,29,320/- as unaccounted and added to the income of the appellant as deeded income u/s 69A. The brief facts of the case are that the cash amounting to Rs. 24,78,045/- was- foun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s including credit already allowed by the Ld. Assessing Officer is much more than cash found from the residence of the appellant. Thus, stands explained. Vide the last ground of appeal, the appellant is agitating against the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in not allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80C at Rs. 1,00,000/- and u/s 80TTA at Rs. 2,462/-. While computing income by the Ld. Assessing Officer, it appears that the figure of gross taxable income has been taken into consideration as against net taxable income after allowance of deduction under Chapter VIA. It is further submitted that as per the query letter dated 26.06.2015 (copy of which is enclosed), the appellant was asked to provide necessary evidence with respect to claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act. The appellant had duty replied and submitted evidence vide letter dated 18.09.2015, copy of which is enclosed along with necessary evidence. Regarding deduction u/s 80TTA, the same is on account interest from saving account, which was declared by the appellant in his return of income. The deduction may kindly be ordered to be allowed in view of the above facts. Keeping in view the submissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intly in the name of four persons) and that it was duly explained that the assessee alongwith his family members was having gold bond under the Gold Bond Scheme 1998, SBI Gold Bond Scheme and the remaining gold / Jewellery was duly declared in the Wealth Tax Returns. It was submitted that the A.O. had not accepted the version of the assessee for the reason that the Wealth Tax Returns were filed after the date of search and that the serial numbers as per the maturity certificate of Gold Bond Scheme were not matching with the actual gold bars found during the course of search. It was explained that the assessee had duly stated during his statement recorded at the time of operating the Locker that they were in the process of filing the Wealth Tax Returns, a reference was made to page no. 2 of the assessment order. As regards to the mismatch of the serial numbers of gold bars, it was stated that the investments in gold bond/scheme were also made by the brother and father of the assessee, so at the time of maturity the gold bars must have been exchanged. 13.1 It was submitted that the assessee in his reply to the A.O. explained the Jewellery as per following details: SI. Name o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alth Tax Assessment Orders of the appellant for A/Y 2009-10 to 2011-12 Pg-24-29 of PB Copy of Wealth Tax Return of the appellant for A/Y2015-16 along with copy of computation of wealth Pg-30-33 of PB 4. Mohit Bansal Gold Trf from Mother and Father and duly disclosed inWealth Tax Returns(Reference Pg-98) 1418 Pg 97-102 of PB 13.2 It was further submitted that the A.O. out of the total gold / Jewellery found weighing 4019.45 gms, accepted 900 gms gold in the hands of Shri Rakesh Bansal HUF and 1200 gms gold in the hands of Shri Kavita Bansal and the remaining gold / Jewellery to the tune of 1919.45 gms had not been accepted for the reason that the wealth tax returns had been filed late and secondly the serial number of gold bars did not match with the gold bonds, but nowhere it was stated that the gold available as per the Gold Bonds was not genuine. It was contended that all the relevant documents in the form of Gold Bonds and the documents pertaining to the maturity of Gold Bonds were duly filed with the Department and even otherwise the fact remained that the quantity as found during the course of search was less than the quant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITA No. 2810/Del/2016 order dated 09.07.2018 (Del Bench) e. ITAT, Mumbai Bench decision in the case of DCIT vs. HaroonMohd. Unni in ITA No. 463/Mum/2012 dated 31.1.2014 f. Naveen Bansal (HUF) vs ITO 146 TTJ 207 (Del) g. Dr.Sushil Rastogi vs Director of Investigation 128 Taxman 217 (All) 14. In his rival submissions the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the submissions made in their respective orders. 15. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that during the course of search, Jewellery weighing 669.650 gms was found from the residential premises of the assessee and Jewellery weighing 3349.80 gms was found from the locker belonging to the assessee, thus the total Jewellery found was 4019.45 gms, while the A.O. had given benefit of 2100 gms out of the aforesaid Jewellery. The benefit given was for 900 gms shown by the HUF of the assessee in the Wealth Tax Returns and 1200 gms belonging to Smt Kavita Bansal wife of the assessee on account of Jewellery purchased in past from savings and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account of alleged unaccounted cash under section 69A of the Act. 17. Facts related to this issue in brief are that during the course of search and seizure operation on 07/11/2013 cash to the tune of Rs. 24,78,045/- was found, out of which cash of Rs. 24,00,000/- was seized. The Assessee in his statement during the course of search stated that the cash found at his business premises belonged to M/s City Filling Station, M/s Barnala Filing Station, M/s Dhiyati Filling Station and M/s Sarvesh Spinners Pvt. Ltd. The A.O. observed that the assessee could produce trial balance upto 30/09/2013 of M/s Barnala Filling Station only and no documentary evidence with regard to the cash belonging to other persons was furnished therefore the cash amounting to Rs. 24,00,000/- was seized. 17.1 The A.O. asked the assessee to reconcile the cash found with its books of account. In response the assessee submitted as under: "Regarding your Honour's query relating to the source of cash found at Rs. 24,78,045/- at the time of search on the residential premises of the assessee, it is submitted that the assessee has prepared month wise cash balances considering cash collection out of sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....excess cash found in its residential premises. As such the difference of Rs. 5,29,320/- is found to be unexplained and treated as its deemed income u/s 69A of the IT. Act, 1961. 18. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who sustained the addition by observing as under: " I have gone through the submissions of the appellant and assessment order. The total cash found during search at appellant's premises was Rs. 24,78,045/-, out of this the Assessing officer has taken Rs. 19,48,725/- as explained and given credit for. The balance of Rs. 5,29,320/- was not accepted to be out of the cash books of M/s City Filing Station or Sarvesh Spinners Pvt. Ltd. and remained unexplained by the appellant. Since appellant was neither an employee nor was drawing any remuneration from City Filing Station or Sarvesh Spinners pvt. Ltd., the explanation of the appellant that it was cast from the business, cannot be accepted. The conclusions of the Assessing Officer are therefore on firm grounds and as per the facts. In the light of the above, I am of the opinion that the addition of Rs. 5,29,320/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash....