ACIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI v. SUNIL PRAKASH JAIN, MUMBAI

ITA 4298/MUM/2009 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 429819914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AADPJ5260G
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4298/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant ACIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI
Respondent SUNIL PRAKASH JAIN, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 31-05-2010
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 15-07-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI R.V.EASWAR SR.VP AND SHRI R.K. PANDA AM I.T.A. NO.4298/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 9 C.RG.2 8 TH FLOOR OLD CGO BLDG. ANNEXE M K ROAD MUMBAI 400 020 VS. SUNIL PRAKASH JAIN LEELAVATI MEDICAL & PHARMA DISTRIBUTORS 170-A HILL ROAD BANDRA (WEST) MUMBAI 400 050 (PAN: AADPJ5260G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. S.K.MOHANTY DR RESPONDENT BY : MR. H.S.RAHEJA O R D E R PER R.V.EASWAR SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF MEDICAL STORE. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER MADE ON 22.12.2008 UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH S ECTION 153(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THERE WAS A SEARCH ACTION UNDER SECTION 132(1) I N THE ASSESSEES BANK LOCKER WHICH STOOD IN THE NAME OF H IS BROTHER- IN-LAW. JEWELLERY OF THE NET WEIGHT OF 1569.70 GMS WAS SEIZED ON 2.1.2007 AND IT WAS VALUED BY THE DEPARTMENT AT RS.10 04 736/-. THERE WERE ALSO SOME LOOSE PAPERS I N THE LOCKER WHICH WERE ALSO SEIZED. THE JEWELLERY WAS RELEASED LATER AFTER OBTAINING A BANK GUARANTEE. 3. ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORI TIES RECORDED A STATEMENT FROM THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH HE SAID IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.3 THAT THE JEWELLERY BELONGED TO HIS ITA NO: 4298/MUM/2009 2 GRANDFATHER AND ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT W AS NOT VALUED AND HE WOULD BE OFFERING THE SAME AS UNDISCL OSED JEWELLERY FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND THAT H E WAS READY TO PAY THE TAX. IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.4 THE ASS ESSEE STATED THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS SHOWED THE NAME OF THE SELLER OF THE JEWELLERY WEIGHT AND THE AMOUNT PAID. HE FURTHER S TATED THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS WERE WRITTEN BY HIS GRANDFATHER H IMSELF AND STAFF MEMBERS AND THAT A DETAILED EXPLANATION WOULD BE SUBMITTED IN DUE COURSE. IN THE RETURNS FILED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 2000-01 TO 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED CE RTAIN ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2007- 08 AND STATED THAT THESE REPRESENTED THE LOANS ADVA NCED BY HIM AGAINST THE JEWELLERY. IT WAS ALSO STATED IN TH E COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT HE WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PAWN BROKING AND HAD ADVANCED LOANS AGAINST THE JEW ELLERY AND THAT THE INTEREST EARNED ON THE ADVANCES WAS PL OUGHED BACK IN THE PAWN BROKING ACTIVITY. THE DETAILED YE AR WISE CHART FOR ADVANCING LOANS AGAINST SECURITY OF JEWELLERY H AS BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND TH E SAME IS AS BELOW:- A.Y. AMOUNT OF LOAN ADVANCED AGAINST SECURITY OF JEWELLERY AMOUNT OF LOANS OFFERED FOR TAXATION 2003-04 RS. 5 000/- RS. 5 000/- 2004-05 RS. 35 000/- RS. 35 000/- 2005-06 RS.1 33 700/- RS.1 33 700/- 2006-07 RS.2 88 000/- RS.2 88 000/- 2007-08 RS.2 09 140/- RS.2 09 140/- TOTAL RS.6 70 840/- RS.6 70 840/- IT WAS ALSO STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PAW N BROKING BUSINESS THAT THE FULL NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM MONIES WERE ADVANCED AGAINST SECURITY OF JEWEL LERY WERE ITA NO: 4298/MUM/2009 3 NOT AVAILABLE AS THE TRANSACTIONS WERE ARRANGED MOS TLY THROUGH MIDDLEMEN OR AGENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED U PON THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE AGE NTS OR PRODUCE THEM. THIS WAS ALSO NOT COMPLIED WITH BY TH E ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE AGENTS WERE NOT ABLE TO ATTE ND AND THEIR ADDRESSES HAD ALSO CHANGED. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT PREPARED TO BELIEV E THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF ADVANCING MONI ES ON THE SECURITY OF JEWELLERY. HE RELIED ON THE STATEMENT R ECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND HELD THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE JEWELLERY AND THIS IS ALSO SUPPOR TED BY THE LOOSE PAPERS SEIZED FROM THE LOCKER. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE JEWELLERY WAS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.10 04 736/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THIS WAS IN ADDITI ON TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.2 09 140/- DECLARED IN THE RETURN BY T HE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED SOURCES OF THE PAWN BROKING ADVANCE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2003-04 TO 2006-07 THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE TAXABLE INCOME AS PER THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH INCLUDED THE AMOUNT OF LOANS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. 5. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT AS AFORESAID AND THE COMP UTATION OF THE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL TO THE CIT(A). BEFORE HIM IT WAS CO NTENDED THAT THE FACT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVANCING LOANS AGAINST THE SECURITY OF JEWELLERY AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY HE DECLARED THOSE LOANS AS HIS INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2007-08 ACCORDING TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE LOANS HA D BEEN ADVANCED AGAINST THE SECURITY OF THE JEWELLERY. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT EVERY ITEM OF JEWELLERY CARRIED A TAG WHIC H GAVE THE ITA NO: 4298/MUM/2009 4 NAME OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT BELONGED OR THE NAME OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM IT WAS RECEIVED AND THAT THE AMOUN T OF LOAN ADVANCED AGAINST THE SAID JEWELLERY AS WELL AS THE DATE OF THE ADVANCE WAS ALSO NOTED THEREIN. IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE SIX ASSESSMENT YE ARS PRIOR TO THE YEAR OF SEARCH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AC CEPTED THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH INCLUDED THE LOANS ADVANCED BY HIM WHICH AMOUNTS TO ACCEPTING THE ASSE SSEES EXPLANATION THAT HE WAS CARRYING ON PAWN BROKING BU SINESS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REVERS ED HIS STAND WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND INCLUDED THE VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT OF LOAN ADVANCED. IT WAS IN THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENDED THAT IN CASE IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE JEWELLERY AN D HAD NOT GIVEN LOANS AGAINST THE SAME EVEN THEN THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF THE ENTIR E AMOUNT OF RS.10 04 736/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 OBLIV IOUS TO THE FACT THAT EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF JEWELLERY CARRIED A TAG GIVING THE DATE OF THE PURCHASE. IN THIS CONNECTION IT WA S POINTED OUT THAT THE TAGS OR THE LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OF THE LOCKER AND THEREFORE THEY CONSTITUTE CLEAR E VIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE JEWELLERY WAS NOT ACQUIRE D IN A SINGLE YEAR I.E. THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08. THE SECOND ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION WAS THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ENTIRE JEWELLERY WOULD RESULT IN DOUBLE TAXATION SINCE THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS OFFERED INC OME IN THE RETURNS FILED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD THAT IS TO SAY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2007-08 AND SET OFF SHO ULD BE GIVEN FOR SUCH INCOME. ITA NO: 4298/MUM/2009 5 6. THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS I N THE FOLLOWING WORDS:- 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE FACTS AND FIND SUFFICIENT FORCE IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. ON THE OTHER HAND THE ACTION OF THE AO IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND SELF-SERVING FOR MAKING AN ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY STATED TO BE DOUBLE ADDITION. THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE RETURNS FOR EARL IER YEARS AND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN RESTRICTED TO AY 20 07- 08 WHERE ENTIRE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. THE AO HAS ALSO FAILED TO POINT OUT A NY INFIRMITY IN THE STAND OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING T HE PAWN BROKING JOB DONE BY HIM WHICH WAS EVIDENCED BY THE TAGS ATTACHED TO THE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY ITEMS A T THE TIME OF SEARCH ITSELF THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT C ANNOT BE TREATED AS FIGMENT OF IMAGINATION ONLY ON THE GR OUND THAT THE PERSONS NAMED THEREIN COULD NOT BE PRODUCE D. THE APPELLANT HAS IN A BONAFIDE MANNER DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME BASED ON SUCH SEIZURE WHICH WAS N OT HITHERTO DISCLOSED AND THUS MADE AN ATTEMPT TO COM E OUT CLEAN. IT IS APPARENT THAT THE AO HAS DRAWN SU PPORT FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WHILE MAKING ADDITION BUT HAS TAKEN A COMPLETELY CONTRARY STAND IN ADMITTING THE RETURNS FILED FOR EARLIER YEARS IN WH ICH THE INVESTMENT IN SEIZED JEWELLERY HAS BEEN DISCLOSED B Y THE APPELLANT AND TAXES HAVE ALSO BEEN DULY PAID. 7. IT WILL BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE CIT(A) H AS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT HE WAS CARRYING ON PAWN BROKING BU SINESS. ACCORDING TO HIM THE TAGS WERE FOUND ATTACHED TO TH E JEWELLERY IN THE LOCKER AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH AND MERELY BECAUSE THE PERSONS NAMED THEREIN COULD NOT BE PRODUCED FOR TH E EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CARRYING ON ANY SUCH BUSINESS. HE FURTHER HELD THAT WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS DRAWN SUPPORT FROM THE ASSESSEES STATEMENT MADE AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH BUT HAS TAKEN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STAND IN ADMITTING THE RETURNS FILED FOR EARLIER YEARS IN WH ICH THE INVESTMENT IN SEIZED JEWELLERY HAS BEEN DISCLOSED. IN THIS VIEW ITA NO: 4298/MUM/2009 6 OF THE MATTER THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THERE WAS NO ME RIT IN THE ADDITION MADE OVER AND ABOVE THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153(C) OF THE ACT. HE DELETED THE SAM E. 8. IT IS AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL. IT WAS SU BMITTED ON ITS BEHALF THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK CONTRADICTORY STA NDS DURING THE SEARCH AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. W HILE IN HIS STATEMENT MADE DURING THE SEARCH THE ASSESSEE HAD S TATED THAT THE JEWELLERY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR TAXATION AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HE HAD CHANGED HIS STAND AN D HAS STATED THAT HE WAS CARRYING ON PAWN BROKING BUSINES S AND THE JEWELLERY REPRESENTED SECURITY FOR THE PAWN BROKING ADVANCES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM MADE DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. EVEN ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE BEING MA INTAINED FOR THE SO CALLED PAWN BROKING BUSINESS. IT WAS CONTEND ED THAT THE ASSESSEES STORY THAT HE WAS CARRYING ON PAWN BROKI NG BUSINESS AND THE JEWELLERY REPRESENTED THE SECURITY FOR THE ADVANCES SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN ANY CREDENCE. IT WAS ALSO CONTE NDED THAT THERE WAS NO DOUBLE TAXATION BECAUSE WHAT THE ASSES SEE INCLUDED IN THE RETURNS FILED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WILL HAVE TO BE BROUGHT TO ASSESSMENT AND THAT DOES NOT PREVENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM MAINTAINING THAT HE GOT NO EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SEIZED JEWELLERY. IT WAS CON TENDED THAT THE CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THE STAND OF THE DEP ARTMENT IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND IT WAS CONTENDED THAT TH E ADDITION SHOULD BE RESTORED. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADOPT CONTRADIC TORY STANDS. ITA NO: 4298/MUM/2009 7 HE SUBMITTED THAT IN ANY CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE ENTIRE JEWELLERY IN THE COM PUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE SLIPS WHICH WERE SEIZED FROM THE LOCKER SHOWED THE DATES OF THE TRANSACTION AND EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THEY REPRESENTED THE DATES ON WHICH THE JEWELLERY WAS ACQUIRED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND THAT THEY DID NOT REPRESENT SECURITY FOR THE PA WN BROKING ADVANCES IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADD THE ENTIRE VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY IN THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE DATES IN THE TAGS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS THE DATES OF PURCHASE OF THE JEWELLERY AND THE AMOUNTS HAVING BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE RETURNS OF THE INCOME NO FURTHER ADDITION WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE AS HELD BY THE CIT (A). IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ENTIRE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE GIVEN AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH SHOULD BE READ AS A WHOLE IN COM ING TO A PROPER CONCLUSION. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE R ELEVANT PAGES IN THE PAPER BOOK AS WELL AS TO THE ASSESSEE S STATEMENT. 10. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL CONTENT IONS IT APPEARS TO US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED THE JE WELLERY FOUND IN THE LOCKER. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE AS SESSEES CLAIM THAT THE JEWELLERY REPRESENTED SECURITY FOR T HE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS BECAUSE ADMITTEDLY THERE WAS NO BO OKS OF ACCOUNT TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM NOR WAS THERE ANY PAWN BROKING LICENCE OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COUL D ALSO NOT PRODUCE THE MIDDLEMEN OR AGENTS OR FURNISH THEIR AD DRESSES TO ENABLE VERIFICATION. IN OUR VIEW THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVISEDLY STATED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM HIM ON THE DA Y OF THE SEARCH THAT HE WOULD VOLUNTARILY OFFER THE UNDISCLO SED JEWELLERY AS INCOME FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSES SEE EVEN WANTED TWO DAYS TIME TO ARRANGE THE PAYMENT. IN ANS WER TO QUESTION NO.4 HE HAS STATED THAT THE TAGS OR LOOSE PAPERS ITA NO: 4298/MUM/2009 8 ATTACHED TO THE JEWELLERY SHOWED THE NAME OF THE SE LLER WEIGHT AND AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY. IT IS ONLY LATER AT THE T IME OF FILING THE RETURNS THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK A DIFFERENT STAND AN D CLAIMED THAT HE WAS CARRYING ON PAWN BROKING BUSINESS AND O FFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE RETURNS ON THAT BASIS. HOW EVER THIS CHANGED POSITION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE SUPPORTED BY HIM WITH REFERENCE TO ANY EVIDENCE. WE ARE THERE FORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE LOCKER REPRESE NTED THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND DID NOT REPRESENT SECURITY FOR THE ALLEGED PAWN BROKING BUSINESS. 11. HOWEVER THERE IS MERIT IN THE ALTERNATIVE CONT ENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE IS SOME DOUBLE TAXATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT ASSESS BOTH THE VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY IN THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08 ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH A ND ALSO ASSESS THE LOANS RELATING TO THE PAWN BROKING BUSIN ESS HAVING REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT HE WAS CARRYING ON SUCH A BUSINESS. THE LOOSE PAPERS OR TAGS FOUND IN THE LOC KER DURING THE SEARCH UNDOUBTEDLY CONTAINED THE DATES AND THE NAMES WRITTEN THEREIN WERE THE NAMES OF THE SELLER ACCORD ING TO THE ASSESSEES STATEMENT MADE DURING THE SEARCH. THEREF ORE EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE BILLS IT MUST BE TAKEN THAT THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE JEWELLERY ON THOSE DATES. THE ASSESSME NT FOR THE YEARS COVERED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD BE MAD E ON THIS BASIS BY SPREADING OVER THE VALUE OF THE ENTIRE JEW ELLERY OVER THE VARIOUS YEARS DEPENDING UPON THE DATES SHOWN IN THE TAGS. SINCE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT HE WAS CARRYING ON PAWN BROKING BUSINESS WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED IN THE RETURNS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS INCOME INVESTED IN THE JEWELLERY AND TO THAT EXTENT SET OFF SHOULD BE GIVEN AGAINST THE ADDITIONS. FOR EXAMPLE IF THE VALUE ITA NO: 4298/MUM/2009 9 OF THE JEWELLERY ACQUIRED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 03-04 IS RS.X AND IF THE AMOUNT DISCLOSED AS ADDITIONAL IN COME IN THE RETURN FOR THAT YEAR IS Y THE ADDITION TO BE MAD E AS INVESTMENT IN THE JEWELLERY SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO RS.X MIN US Y. THIS COULD BE ON THE FOOTING THAT WHAT HAS BEEN DECLARED AS LOANS ADVANCED IS IN REALITY AND TRUTH AMOUNT INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIR ECTED TO MODIFY THE ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY. IN THE RESULT T HE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED A BOVE. NO COSTS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF MAY 2010. SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) SD/- ( R.V.EASWAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SENIOR VI CE PRESIDENT MUMBAI DATED 31 ST MAY 2010. SOMU COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CENTRAL I MUMBAI. 4. THE CIT(A)-CENTRAL VII MUMBAI 5. THE DR E BENCH /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDE R ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T MUMBAI