Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Mahabir Singh Mittal , Delhi vs Dit, Central Circle-20 on 29 September, 2023
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'H', NEW DELHI
Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member
Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member
ITA No. 983/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19
Sh. Ashutosh Mittal, Vs DCIT/ACIT,
H. No. 71, Vaishali Enclave, Central Circle-20,
Pitampura, Maurya Enclave, North New Delhi
West Delhi, Delhi-110034
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAFPM6538A
ITA No. 1335/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19
DCIT, Vs Sh. Ashutosh Mittal,
Central Circle-20, A-23/1, Lawrence Road, Indl.
New Delhi Area, New Delhi-110035
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAFPM6538A
ITA No. 984/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19
Sh. Mahabir Singh Mittal, Vs DCIT/ACIT,
A-23/1, Lawrence Road, Indl. Area, Central Circle-20,
Keshav Puram, New Delhi-110035 New Delhi
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAHPM8185F
ITA No. 1334/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19
DCIT, Vs Sh. Mahabir Singh Mittal,
Central Circle-20, A-23/1, Lawrence Road, Indl.
New Delhi Area, Keshav Puram,
New Delhi-110035
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAHPM8185F
ITA No. 985/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19
Sh. Surender Kumar Mittal, Vs DCIT/ACIT,
A-23/1, Lawrence Road, Indl. Area, Central Circle-20,
Keshav Puram, New Delhi-110035 New Delhi
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAHPM8184E
2 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022
Ashutosh Mittal & Others
Assessee by : Sh. Amol Sinha, Adv.
Revenue by : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Date of Hearing: 13.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 29.09.2023
ORDER
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi dated 14.03.2022.
2. In ITA No. 983 /Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
"1. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law and in fa cts of the case and the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of cash found during the course of searc h action despite the fact that the said cash pertained to group entity in which the appellant was director .
2. That the Ld . AO grossly erred in law and in facts of the case and the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 3 1,49,751/- made on the presump tion that the silver and diamond jewellery found during the co urse of search action was unexplained."
3. In ITA No. 1335/Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the Revenue:
"1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in restricting the addition of Rs. 10,90,710/- to Rs.10,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash u/s 69A of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee had not submitted any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim that part of the cash seized from the residential premise of the assessee belongs to the family members of the assessee.3 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022
Ashutosh Mittal & Others
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in restricting the addition of Rs.1,53,79 ,122/- to Rs.31,49,751/- made on account of unexplained jewellery u/s 69A of the Act without co nsidering the fact that the seized jewellery is different fro m the jewellery declared by the assesse e in VDI S Scheme- 1997/wealth tax return.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law w hile giving benefit o f 1450 gms of jewellery relying upon CBDT instruction No .1916 ignori ng the fact that the assessee was assessed to we alth tax and had declared unaccounted jewellery under VDIS, 1997, as well as from inheritance.
4. (a) The Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts."
4. In ITA No. 984 /Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
"1. That the ld . AO grossly erred in law and in fa cts of the case in making additions and the ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.3 ,91,825/- made on the presumption that the silver jewellery found during the course of search action was unexplained."
5. In ITA No. 1334/Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the Revenue:
"1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.69,05,000/- made on account of unex plained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act without co nsidering the fact that the sour ce of it remains unexplained on the part o f the assessee.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in restricting the addition of Rs.74 ,16,397/ - to Rs.3 ,91,825/- made on account of unexpla ined jewellery u/s 69A of the Act without co nsidering the fact that the seized jewellery is different fro m the jewellery declared by the assesse e in VDI S Scheme- 1997/wealth tax returns.4 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022
Ashutosh Mittal & Others
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law w hile giving benefit o f 1800 gms of jewellery relying upon CBDT instruction No .1916 ignori ng the fact that the assessee was assessed to we alth tax and had declared unaccounted jewellery under VDIS, 1997, as well as from inheritance.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,20,000/- made on account of unexplained cash u/s 69A of the Act without considering the fact that the asse ssee had not submitted any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim that part of the cash seized from the residential premise of the assessee belongs to the family me mbers o f the assessee."
6. In ITA No. 985 /Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
"1. That the ld . AO grossly erred in law and in fa cts of the case and the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.4,5 0,000/- on account of cash found during the course of search action despite the fact that the said cash pertained to group entities controlled by him."
Mahabir Singh Mittal ITA No. 984/ Del/2022 : A.Y. 2018-19 (Assessee Appeal) Silver Jew ellery - Rs.3,91,825/-
ITA No. 1334/Del/2022 : A.Y. 2018-19 (Revenue App eal)Addition u/s 69C - Rs.69,05,000/-
Addition u/s 69A - Rs.70,24,5 70/-
Addition u/s 69A - Rs.2,20,00 0/-
7. The issue involved in the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are interlinked.
5 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022Ashutosh Mittal & Others
8. A se arch and se izure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on the residential pre mises of the assessee on 19.12.2017 and the assessme nt u/ s 1 53A has been completed on 26 .12.2019.
9. After considering the entire submissions, the Assessing Officer made addition on the basis of cash account of Rs.69,05,000/- u/s 69C, Rs.74,16,397/- on account of unexplained money found in the form of jewellery u/s 69A, Rs.2 ,20,000/- on account of cash found at the premises during the course of search.
10. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.3,91,825/- on account of silver jewellery and deleted the remaining additio ns made by the Assessing Officer . H ence, the se appeals from both the s ides.
Addition u/s 69A - Rs.2,20,00 0/-:
11. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained that out of the cash found of Rs.2 ,20,000 /- an amount of Rs.85,500/- pertain to Smt. Kailash Mittal, wife of the assessee and Rs.70,200/- pertain to Smt. Anshika Mittal, daughter-in-law and Rs.64,300/- belongs to the other daughter-in- law Smt. Preeti Mittal w ho were staying with them at the time of search. It was submitte d that the assessee has been married for 41 years and the daughter-in-laws are regular tax payers and there have been sufficient cash withdrawals to prove the amount and the cash found be treated as the petty cash availab le with the ladies of the house. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that these amounts can be reasonably held to be available in the hands o f each married woman. Having 6 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022 Ashutosh Mittal & Others gone through the quantum of the cash available with each individual, we hold that the decision of the ld. CIT(A) is logical and hence we decline to interfe re with the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue.
Addition u/s 69C - Rs.69,05,000/-:
12. The AO made addition of Rs.69,05,000/- based on the material found and seized during the search operation. The descrip tion of the document is as under:
CASH PATE Exp e nses Received Payment 31/03/2016 Sunlit Mittal cash Receipt cas h 25,000 H.U .F 08/04/2015 Smt. Aanshika cash Payment 384020 35,00,000 Mittal 16/07/2015 Smt. Aanshika cash Payment 384028 750,000.00 Mittal 14/12/2015 Smt. Aanshika cash Payment 384036 45,000.00 Mittal 09/04/2015 Smt. Kailash cash Payment 464528 30,000.00 Mittal 09/04/2015 Smt. Kam lesh cash Payment 632621 40,000.00 Mittal 15/12/2015 Smt. Kam lesh cash Payment 632629 40,000.00 Mittal 04/03/2016 Smt. Kam lesh cash Payment 632633 100,000.00 Mittal 23/04/2015 Smt. Neha cash Payment 909542 35,000.00 Mittal 15/12/2015 Smt. Neha cash Payment 847141 40,000.00 Mittal 09/04/2015 Smt. Preeti cash Payment 521950 40,000.00 Mittal 15/12/2015 Smt. Preeti cash Payment 521964 40,000.00 Mittal 09/04/2015 Smt. S aro j cash Payment 383980 35,000.00 Mittal 14/12/2015 Smt. S aro j cash Payment 383993 45,000.00 Mittal 04/03/2016 Smt. Sonika Cash Payment 384000 200,000.00 Mittal 09/04/2015 Smt. So nika Cash Payment 955518 40,000.00 Mittal 14/12/2015 Smt. Shika Mittal cash Payment 632575 45,000.00 09/04/2015 Smt. Shika Mittal cash Payment 004880 35,000,00 15/12/2015 Smt. Shashi Mittal cash Payment 004900 40,000.00 15/04/2015 Smt. Shashi Mittal cash Payment 1479262 700,000.00 7 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022 Ashutosh Mittal & Others 14/07/2015 Smt. Shashi Mittal cash Payment 479273 1,000,000.00 06/08/2015 Smt. Shashi Mittal cash Payment 479275 400,000.00 10/12/2015 Smt. Shashi Mittal cash Payment 479285 35,000.00 04/03/2016 Smt. Shashi Mittalcash Payment 251345 300,000.00 23/04/2015 Sh. Krishan Kumar cash Payment 004840 35,000.00 Mittal 14/12/2015 Sh. Krishan Kumar Sash Payment 992526 45,000.00 Mittal 04/03/Z016 Sh. Krishan Kumar cash Payment 992535 400,000.00 Mittal 14/05/2015 Sh. Mahabir Singh cash Payment 901609 30,000.00 Mittal 11/12/2015 Sh. Mahabir Singh cash Payment 635959 40,000.00 Mittal 04/03/2016 Sh. Mahabir Singh cash Payment 315131 300,000.00 Mittal 16/04/2015 Sh. Surender cask Payment 327678 40,000.00 Kumar Mittal 15/12/2015 Sh. Surender cask Payment 536010 50,000.00 Kumar Mittal 04/03/2016 Sh. Surender cash Payment 636021 300,000.00 Kumar Mittal 08/04/2015 Sh. Ashutosh cash Payment 474445> 35,000,00 Mittal 11/12/2015 Sh. Ashutosh cash Payment 0f9596 40,000.00 Mittal 25/04/20IS Sh. Ritesh Mittal cash Payment 635113 35,000.00 11/12/2015 Sh. Ritesh Mittal cash Payment 635148 45,000.00 25/04/2015 Sh. Puneet Mittal cash Payment 184320 30,000.00 10/12/2015 Sh. Puneet Mittal cash Payment 874124 45,000.00 08/04/2015 Sh. Devesh Mittal cash Payment 464492 40,000.00 14/12/2015 Sh. Devesh Mittal cash Payment 479214 45,000.00 13/04/2015 Sh. Sumit Mittal cash Payment 479151 30,000.00 10/12/2015 Sh. Sumit Mittal cash Payment 479168 40,000.00 23/04/2015 Sh. Yashu Mittal cash Payment 631272 40,000.00 10/12/2015 Sh. Yashu Mittal cash Payment 150412 40,000.00 24/06/2015 Kwaiity Tech- cash Contra 1 500,000.00 Mech (p) ltd.
08/07/2015 Parmanand cash Contra Cash 40,000,00 Overseas limited 23/09/2015 Parmanand Cash Contra Cash 150,000.00 Overseas Limited 06/04/2015 Icon Realty Private cash Receipt Cash 15000.00 Limited 29/04/2015 Icon Realty Private cash Payment 175815 400,000.00 Limited 230,000.00 6,675,000.00
13. The ld . CIT(A) has diligently examined the sourc es of the cas h and found that the amo unts reflec ted in the seized docume nt were infact withdrawn from the d isclo sed bank accounts on various dates. The ld. CIT(A) held tha t all these 8 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022 Ashutosh Mittal & Others transactions have been made thorugh banking c ha nne l, there were no cash deposits in the bank statements and also the AO has wrongly arrived at the figure of Rs.69 ,05 ,000/- by taking the a mounts of deposits as well as withdrawals. For the sake brevity, the said details of the withdraw als juxtaposing the details of cash expenses found on the seized material are mentioned below :
CASH Remarks
PATE Expens Rece ived Payme nt
es
31/03/2016 Sunlit Mittal cash Receipt cas h 25,000 Depos ited in the
H.U .F a/c N umb er
61027201250
maintained with
State Bank of
B ik a n e r & Jaipur
(SBBJ] at Lawrenc e
Road, Delhi
Branc h.
08/04/2015 Smt. Aansh ika cash Payment 384020 35,00,000 Withdrawal fr om
Mittal a/c N umb er
61005003467
16/07/2015 Smt. Aansh ika cash Payment 384028 750,000.0
maintained with
Mittal 0
SBB] at Lawrenc e
14/12/2015 Smt. Aansh ika cash Payment 384036 45,000 .00 Road, Delhi
Mittal Branc h.
09/04/2015 Smt. Kailash cash Payment 464528 30,000 .00 Withdrawal fr om
Mittal a/c N umb er
51025618088
maintained with
SBB] at Lawrenc e
Road, Delhi
Branc h.
09/04/2015 Smt. Kamles h cash Payment 632621 40,000 .00 Withdrawal fr om
Mittal a/c N umb er
51025615677
15/12/2015 Smt. Kamles h cash Payment 632629 40,000 .00
maintained with
Mittal
SBBJ at Lawrenc e
04/03/2016 Smt. Kamles h cash Payment 632633 100,00 0 .0 Road, Delhi
Mittal 0 Branc h.
23/04/2015 Smt. Neha cash Payment 909542 35,000 .00 Withdrawal fr om
Mittal a/c N umber;
51025656432
15/12/2015 Smt. Neha cash Payment 847141 40,000 .00
maintained with
Mittal
SBBJ at La wrenc e
Road, Delhi
Branc h.
09/04/2015 Smt. P reeti cash Payment 521950 40,000 .00 Withdrawal fr om
Mittal a/c N umb er
51025665866
15/12/2015 Smt. P reeti cash Payment 521964 40,000 .00
maintained with
Mittal
SBB] at Lawrenc e
Road, Delhi
Branc h.
09/04/2015 Smt. S aro j cash Payment 383980 35,000 .00 Withdrawal from,
Mittal a/c N umb er
51025626190
14/12/2015 Smt. S aro j cash Payment 383993 45,000 .00
maintained with
Mittal
SBB] at Lawrenc e
Road, Delhi
Branc h.
9 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022
Ashutosh Mittal & Others
04/03/2016 Smt. Son ik a Cas h Payment 384000 200,000.0 Withdrawal fr om
Mittal 0 a/c N umb er
51025661736
09/04/2015 Smt. S o n ik a C a s h Payment 955518 40,000 .00 maintained with
Mittal SBBJ at Lawrenc e
Road, Delhi
Branc h.
14/12/2015 Smt. Shika Mittal cash Payment 632575 45,000.00 Withdrawal fr om
a/c N umb er
51025658134
maintained with
SBBJ at Lawrenc e
Road, Delhi
Branc h.
09/04/2015 Smt. Shika Mittal cash Payment 004880 35,000,00
15/12/2015 Smt. Shashi Mittal cash Payment 004900 40,000.00 Withdr awal from
a/c Num ber
51025617889
15/04/2015 Smt. Shashi Mittal cash Payment 1479262 700,000.00
maintained with
SBB] at Lawr ence
14/07/2015 Smt. Shashi Mittal cash Payment 479273 1,000,000.00 R o a d , Delh i
Branch.
06/08/2015 Smt. Shashi Mittal cash Payment 479275 400,000.00
10/12/2015 Smt. Shashi Mittal cash Payment 479285 35,000.00
04/03/2016 Smt. Shashi Mittal cash Payment 251345 300,000.00
23/04/2015 Sh. Krishan cash Payment 004840 35,000.00 Withdr awal from
Kumar Mittal a/c Number
51025608477
14/12/2015 Sh. Krishan Sash Payment 992526 45,000.00
maintained with
Kumar Mittal SBBJ at L awr ence
04/03/Z016 Sh. Krishan cash Payment 992535 400,000.00 Road, Delh i
Kumar Mittal Branch.
14/05/2015 Sh. Mahabir Singh cash Payment 901609 30,000.00 Withdr awal from
Mittal a/c Number
51025608466
11/12/2015 Sh. Mahabir Singh cash Payment 635959 40,000.00
maintained with
Mittal SBB] at Lawr ence
04/03/2016 Sh. Mahabir Singh cash Payment 315131 300,000.00 Road, Delhi Br anch
Mittal
16/04/2015 Sh. Surender cask Payment 327678 40,000.00 Withdr awal from
Kumar Mittal a/c Number
51025616921
15/12/2015 Sh. Surender cask Payment 536010 50,000.00
maintained with
Kumar Mittal SBBJ at Lawr ence
04/03/2016 Sh. Surender cash Payment 636021 300,000.00 Road, Delh i
Kumar Mittal Branch.
08/04/2015 Sh. Ashutosh cash Payment 474445> 35,000,00 Withdrawal fr om
a/c Numb er
Mittal
51025645090
11/12/2015 Sh. Ashutosh cash Payment 0f9596 40,000.00
maintained with
Mittal
SBBJ at Lawrenc e
Road, Delhi
Branc h.
25/04/20IS Sh. Ritesh Mittal cash Payment 635113 35,000.00 Withdrawal fr om
11/12/2015 Sh. Ritesh Mittal cash Payment 635148 45,000.00 a/c Numb er
51025619354
maintained with
SBBJ at Lawrenc e
Road, Delhi
Branc h.
25/04/2015 Sh. Puneet Mittal cash Payment 184320 30,000.00 Withdrawal fr om
a/c Numb er
10 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022
Ashutosh Mittal & Others
10/12/2015 Sh. Puneet Mittal cash Payment 874124 45,000.00 51025619376
maintained with
SBBJ at Lawrenc e
Road, Delhi
Branc h.
08/04/2015 Sh. Devesh Mittal cash Payment 464492 40,000.00 Withdrawal fr om
14/12/2015 Sh. Devesh Mittal cash Payment 479214 45,000.00 a/c Numb er
51025619423
maintained with
SBBJ at Lawrenc e
Road; Delhi
Branc h.
13/04/2015 Sh. Sumit Mittal cash Payment 479151 30,000.00 Withdrawal from a/c
Number 51025619434
10/12/2015 Sh. Sumit Mittal cash Payment 479168 40,000.00
maintained with SBBJ at
Lawrence Road, Delhi
Branch.
23/04/2015 Sh. Yashu Mittal cash Payment 631272 40,000.00 Withdrawal from a/c
10/12/2015 Sh. Yashu Mittal cash Payment 150412 40,000.00 Number 61122106288
maintained with SBBJ
at Lawrence Road,
Delhi Branch.
24/06/2015 Kwaiity Tech- cash Contra 1 500,000.00 Withdrawal from a/c
Mech (p) ltd. Number 4711352526
maintained with Kotak
Mahindra Bank , Model
Town, Delhi
08/07/2015 Parmanand cash Contra Cash 40,000,00 Deposited in a/c
Overseas limited Number 61154082676
23/09/2015 Parmanand Cash Contra Cash 150,000.00 maintained with SBI at
Overseas Limited Lawrence Road, Delhi
Branch.
06/04/2015 Icon Realty cash Receipt Cash 15000.00 Deposited in a/c
Private Limited Number
909020033366355
maintained with Axis
Bank
29/04/2015 Icon Realty cash Payment 175815 400,000.00 Withdrawal from a/c
Private Limited Number
909020033366355
maintained with Axis
Bank
230,000.00 6,675,000.00
14. Since, the cash amounts mentio ned in the seized material have been proved to be fro m the withdrawals from the bank account a nd the amounts have been duly reflected in the regular disclosed accounts, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) o n this issue.
11 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022Ashutosh Mittal & Others Addition u/s 69A - Rs.74,16,397/- (Rs.70 ,24,570 + Rs. Rs.3,91,825):
15. The iss ue o f jewellery found and seized and the additio ns made in the various family members ha s to be examined comprehensively to arrive at a correct decision.
Late Sh. Late Smt.
Parmanand Mittal Bhagwan Devi
Late Sh. Nawal Late Sh. Late Sh. Late Sh.
Kishore Mittal & Mahabir Singh Krishan Kumar Surender Kumar
Smt. Shashi Mittal & Smt. Mittal & Smt. Mittal & Smt.
Mittal Kailash Mittal Kamlesh Mittal Saroj Mittal
Late Sh. Late Sh. Late Sh. Late Sh. Late Sh. Late Sh.
Ashutosh Puneet Sumit Mittal Ritesh Devesh Yashu Mittal
Mittal & Mittal & & Smt. Mittal & Mittal & & Smt.
Smt. Neha Smt. Preeti Aanshika Smt. Shikha Smt. Sonika Komal Mittal
Mittal Mittal Mittal Mittal Mittal
16. The pertinent facts are as under:
The total jewellery found at the premises of the assessee, family members and lockers was of Rs.5 ,53,12,06 2/- The total jewellery declared in the Wealth Tax Re turn was 2316 gms of 22 kts. gold.
The jewellery declared as per the VDIS was 1771 gms of 18 kts. gold, 4105 gms of 22 kts. gold, 1484 g ms of 23 kts. go ld, 1124 gms of 24 kts. gold and diamonds of 454 kts.
The assessee has also fur nished copies of the invoices for purchase of jewe llery post VDIS declaration which consists of 4222 gms of 14 kts. gold , 1977 gms of 18 kts. gold, 12 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022 Ashutosh Mittal & Others 3159 gms of 2 2 kts. gold, 10 0 gms of 24 kts. gold, diamo nds of 1388 kts. and silver jewellery of 65 kg. The aggregate jewellery available with the family is as under:
S. Source Gold in K arat Diamon d Sil ver No 14 18 22 23 24 in Karat in KG 1 Wealth Tax 2,316.010 returns 2 VD1S 1997 1,771.820 4,105.950 1,484.70o 1,124.230 454.820 Declarations 3 Purchases 4,222.629 1,977.307 3,151.230 100.000 1,388.740 65.773 Total 4,222.629 3,749.127 9,573.190 1,484.700 1,224.230 1,843.560 65.773 The details of the jewe llery available with the fa mily after converted into linear 22 kts. gold is as under:
Particulars Gold in Karat Diamon d Sil ver 14 18 22 23 24 in Karat in KG Total ite ms 4,222.63 3,749.13 9,573.19 1,484.70 1,224.23 1,843.56 65.77 available Equiv alent 2,687.13 3,067.47 9,573.19 1,552.19 1,335.52 NA NA weight in 22 Kts.
Total 18,215.495 1,843.56 65.77
The details of the jewellery found dur ing the c ourse o f
searc h is as under:
Source Gold in Karat Diamon d Sil ver
14 18 22 24 in Karat in KG
Total I tems 441.056 5,903.706 4,589.85 175.00 1,119.80 103.713
Equivalent weigh t in 2 2 280.67 4,830.31 4,589.85 190.91 NA NA
Kts.
Total 9,891.739 1,119.80 103,713
17. The ld. C IT(A) after going through the entire de tails and taking into consideration, the total jewellery as per VDIS, as inherited, as purchased, as p er Wealth Tax came to a conclusion that the jewellery found at the premises is less than the jewellery disclosed by the assessee and he nce held that no additio n is called for. On going through the undisputed facts on 13 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022 Ashutosh Mittal & Others record of availability of the jewellery with the assessee , we concur with the decisio n of the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld.
CIT(A) has confirmed addition of Rs.3,91 ,825/- on account of silvery jewellery. The assessee has sub mitted the details of purchase of s ilve r which has been a part of the documents filed before the ld. CIT(A) while proving the purchase of gold ornaments subsequent to the declaration under VDIS. The ld. CIT(A) had examined the purchase of silver and came to a logical conclusio n that the silver of Rs.3,91,825/- could not be reconciled. In the absence of any contrary evidences submitted before us to reconcile the silver articles, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT( A).
18. In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed .
Surender Singh Mitta l ITA No. 985/ Del/2022 : A.Y. 2018-19 Cash - Rs.4,50,000/-:
19. During the course of search and seizure operation an amount of Rs.8,85,000/- were found out of which Rs.4,50,000/- was seized. The assessee was asked to explain the source of such cash. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee ha s no t furnished any s atisfactory explanation explaining the source of the cash, hence the entire amount of Rs.8 ,85,000/- found was added to the to tal income of the assessee as per provisions of Section 69A r.w.s. 115 BBE o f the Income Tax Act, 1961 being unexplained money.
20. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained that out of the cash found , Rs. 3,03,932/- pertained to M/s Kwality Techmec h Private Limited, Rs. 1,08,512/- perta ined to M/s 14 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022 Ashutosh Mittal & Others Parmanand Overseas Limited and balance Rs . 4,95,500/- pertained to family members o f the appellant. It was also explained that the said cash had accumulated with them over a period of time and the source of said cash was withdrawals from bank accounts and petty sav ings.
21. The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee co uld not explain the source of cash amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- during his statement recorded in the search and seizure operation. It was held that the cash was seized by the Department in the absence o f any source explained by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) he ld that the claim of the asse ssee that part cash belongs to M/s Kwality Te chmech Private Limited and to M/s Parmanand Overseas Limited cannot be accepted as at the time of search, the assessee could not complete the cash book of the se two companies up to the date of search and the explanation of the assessee was no t even substantiated properly during the assessment proceedings . Further, it is a lso not establis hed that the cash found and seized during the search from the residence of the assessee was the same ca sh as belonging to M/s KwalityTechme ch Private Limited and to M/s Parmanand Overseas Limited. In vie w of these facts, it cannot be said with certainty that this cash seized is same ca sh as represe nted by cash in hand of M/s Kwality Techme ch Private Limited and to M/s Par manand Overseas Limited, if any, on the date of search. However, considering the status of the family, it also cannot be said that to tal cash found is unexplained. Therefore, addition made by the AO of Rs.8 ,85,800/- is hereby restricted to Rs.4,50,000 (amount seized during search operatio n) by the ld. CIT(A).
15 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022Ashutosh Mittal & Others
22. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had no qualms while accepting the fact that the family could hav e a cash o f Rs.4 ,35,000/-. The ld. C IT(A) disputed that the amount of Rs. 3,03,932/- pertain to M/ s Kw ality Techmech Private Limited, Rs. 1,08,512/- pertain to M/s Parmanand Overseas Limited. T he s ole reason of confirming the addition by the ld. CIT(A) was tha t the assessee could not explain the sources at the time of search and the same has been seized. We find that the cash book of M/s Kwality Techmech Private Limited and M/s Parmanand Overseas Limited and the acco unts of these concerns have been accepted during the assessment u/s 153A of the se concerns and hence, we hold that no additio n can be called for as the c ash has been duly reflected in these two concerns.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Ashutosh Mittal ITA No. 983/ Del/2022 : A.Y. 2018-19 (Assessee Appeal) Cash - Rs.10,00,000/-
Jewellery - Rs.31,49,751/- (Interlinked wit h the gro und no. 2 of the revenue app eal)
23. During the course of search and seizure operation an amount of Rs .10,91,710/- has been found and the same has been brought to tax by the Assessing Officer.
24. During the course of hearing before the ld. CIT(A), an amount of Rs.91,710/- found to be acceptable as belonging to mother and wife of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the remaining amo unt Rs.10,00,000/- found at the time of search.
16 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022Ashutosh Mittal & Others
25. Before us, the asse ssee sub mitted that in respect of balance of Rs .10,00,000/-, it was explained that the sa id cash pertained to M/s Paramanand and Sons Food Products Pvt. Ltd. in which the assessee is a Dire ctor and the said cash was kept with him for safe custody but the AO didn't adjudicate the submissions of the asse ssee and held the same as unexpla ined money and assessed the same as his inco me u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The ld. DR submitted that it canno t be accepted that the cash pertaining to the company was kept at the residence of the asse ssee and there was no evidence to adduce the same.
26. We find that the ld. CIT(A) disputed that the amount of Rs. 10,00 ,000/- pertain to M/s Parmanand and Sons Food Products Pvt. Ltd . The sole reason of confir ming the addition by the ld. CIT(A) was that the assessee could no t expla in the sour ces at the time of search and the same has been seized. We find that the cash book of M/s Parmanand and Sons Food Products Pvt. Ltd. and the acco unts of this concern has been accepted during the assessment u/s 153A. We have gone thro ugh the cash book at page no. 401 to 413 of the paper book the results of which have been accepted by the revenue. Hence, we hold that no addition can be called for as the cash has been duly refle cted in the books of M/s Parmanand and Sons Food Products Pvt. Ltd.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
17 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022Ashutosh Mittal & Others Ashutosh Mittal ITA No. 1335/Del/2022 : A.Y. 2018-19 (Revenue App eal) Addition u/s 69A - Rs.90,710 -
Addition u/s 69A - Rs. 1,22,29,370/-
Addition u/s 69A - Rs.90,710/ -:
27. Adjudicated in ITA No. 983/Del/ 2022. The decision of the ld. C IT(A) in dele ting the add ition is affirmed.
Addition u/s 69A - Rs.1,53 ,79,122/- (Rs. 1,22,29,370 + Rs.31,49,751):
28. With regard to the gold jewellery as taken up in ground no. 2 of the appeal of the revenue , the adjudicatio n in the case of Sh. Mahab ir Singh Mittal in ITA No. 1334/Del/2022 applies mutatis mutandis. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
29. With regard to Rs.31,49,751/- confir med by the ld. C IT( A) out of the total jewellery fo und of Rs.1 ,53,79 ,122/- after according relie f of Rs.1 ,22,29,37 0/-, we find that the dispute pertains to the differe nce in the carrotage of diamonds. The total diamonds found during the search was 329 kts. and the total carro tage as per the VDIS, inher itance and Wealth Tax Retur n was Rs.219 kts. T he ld. CIT(A) determined excess of 108 carats and v alued Rs.25,239/- per carat.
30. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the gold jewellery declared was of 4589 gms. as against the je wellery found during the search of 3375 gms. The ld. AR submitted that the diamo nd of 108 kts. is embedded within the gold jewe llery and 18 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022 Ashutosh Mittal & Others hence the same shall make a part of the diamond jewellery found during the search of 328 kts. It was argued tha t the embedded diamonds in the jewellery has been ig nored by the revenue authorities while asse ssing the total diamonds in carre ts. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has been g iven all the availab le benefits as per the records and hence , no further benefit can be accorded.
31. We have gone through the facts of the case and the judgme nts of var ious Cour ts on this issue.
32. The asse ssee stated that the income for all the years had falle n into the highest tax bracket w hich shows that the assessee has been earning substantial Income clearly establishing the status. It has time and again been held that due credit of the same has to be allowed by the a ssessing officer looking and appreciating the status, customs, and trad itions relating to the family. Reliance is being placed upon following decisio ns:
Ashok Chaddha v s. ITO, 14 taxmann.co m 57 (Delhi) Vibhu Aggarw al vs. DCIT, 93 taxmann.com 275 (Delhi - Trib.) Tara Devi Goenk a v s. CIT 122 ITR 14 (Cal) Ms. Poo ja Shree Cho uksey Vs. ACIT in I TA No. 572/lnd/2018 CIT Vs. Kailash C hand Sharma 198 CTR 201 (Ra j) Suneela Soni Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 5259/DEL/2017 DCIT Vs. Shri Haroon Mohd . Unni in ITA No.463/M/ 2012 Susan Suresh Chandra Til wa Vs. DCIT in ITA No.270/RJT/2015 19 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022 Ashutosh Mittal & Others DCIT, CC-8(3), Mumbai Vs. Shri Manekchand Kothari ITA No. 194/Mum/2018
33. The Hon'ble De lhi High Co urt in the case of As hok Chaddha vs. Income-tax Officer 14 taxma nn.com 57 (Delhi) held that collecting jewe llery of 906.900 gms by a woman in a married life of 25 years in form of stree dhan or on other occasions is no t abnormal. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced below:
"3 . Learned Co unsel for t he respondent on the other ha nd relied upon the reas oni ng giv en by t he a uthorities bel ow. A ft er c ons ideri ng the afor esa id submissi ons we are of the view that addition made is to tally arbitrary and is not founde d on any coge nt basis or evidenc e. We hav e to kee p in mi nd t hat the as sessee was ma rried for more tha n 25-30 years. The j eweller y i n questi on is not very s ubs tantial. The lear ned c ounsel for the appel lant/ass ess ee i s corr ect i n her submissi on that it is a normal c ustom for woma n t o r eceive jewellery in t he fo rm of "s tree dhan" or on other occasi ons s uch as birth of a child etc. C ollec ting jewellery o f 9 06.900 grams by a woma n i n a mar ried life of 25-30 years is not abnor mal. Fur thermore, t here was no valid a nd/or pr oper ya rdstick adopted by the Assess ing Officer to tr eat only 400 grams a s "rea sona bl e allowanc e" and trea t the o ther as "unexplained". Matter woul d hav e been dif ferent if t he qua ntum and value of t he jewellery found wa s substa ntial.
4. We a re, therefore, of the opi nion tha t the fi ndi ngs of the Tribunal are totally perver se and far fro m the realities of life. In t he pec uliar facts of this cas e we ans wer t he questi on i n fa vour of t he ass ess ee and a gai nst the rev enue ther eby deleti ng t he afores aid additi on of Rs. 3 ,87,364. "20 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022
Ashutosh Mittal & Others
34. The Hon'ble Delhi High Cour t in the case of Suneela Soni Vs. DC IT in ITA No . 5259/DEL/2017 he ld as follow s:
"6 .1 After perus i ng the a fore said decision of the Hon'ble D el hi Hi gh Court, I am of the c onsidered vi ew tha t fac ts and circums tanc es of the pr es ent ca se are similar to the a foresai d dec ision of the Hon'bl e Del hi Hi gh Co urt a nd henc e, the issue i n dispute is squa rely cov er ed by the af ores aid decisio n.
6.2 Keepi ng i n view of t he a for esaid facts and circ ums ta nces of the case as well as the status of t he family and on the anvil of the judgement of t he High C ourt of Delhi i n the cas e of Ash ok C hadha vs. ITO repor ted in 14 ta xmann.c om 57 (Del hi.)/202 Taxma n 395, the explana tion giv en by t he as sessee's c ounsel is a ccept ed. Accordi ngly the orders of the authoriti es bel ow ar e c ancelled and additi on made b y t he AO a nd c onfirmed by the Ld. C IT(A) a mounti ng to Rs. 10,65,312/- on a cc ount of purport ed unexplai ned Jew ellery claimed by the assess ee i s del eted.
7. In the res ul t, A ssess ee's a ppeal is allowed."
35. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Vib hu Aggarwal vs. DCIT 93 tax mann.com 275 (Delhi - Trib.) held that w here Assessing Officer under section 69A made addition on acco unt of jewellery found in search of assessee, since assessee belonged to a wealthy family and jewellery was received on occasions from relatives, excess jewellery was very much reasonable and, thus, no addition under section 69A was called for. The operative part of the judgme nt is reproduced below:
"2 . The bri ef fac ts of the case are that a s ea rc h & s eizure operati on under s ecti on 132 of the IT Act was conduc ted a t the bus ines s premises of M/s Best Gro up and as well as i n the res idential premise of the Dire ct ors on 28.03.2011, in consequence to whi ch the cas e of 21 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022 Ashutosh Mittal & Others the ass es se e was ta ken up fo r sc ruti ny . The AO has c ompleted the assessment by making a n addition of 30,73,373 o n acc ount of unex plained inves tment in j ewelle ry a nd a ddition of Rs. 1.87,082/- on acc ount of unexplai ne d i nv estment in pr operty . The t otal jewellery found during the c ours e of sea rch was 2531.5 gms , out of whic h the AO has gi ven a ssesse e the benefit of 950 gms , as per the CBD T I nstruc tion No. 1916 dated 11.4.1994 o n acc ount of wife and t wo c hildren of the assessee. The L d. CIT (A) in appeal has further all owed the benefit of 600 gms. Of jew ellery on ac c ount of mot her and father of the assesse e, holdi ng tha t t he sa me was allowa ble to the as sess ee as per the CBDT Ins tructi on No. 1916, but howev er, s ustai ned t he bal ance a ddi tion ma de by the AO, vide order dat ed 22.12.2014 trea ti ng the bal ance jeweller y wei ghting 1050 gms of gold as unexplained.
6.3 Keepi ng i n view of t he a for esaid facts and circ ums ta nces of the case as well as the status of t he family and on the anvil of the judgement of the High Cour t of Del hi in the cas e of As hok C ha ddha (S upra) & of S us hi la Devi (s upra ) a nd the IT AT Delhi decis i on i n the case of Suneela Soni (s upra ), the expla nation giv en by the assessee's couns el is ac cepted. Accordi ngl y t he ord ers of the aut horities below are ca nc elled and addition made by the AO a nd partly co nfirmed by the Ld. CIT(A ) on account of bal anc e jewellery wei ghti ng 1050 gms o f gol d as une xplai ned is hereby deleted."
36. Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case and also the jewe llery found is more than the jewe llery declar ed, the proposition that the diamonds are stands embedded in the gold jewellery, the various judgments cited above, we direct that the addition made on this ac count may be deleted.
37. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allo wed and that o f the Revenue is dismissed.
22 ITA Nos. 983, 984, 985, 1334 & 1335/Del/2022Ashutosh Mittal & Others
38. In the result, The appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 983 & 985/Del/2022 ar e allowed.
The appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 984/Del/2022 is partly allowed.
The appeals of the Revenue in IT A No. 1334 & 1335/Del/2022 are dismissed.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court o n 29/09/2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
(C. M. Garg) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated: 29/09/2023
*Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR