ANIL KUMAR TALWAR MS SETH J N BANSI LAL THALWAR 8-9, AMRIT COLONY, HAIBOWAL KHURD LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

The Ld. AR advanced arguments and placed issue-wise chart on record. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the findings of lower authorities. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The assessee being resident individual is stated to be engaged in manufacturing of Hing. The impugned addition stems from search action conducted by Directorate of Enforcement at the residential premises of the assessee on 27-12- 2016 wherein cash and jewellery was seized. The investigation wing made requisition u/s 132A and notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 18-01-2019. In response, the assessee declared income of Rs.27.16 Lacs. Addition of unaccounted investment u/s 69A 3.1 From the bank locker maintained with State Bank of India, gold jewellery weighing 1957 grams and diamond jewellery weighing 198.57 grams was found and seized. The Ld. AO, partly accepting assessee’s submissions and explanations, made addition of Rs.30.99 Lacs u/s 69A. In the process, Ld. AO allowed benefit of 850 grams of jewellery for different family members of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed further benefit of 400 grams of jewellery which restricted the impugned addition to the extent of Rs.19.79 Lacs. In nutshell, the impugned addition as sustained by Ld. CIT(A) represents 707 grams of jewellery. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.2 The Ld. AR has stated that certain jewellery was purchased out of declaration made by the assessee under VDIS for Rs.5.17 Lacs, the benefit of which was not given by Ld. AO. The Ld. AR stated that this cash so claimed by the assessee was not utilized in the books of accounts nor deposited in the bank accounts. The Ld. AR has stated that out of this declaration, 366 grams of jewellery was purchased by the assessee for the marriage of her daughter. The Ld. AR also sought benefit of 600 grams of gold jewellery belonging to parents of the assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, stated that adequate benefit has already been granted by lower authorities. 3.3 We find that though the assessee has made aforesaid twin claims before lower authorities, however, it has failed to substantiate the claims with documentary evidences. At the same time, it could be seen that the assessee had made declaration under VDIS which was not utilized in the books nor deposited in bank accounts. The assessee claimed to have purchased 366 grams of jewellery for the purpose of marriage of her daughter, the possibility of which could not, altogether, be ruled out. It is another fact that the parents of the assessee were staying with him. The possibility that certain jewellery belonged to them could also not be ruled out. Considering the facts of the case, we grant further benefit of 400 grams of jewellery to the assessee. In other words, out of remaining addition of 707 grams of jewellery, the addition to the extent of 307 grams of jewellery stand confirmed. The provisions of Sec.115BBE would not apply since these provisions are applicable for transactions from 01-04-2017 onwards and not prior to the said cut- off date. The corresponding grounds stand partly allowed. Addition of unexplained expenditure 4.1 This addition was made for Rs.28.39 Lacs on the basis of one slip as seized by the Directorate of Enforcement during the course of search. The Ld. AO made addition on the basis of loose slip on the ground that few of the entries were accepted by the assessee. During first appeal, the assessee stated that these notings were mere estimate made by the assessee for the purpose of proposed marriage of his daughter since the same contained estimate for flower decoration, generator and electricity expenses, purchase of furniture and purchase of artificial jewellery. The assessee asserted that there was no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee had actually incurred such expenditure. However, Ld. CIT(A) rejected the submissions of the assessee and confirmed the addition against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4.2 The loose slip has been placed before us in the paper-book. Upon perusal of the same, it could be seen that these are bald notings on the basis of which no concrete conclusion of alleged payment could be made out against the assessee. These entries are not corroborated by any independent evidence on record. The true nature of the transactions could not be deciphered from these notings. This slip is more in the nature of dumb document which could not form sole basis of impugned addition in the hands of the assessee. This addition is more on mere presumptions and assumptions and hence, liable to be deleted in the absence of any corroborating evidence on record supporting these transactions. Therefore, this addition is not sustainable. We order so. The assessee succeeds in its corresponding grounds of appeal