IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER CO 34/CHD/2012 In ITA No. 572/CHD/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Naresh Kumar Verma, Vs ACIT, 94, Guru Nanak Dev Colony, Central Circle, Rajpura. Patiala. PAN: ACRPV0385Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal Respondent by : Shri Sushil Kumar Date of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2016 ORDER present Cross Objection by assessee has been directed against order of ld. CIT(Appeals)-I Ludhiana dated 13.03.2012 for assessment year 2008-09. 2. Cross Objection was filed on filing departmental appeal in ITA 572/2012. departmental appeal has been dismissed vide separate order dated 28.12.2015 on account of low tax effect. Cross Objection is, therefore, heard separately. 3. According to report of office, Cross Objection is time barred by 98 days. assessee filed application 2 for condonation of delay in filing Cross Objection. It was submitted that number of appeals have been filed by assessee for assessment years 2002-03 to assessment year 2007-08 in different appeal numbers. All these appeals were filed within period of limitation. However, department has filed appeal in assessment year 2008-09 under reference in which Appeal Memo was received on 01.06.2012. assessee, though, filed appeals for different years separately but papers for assessment year 2008-09 under reference were kept and got misplaced, therefore, it took some time in preparation of Cross Objection. assessee is not educated and due to above facts, there is delay in filing Cross Objection. 4. After considering rival submissions, I am of view delay in filing Cross Objection should be condoned. explanation of assessee is supported by material facts as explained in application which have not been contested by Revenue Department. I am, therefore, satisfied with explanation of assessee that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing Cross Objection within period of limitation. delay in filing Cross Objection is condoned. 5. I have heard ld. Representatives of both parties and perused material on record. ld. counsel for assessee did not press ground Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 of 3 Cross Objection, same are, accordingly dismissed being not pressed. 6. On ground No. 1 of Cross Objection, assessee challenged addition of Rs. 72,000/- on account of income from job work. Assessing Officer observed that during course of search operation, assessee stated on oath that he was doing job work at his shop, however, no income resulting from such job work has been reflected in Income Tax Return. Assessing Officer, therefore, estimated income from job work and made addition of Rs. 72,000/-. ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed addition and dismissed this ground of appeal of assessee. 7. ld. counsel for assessee, at outset, submitted that assessee preferred several appeals before ITAT Chandigarh Bench in ITAs 802 to 806 and 818/CHD/2012 for assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08. Tribunal, vide order dated 27.11.2012 on this identical issue deleted addition vide paras 5 to 14. Copy of order is placed on record. He has, therefore, stated that issue is covered in favour of assessee. 8. After hearing rival submissions, I am of view issue is covered in favour of assessee by order of ITAT Chandigarh Division Bench in case of same assessee vide order dated 27.11.2012 in which identical issue have been considered and entire addition have been deleted. Following order of Division Bench in case of same 4 assessee, I set aside orders of authorities below and delete addition of Rs. 72,000/-. Ground No. 1 of Cross Objection of assessee is allowed. 9. On ground No. 5, assessee challenged addition of Rs. 2 lacs on account of unexplained investment in construction of house. Assessing Officer has observed in assessment order that assessee had admitted investment of Rs. 18 lacs in construction of house before AVO at time of valuation but same was declared at Rs. 16 lacs during course of search operation. Difference of Rs. 2 lacs was explained by assessee as being attributable to withdrawals by his wife to tune of Rs. 1 lac out of her surrendered income and Rs. 1 lac out of assessee's own withdrawals. Assessing Officer did not accept contention of assessee. assessee submitted before ld. CIT(Appeals) that Rs. 1 lac was contributed by Smt. Usha Rani, wife of assessee and Rs. 1 lac was contributed by Smt. Ram Dulari, his mother, out of surrendered income. ld. CIT(Appeals), however, did not accept explanation of assessee as there is no evidence to show that assessee or his wife have withdrawn any amount from bank for purpose of making construction, therefore, addition was confirmed. 10. After considering rival submissions, I am of view addition of Rs. 1 lac is unjustified. assessee pleaded before Assessing Officer that Rs. 1 lac was contributed by his wife which was out of her surrendered income. 5 explanation of assessee is supported by computation of income of wife of assessee for assessment year 2008-09 in which she has surrendered miscellaneous income of Rs. 2,50,000/- in her return of income and accepted by revenue. Therefore, Rs. 1 lac contributed by wife of assessee is acceptable. ld. DR contended that assessee has been retracting from his statement. There is no retraction from side of assessee because assessee has not allegedly explained difference of Rs. 2 lacs in investment in construction of house but later on explained that Rs. 1 lac is contributed by his wife, therefore, explanation of assessee is accepted that Rs. 1 lac is contributed by wife of assessee for making investment in construction of house. Therefore, addition of Rs. 1 lac is deleted. However, for addition of other amount of Rs. 1 lac, assessee explained before Assessing Officer that it is withdrawal from his Saving Account but no evidence filed. assessee, however, before ld. CIT(Appeals), submitted that Rs. 1 lac have been contributed by his mother Smt. Ram Dulari. There is clear difference in statement of assessee before Assessing Officer as well as before ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, such explanation cannot be accepted. addition of Rs. Rs. 1 lac is, therefore, confirmed. In this view of matter, I set aside orders of authorities below to extent of Rs. 1 lac and confirm addition of Rs. 1 lac. 6 11. In result, this ground of Cross Objection is partly allowed. 12. On ground No. 6, assessee challenged addition of Rs. 70,000/- out of addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- on account of certain unexplained valuable articles. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- by observing that during course of search on 07.08.2007 at residence of assessee, many valuable items like ACs, CD Player, TVs, Computer, Santro Car and Bajaj Scooter were found. assessee explained that ACs, TVs and CD Player are old and only computer was purchased, funds for same were provided by his mother Smt. Ram Dulari. Reply of assessee was rejected and Assessing Officer noted that assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that these items were old. Assessing Officer, therefore, for ACs, TVs, CD Player and Computer, estimated cost of investment at Rs. 1,20,000/- and made addition. 13. assessee challenged addition before ld. CIT(Appeals) explaining that most of items were old. However, ld. CIT(Appeals) did not accept contention of assessee because household withdrawals of assessee have already been suspected and that assessee did not provide any evidence of purchase/acquisition of these items in earlier years. addition in principle, was confirmed, however, considering nature of item, ld. CIT(Appeals) held that some items could be purchased over 7 long period of time and accordingly, reduced addition to Rs. 70,000/-. 14. After considering rival submissions, I do not find any merit in Cross Objection of assessee. assessee pleaded that items found during course of search were old one, however, no evidence in this regard have been filed. ld. CIT(Appeals), even without having any evidence or material, has already reduced addition to Rs. 70,000/-. No material is produced before me also to support contention, therefore, this ground of Cross Objection has no merit, same is accordingly dismissed. 15. In result, Cross Objection of assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court. Sd/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 22 n d September,2016. Poonam Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT,DR Assistant Registrar, I TAT Chandigarh Naresh Kumar Verma v. ACIT, Central Circle, Patiala