Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Rameshchandra R. Patel on 12 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2005)94TTJ(AHD)361
ORDER
1. These two appeals came up for consideration before the Division Bench and there struck a difference of opinion between the two Members on the following two points:-
ITA No. 5228/Ahd/1995 - Asst. Year 1993-94"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Accountant Member is justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) allowing the short term capital loss of Rs. 3,48,300/- OR Judicial Member is justified in reversing the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue for the asst. year 1993-94?"ITA No. 4646/Ahd/1995 - Asst. Year 1993-94
"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Accountant Member is justified in reducing the addition of Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 12,500/- OR Judicial Member is justified in upholding the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of rs. 2,00,000/-?"
The President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred this case for my opinion on the aforesaid two differences as a Third Member.
2. The facts are that search and seizure action was taken in the case of the assessee on 16-2-1993 in the course of which certain cash, ornaments and share certificates aggregating to Rs. 10,63,487/- were seized. The assessee was found operating 10 bank accounts in different names of the family members. When apprised of the provisions of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee voluntarily declared unaccounted income of Rs. 25 lacs stated to have been earned from the business of sale and purchase of shares which was not shown in the current year's books and the details of the assets in which the said income was invested were given in answer to question No. 46 which reads as under:-
"Ans. 46 The undisclosed income of Rs. 25,00,000/- declared by me in Ans. 45 is invested in the following assets:-
Amount of loan shown in Ans. 4 11,97,000
Amount invested in House & Furniture 2,00,000
Cash found today 10,000
Unaccounted ornaments found today 53,500
Miscellaneous loans 39,500
Investment in shares 10,00,000
---------
Total 25,00,000
---------
There is investment in shares and accordingly disclose income and out of that shares some shares has been purchased from market directly and some shares allotted through application. I declare this amount subject to any difference in share valuation and if there is any change in share valuation, I give my consent thereto accordingly. I declare the above Rs. 25,00,000/- as undisclosed income in equal shares in the names of myself Rameshbhai Ramanlal Patel, my wife Naynaben Rameshbhai Patel, my father Ramanlal Revabhai Patel and my mother Rajiben Ramanlal Patel. I will accept the whole disclosure in my name and my wife's name if it is not agreed by them and I agree to pay tax thereon."
3. The assessee, however, filed a return of income declaring total loss of Rs. 1,06,510/- and on scrutiny of the aforesaid income, the Assessing Officer inter alia noticed that the assessee had claimed a loss on shares amounting to Rs. 3,48,300/- and held the same to be fictitious loss to siphon off the income declared as bogus transactions. He also noticed that a sum of Rs. 2 lacs which was stated to be the investment in house and furniture out of the undisclosed income of Rs. 25 lacs was not disclosed in the return of income even though the said income was agreed to have been declared pursuant to question Nos. 45 and 46 of the statement Under Section 132(4) of the Act.
4. As regards the loss in the share the AO noticed that the claim pertained to the sale of 1300 IPCL shares and 400 ICICI shares. The respective loss of Rs. 2,17,100 and Rs. 1,31,200/- aggregating to Rs. 3,48,300/- was claimed set off against the capital gains on the share transactions deposits in the bogus bank account of Rs. 1,37,286 as also against the income from other sources. The sequence of dealings in these two shares are tabulated by the AO on page 8 of his order as under:-
Purchase and sale of 1300 IPCL shares Purchase and sale of ICICI 400 through Adinath Investment, Prop. shares through Jagdish P. Patel Shri Bhagchand G. Jain
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Date of contract for 2-11-92 12-2-93 purchase
2. Date of delivery of shares 1-3-93 27-2-93
3. Date of payment 23-3-93/356200 10-3-93/2,00,000 /2,00,000 /1,55,200
-----------
5,55,200
4. Dt. of contract for sale 4-3-93 5-3-93
5. Dt. of delivery of sold shares 22-3-93 6-3-93
6. Dt. of receipt of payment 26-3-93/139100 17-3-93/1,24,000 (emcashed on 27.3.93) 22-3-93/3,00,000
---------
4,24,000
7. Short term loss claimed 2,17,000 1,31,2000 In order to verify the loss the AO issued summons to Adinath Investment and Shri Jagdish P Patel through whom the purchase and sale of shares were alleged to have been routed through. His Inspector reported that the concern Adinath Investment was not found available and on enquiry it was reported that the said party had closed the business and its whereabouts were not known. The AO, therefore, asked the assessee to produce the party for interrogation along with his books of account, bank accounts, contract form book, delivery note book, sale book relating to the sale of shares, etc. Though Shri Bhagchand Jain, the proprietor of Adinath Investment was produced and his statement was recorded but he did not produce any books of account or contract form book, delivery book, sale contracts form book and Sauda Vahi which were called for. The AO, therefore, observed that mere admission by the broker that he has purchased the shares and sold the shares on behalf of the assessee was meaningless. He further observed that Shri Bhagchand Jain could not tell from whom the shares were purchased on behalf of the assessee and to whom the shares were sold on his behalf. The distinctive numbers were also not available on the delivery form, a copy of which was furnished by the assessee; nor the broker could produce any evidence about the same. The brother had also admitted before the AO that he was not maintaining any books of account. The AO also observed that the delivery for the purchase of shares and delivery of the shares sold and the payments were made after the date of search though the contract had taken place on 2-11-1992. He further observed that the payment for the alleged purchase was stated to have been made on 23-3-1993 and the receipt of payment for the sale was on 26-3-1993 which was a strange affair within a gap of only 3 days. He, therefore, held the transaction to be a colourable device to siphon off the income declared by the assessee as bogus transactions.
5. With regard to the sale of shares of ICICI he noticed that he assessee has not furnished the copy of contract form, delivery memo and distinctive numbers of the shares purchased and sold, though a xerox copy of the purchase memo in respect of ICICI shares was filed. Summons were issued to Shri Jagdish Patel to attend the office with books of account, bank accounts, contract from Sauda Vahi, etc. but on the appointed day the broker did not turn up. The AO, therefore, informed the assessee to produce the said broker and present himself on a subsequent date but on that date also neither the broker was produced nor the assessee presented himself. However, the assessee filed a confirmatory letter from Shri Jagdish Patel dated 16-1-199 for the purchase, delivery, sale and receipt and payment of purchase and sale consideration. The AO in these circumstances, failed to understand that when the broker can confirm the transaction in writing to the assessee, why he could not remain present before him in spite or the summons issued and why the assessee could nor produce him either. He, therefore, formed a strong belief that the alleged transaction of ICICI shares was fishy and the loss claimed was a fictitious one to siphon off the income declared as bogus transaction. He, therefore, disallowed the entire claim of loss of Rs. 2,48,300/-.
6. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by observing that the transactions were incurred through the broker appointed by the Government of India; that both the brokers have confirmed the transactions and copy of transfer memo, payment, delivery, etc. have been filed; that the assessee had also filed a copy of the bank account to prove the payment for purchase of shares and the receipt in the bank account to prove the payment for purchase of shares and the receipt in the bank account; that the shares of both the companies were quoted in the stock exchange and the rate of transactions was verified from the quotation and that there was no evidence with the AO which was found in the search to show that these were not genuine transactions.
7. When the matter came up before the Tribunal there struck a difference of opinion between the two Members. The Accountant Member held that the loss incurred in these transactions was allowable and there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) by observing that the assessee was found to be carrying on several transactions in shares as per seized material found during the search - that one of which was treated to be the contract note for purchase of shares of IPCL; that from the details of the transactions it was seen that the assessee had entered into valid contract for purchase and sale of shares; that brokers have raised bills for the same; that the assessee had made payments in full for purchase of shares; and that the delivery was effected; that the transactions were at market price. He, therefore, held that in such a situation to hold that only because the payment was made even subsequent to the contract for sale, the transaction was colourable device would be purely on surmise and contrary to the facts. According to him, the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions. He also observed that the assessee cannot be said to be controlling the record of the broker and only because the broker could not produce certain material called by the AO or could not appear in person would not be a valid ground for holding the transaction as bogus or colourable device. According to him, the assessee had actually incurred the loss which was not a fictitious loss. Observing that the brokers have confirmed the transactions as per bills and contract notes raised by them, the transaction in sale and purchase of shares had taken place and the loss incurred on such transactions was, according to him, therefore, allowable. The Judicial Member, on the other hand, observed that the counsel of the assessee could not furnish the share certificate number, distinctive number; that in the delivery note dated 1-3-1993 the distinctive numbers and share certificate numbers have not been mentioned against the column of distinctive number and share certificate number and similarly in the correspondence with Jagdish P. Patel the assessee could not point out the distinctive number or share certificate number of ICICI shares delivered to the assessee. He also observed that the search was conducted on 16-2-1993 and there was no evidence regarding the purchase of shares of IPCL and ICICI found by eh search party through from the perusal of the statement recorded and seized material it could be seen that the search party seized loose papers which were contained in file Annexure A-9 which were confronted to the assessee during the course of search vide question No. 39. He also found it unbelievable that the assessee made purchases of shares on 21-1-1992 and 12-2-1993 but contract notes were not received till the date of search on 16-2-1993. He also found considerable force in the contention of the Departmental Representative that after selling the shares of both the companies the assessee could pay only the difference amount of the loss namely Rs. 2,17,000/- and Rs. 1,31,200/-. He further observed that the assessee had not provided the distinctive numbers/share certificate numbers of IPCL and ICICI alleged to be purchased and claimed to have delivered after the date of search. He, therefore, formed an opinion that the AO was fully justified in taking the view that the alleged loss in the purchase and sale of shares was a colourable device to siphon off the income declared by the assessee during the course of the search. He gave an additional finding also stating that the assessee has not produced evidence of deliver i.e. distinctive numbers and certificate numbers before the departmental authorities or even before the Tribunal and, therefore, it was a speculation loss not allowable to be set off against his income except against profits and gains if any of any other speculation business.
8. The arguments and submissions of the parties were heard and considered. The transactions of shares were through middlemen. They were not for spot delivery. Both the transactions of purchases were stated to be before the date of search on 16-2-1993, namely 1300 shares of IPCL by contract dated 2-11-1992 and 400 shares of ICICI by contract dated 12-2-1993. Neither of the contract note or document was found in the search proceedings. The assessee's explanation is that the contract note in the first case was part of Annexure A-10 (and not Annexure A-9 wherein it was held to be not there by the Judicial Member) and the bill of ICICI shares was issued on 16-2-1993, a date of the search. This bill incorporated that the contract for purchase was on 12-2-1993. No evidence, however, is brought on record as in whether the contract note for the first purchase formed part of Annexure A-10 which the assessee stated that he would produce but subsequently expressed his inability to produce as the contract note/document was not found traceable. In the case of second purchase the reliance is only on the bill dated 16-2-1993 mentioning about the date of contract as on 12-2-1993 which contract also is not brought on record.
9. Both the middlemen are not brokers of any stock exchange nor were they appointed by Government of India as stated (wrongly) by CIT(A). One of them is now said to be a sub-broker and the other is only a consultant. A person who is not a broker is normally not allowed to transact business of forward transaction by virtue of Section 13 of the Securities, Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956, the exception being for spot delivery transactions Under Section 18 of the said Act. The press note referred to by the learned counsel of the assessee regarding the working of brokers and sub-brokers does not through any light on this aspect.
10. The shares of IPCL are stated to be through Adinath Investments whose proprietor is stated to be Shri Bhagchand Jain and who is claimed to be broker originally. The party was not found available on enquiries made by the Inspector as they ahd closed their business and on being told, the assessee produced said Shri Bhagchand Jain who though acknowledged the transaction but affirmed for having not maintained any books of account. He could not file any details or as to form whom he had purchased the shares and to whom they were sold. He was not having any contract book nor any delivery book nor the sale book or Sauda Vahi book. Another middleman Shri Jagdish Patel did not respond to the summons. He was also not produced by the assessee. A confirmatory letter dated 16-1-1999 was, however, filed from him for purchase, sale, receipt and payment of purchase and sale consideration. Only a bill dated 16-2-1993 is filed which gives an impression of a contract having been entered into on 12-2-1993. No copy of the said contract is filed. The identity of this person thus cannot be said to have been proved on account of his absence to appear. Documents submitted are not sufficient to prove the transaction.
11. The delivery period for settlement is normally 15 days but the transaction remained unsettled for a longer period i.e. in case of IPCL shares for almost about 4 months - contract is dated 2-11-1992, delivery of shares on 1-3-1993 for purchases and after 18 days for sale by contract dated 4-3-1993 and delivery on 22-3-1993. It could be because he was not the broker but a sub-broker and not entitled to transact business of sale and purchase of shares except for spot delivery.
12. No details of the distinctive numbers or share scrip numbers were given either for the purchase or sale of these shares of IPCL and ICICI. The contract note and the documents filed though contained a column for distinctive numbers but they were left blank.
13. The payment for the purchase in IPCL shares was made even after 22 days of the stated delivery i.e. 4 months and 22 days from the date of the contract for purchase. it was for the full amount even though the assessee had already sold the shares much before the payment was made - sale of the shares being on 4-3-1993 and payment for purchase made on 23-3-1993 in case of IPCL shares and sale on 5-3-1993 and payment for purchase on 10-3-1993 and 17-3-1993 in case of ICICI shares. There seems to be no justifiable reason for making full payment for the purchases without deducting therefrom the sale price of these very shares and the amounts in the normal circumstances should have been settled by payment of the net amount, the transactions of both purchase and sale have already been completed before such payment.
14. The CIT(A) stated that copy of bank account is stated to have been filed to prove the payment but that is the account of the assessee and not of broker or to whom or from whom the money was received or paid. At best the bank entries could vouch for the payment and the transaction as such.
15. The cumulative effect of all these, in my opinion, was that the transaction was not genuine and a show was not genuine and a show was made to create a loss to reduce the tax on the income of the assessee. The Judicial Member was, in my opinion, justified in holding the transactions to be not genuine and alternatively also, for holding that the loss was speculative loss as the transactions were settled without delivery of shares. it is true that the brokers are not under the control of the assessee but when the loss is claimed as a deduction it is for the assessee to prove that he had incurred the loss and in absence of the examination of broker, his books of account and other material, it was not proved particularly when no details of the distinctive numbers/certificate numbers of the shares purchased and sold was claimed to have been taken or given through the brokers were brought on record.
16. The second point of difference is for the addition of Rs. 2 lakhs under the head investment in the renovation of the house, 45 Juhu Park House at Nava Vadaj, Ahmedabad. In the statement Under Section 132(4) vide answer to question No. 7, the assessee admitted that approximately Rs. 2 lacs expenditure was made in repairing the house, purchase of furniture, household goods, etc. which was the investment from unaccounted income. The answer to question No. 64 giving details of the disclosure of Rs. 25 lac also include investment in the house and furniture of Rs. 2 lacs which is evident from the portion extracted above. The said declaration of Rs. 25 lacs was in response to Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) by the authorised officer to the assessee. The said question No. 45 and answer thereto are as under:-
"Q.45 I am explaining you the explanation 5 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. After understanding the provisions accordingly, whether you want to disclose voluntarily any your undisclosed income?
Ans. Yes Sir. I understand the explanation 5 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act as explained by you and I want to take the benefit by disclosing my undisclosed income and I want to declare the following income. I declare unaccounted income of Rs. 25,00,000/- earned from the business of sale and purchase of shares which is not shown incurrent years books and I am agree to request the whole tax on this income. And I pray that I should get relief from penalty and prosecution proceedings. This income is my current year's income and I earned it from business of sale and purchase of shares."
17. In the assessment proceedings, however, the assessee retracted from the disclosure of Rs. 2 lacs by stating that the said house belonged to Ramanlal Revabhai (HUF) and that no investments have been made by him. He furnished two valuation reports in respect of valuation as on 1-10-1987 showing the construction cost of the property at Rs. 2,08,000/- including the cost of the land at Rs. 25,000/- and furniture Rs. 35,000/- in the first report and valuation report as on 31-3-1993 valuing Rs. 3,27,00/- including the additions and alterations of Rs. 40,000/- during the assessment year 1993-94 and increase in the value of existing house by Rs. 79,494/-. The assessee claimed that he had not made any investment in the house.
18. The AO did not agree with the contention of the assessee. On perusal of the reports he found one thing certain that some additions and alterations have been made for which value has been put at Rs. 40,000/-; and that there was an increase in the value of the existing structure in the extent of Rs. 79,494/-; and that there was no depletion on the value of the house on account of depreciation being an old structure. He, therefore, held that the report of the valuer cannot be believed in its true spirit. The assessee had made disclosure for renovation and furniture, etc. and the report did not reflect any investment in furniture. He also rejected the contention of the assessee that the disclosure was made under threat and pressure in view of the fact that there was an evidence for renovation in the house property. He, accordingly, made an addition of Rs. 2 lacs to the income of the assessee.
19. The CIT(A) sustained the addition by observing in paragraph 28 as under:-
"28. I have considered the facts and I find that there is no house properly in the name of the individual but the assessee can make the investment of for renovation and furniture in the property of HUF also. The accounts of the HUF of last four years have been discussed above while considering the household expenses and some investment in shares. There was no amount left for any such expenditure for renovation, repairs etc. in the HUF property. I, therefore, agree with the Assessing Officer that the investment should be considered in the hands of the individual. This has already been admitted in the search proceedings and the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- is, therefore, sustained."
20. When the matter came up before the Tribunal there was a difference between the two Members. The Accountant Member held that the assessee had proved by furnishing valuation report in respect of the house property that there was no major renovation of the house during the relevant financial year; that the value of the household articles found as narrated in Annexure-V of Panchanama prepared during the course of search, values around Rs. 47,500/- out of which the value of wooden cup boars and fixtures valuing Rs. 35,000/- was shown in the balance sheet of the HUF which was filed prior to the date of search. According to him, therefore, the only question was whether the assessee could retract from the statement given during the course of search. According to him, the assessee had stated that disclosure was forwards investment in furniture and household goods only and there was no disclosure in respect of investment in renovation of the house or house property and even no material was found which suggested that any renovation in the house was carried out during the year. Thus, according to him, the statement if interpreted in proper perspective indicated that no disclosure was made forwards investment in renovation of house. He also observed that even otherwise, a statement was made under mistaken facts or under wrong interpretation of law which can very well be retracted by giving cogent reasons for the same supported by necessary evidence which according to him, was given by the assessee by way of filing valuation report showing no investment in house property and investment found as per Annexure-V of the Panchanama being of the value less than Rs. 47,500/-. He, therefore, restricted the addition of undisclosed income invested in household articles to Rs. 12,500/- only (Rs. 47,500 - Rs. 35,000). The Judicial Member, on the other hand, held that in the statement Under Section 132(4) the assessee had stated that he had made investment for renovation, furniture, purchase of TV, etc. for about Rs. 2 lacs which is evident from the perusal of details given in answer to question No. 46 of the statement making disclosure of Rs. 2 lacs and the reply to question No. 7 clearly giving the source of earning of undisclosed income. It was a voluntary statement and was binding on the assessee in view of the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of V. Kunhambu and Sons v. CIT 219 ITR 235. According to him, neither before the AO nor before the CIT(A) the assessee has furnished the cash-flow statement of the HUF and in the return of HUF for asst. year 1993-94 the assessee had disclosed agricultural income of Rs. 1,86,987/- which was furnished in the month of February, 1994 even though in reply to question No. 7, the assessee had stated that approximately the yearly agricultural income of the HUF was Rs. 1 lac which, according to him, indicated that the assessee had inflated the agricultural income to cover up the undisclosed income in the absence of any cash-flow chart. The CIT(A), according to him, gave cogent reason for upholding the addition and he upheld the same.
21. The submissions of both the sides were heard and considered. The addition was made by the AO primarily on the basis of the statement given by the assessee Under Section 132(4). His statement is to be taken and used as an evidence against the assessee by virtue of the provisions of Section 132(4) which reads as under:-
"132(4) The authorised officer may, during the course of the search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statement made by such person during such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act."
22. It is true that an assessee has a right to retract but that has to be based on evidence brought on record to the contrary and there must be justifiable reason and materiel accepting retraction. The cogent and sufficient material has to be placed on record for acceptance or retraction. It is not a case of pressure or coercion having been applied against the assessee. It was a statement in the presence of two witnesses and not an extraction from the assessee. Question No. 45 and answer given thereunder as extracted above clearly demonstrate that the assessee was explained the provisions of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and upon understanding the provisions he replied and made a declaration of Rs. 25 lacs stated to have been earned by him out of business of sale and purchase of shares. The assessee has not retracted this portion of the statement namely, the earning part of the income. It is only the utilization which is being challenged where the assessee wants to state that it was wrong and not supported by sufficient evidence. His claim is that in the Panchanama the furniture and household goods were not worth Rs. 2 lacs for the acquisition of which the undisclosed income was stated to have been utilized. The assessee also attempted to support it by the two valuation reports of the construction which included household articles. The Panchanama is for household goods only and nor for the repairs of the house which is one of the investments forming part of Rs. 2 lacs. The valuer had valued the property - one as on 1-10-1987 and another on 31-3-1993. The difference in the valuation of these two reports is of Rs. 1,19,000/- (Rs. 3,27,000/- minus Rs. 2,08,000/-). In my opinion, the valuation report cannot be equated as proof of the assessee having not invested money for the house or household goods or furniture therein. The valuer has stated that he has inspected the property on 24-12-1994 for both the valuation. Both the reports were signed on 26-12-1994. These dates are much after the dates of search. As to what were the construction earlier and what were made during the period under consideration and upto the date of inspection is not known. The furniture and household goods for which the declaration was made might not be there in existence on the date of inspection. Therefore, not much reliance can be placed on the valuation reports vis-a-vis the declaration made by the assessee. The Panchanama only shows the household goods and furniture and not the investment in the house and therefore, this also cannot be a ground for demolishing the version of the assessee made Under Section 132(4) of the Act stating that he has invested Rs. 2 lacs in the house and household goods. Nor only at one place, the assessee has stated at other places that he has invested Rs. 2 lacs in repairs/renovation, furniture and household goods (see question No. 7 and answer thereto which are extracted in the order proposed by the Accountant Member) and for the sake of convenience it is reproduced hereunder:-
"Q.7: Have you made any other investment other than shares and deposits as explained above from your unaccounted income if any, given the details?
A.7: The expenditure made approx. more than Rs. 1 lacs in purchase of Gold ornaments and approx. Rs. 2 lacs in purchase of furniture, household goods, etc. in my house. No other investments made by me."
Again, I find a mention of the said declaration of Rs. 2 lacs in answer to question No. 46 which has been extracted above.
23. A dispute is raised by the assessee that the statement doe snot say or repair and renovation and it was wrongly stated by the AO. According to the assessee, the declaration the disclosure was for investment in furniture and household goods. The confusion is because of the free English translation furnished by the assessee. The statement was recorded in Gujarati and answer to question No. 7 incorporated is reproduced hereinunder in italic alphabets:-
"7. Sonana gharena aashare Rs. 100000 karta vadhare ane aashare Rs. 2,00,000/- je main gharma dhurusti, furniture ane TV leva mate kharchel che. Biju kol rokan main karel nathi."
If, therefore, specifically says that the expenditure of Rs. 2 lacs was for "Dhurusti" which means repairs and renovation of the house besides furniture and TV. In my opinion, therefore, the assessee is not right in stating and the Accountant Member is right in accepting that there was no disclosure of repair and renovation included in the said sum of Rs. 2 lacs. The answer to question No. 46 also states "amount invested in house".
24. In my opinion, therefore, the addition of Rs. 2 lacs was rightly made and the Judicial Member was right in upholding the same.
T.K. Sharma, Judicial Member
1. In conformity with the majority opinion, in Revenue's appeal ITA No. 5228/A/1995, we reverse the order of ld. CIT(A) allowing short term capital loss of Rs. 3,48,300/- with regard to 1300 IPCL shares and 400 ICICI shares and further upheld the order of ld.CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 2 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer as investment in house property disclosed by the assessee in search proceedings for the asstt. year 1993-94.
2. In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the asstt. years 1990-91 to 1992-93 are dismissed and for the asstt. year 1993-94 partly allowed. The appeal of the assessee for the asstt. year 1993-94 is dismissed.