1. This appeal by the Revenue emanates from the order passed by the CIT(A) on 28th March, 2003 in relation to the block period 1st April, 1989 to 27th July, 1999.
2. The facts apropos to ground No. 1 are that search action was taken under Section 132 of the IT Act on 27th July, 1999 in respect of St.
Soldier School and Sh. Anil Chopra group concerns covering business and residential premises of Sh. Anil Chopra, his family members and others, including residential premises situated at 331, SUS, Nagar, Jalandhar, and locker No. 37/2 with CUCB, Mithapur Road, Jalandhar, belonging to Smt. Shanta Chopra, the assessee in question, and Smt. Neelam Katyal.
As a result of this operation under Section 132(2), block assessment proceedings were initiated in the name of the assessee also. A loose paper was found bearing date of 15th Dec., 1997 which read as under: 4,61,000 F.D.The assessee was required to furnish the explanation of this document.
It was stated that all the investments made by the assessee were found by the Department and there was nothing which remained to be detected.
Further enquiries were conducted and it was found that this locker was opened in March, 1998. Since this paper was bearing date of 15th Dec., 1997, the AO opined that the same was prepared prior to the opening of locker in March, 1999. Actually IVPs worth Rs. 27.73 lakhs (maturity value) were found from the locker. The AO observed that out of total IVPs worth Rs. 33.42 lakhs written on the said paper, only the IVPs worth Rs. 27.73 lakhs were actually found and the assessee should have IVPs worth Rs. 5.69 lakhs which were not found during the search and the same might have been sold or placed somewhere else. The assessee furnished investment summary in the case of Sh. Anil Chopra also which was not accepted by the AC). Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 5.69 lakhs was made on account of undisclosed investment. The learned CIT(A) in the first appeal deleted the said addition.
2.1 Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, it is noted that the only basis of this addition of Rs. 5.69 lakhs is some loose paper found in the locker containing entries of IVPs worth Rs. 33.42 lakhs. There is no dispute that the IVPs worth Rs. 27.33 lakhs were actually found which became the subject-matter of taxation. Apart from that, the AO made addition of Rs. 5.69 lakhs on account of IVPs which in his opinion, the assessee might have sold or placed somewhere else. It is important to note that all the premises belonging to the assessee and the groups concerns were searched simultaneously and nothing has surfaced to show that the assessee, in fact, had made investment in IVPs to this extent or had ever owned in the past. When search proceedings are initiated, it cannot be heard from the Department that the assessee may have kept certain assets or investments anywhere else or disposed of without any evidence on record for the very obvious reason that there remains no possibility of assessee hiding anything from the Department. If in the instant case, the assessee had been in possession of IVPs to this extent, some material should have been found in search to unearth the undisclosed investment by way of possession of the assets directly or in some converted form. As nothing has been brought on record even to remotely suggest that the assessee had made investment in IVPs to this extent, we are of the considered opinion that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting this addition.
3. Second ground deals with the deletion of addition of Rs. 3,52,600 made on account of difference in FDRs. On the basis of same paper extracted above mentioning FDRs at Rs. 4.61 lakhs, only FDRs worth Rs. 1,08,400 lakhs were actually found in the name of the family members of assessee's daughter. The AO made addition for the balance amount of Rs. 3,52,600 (Rs. 4,16,000 -1,08,400). The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition by taking support from his decision rendered on the ground of addition on account of IVPs above.
3.1 After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is common stand of both the sides that the abovesaid addition was made only on account of difference in the entry on the paper and the amount of FDRs actually found. No evidence worth the name was detected by the Revenue to show that the assessee had, in fact, made investment in the FDRs to this extent. There is no reference of any FDRs having been actually found during the course of search over and above Rs. 1,08,400. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting this addition. The reasons assigned by us in deleting the first addition of Rs. 5.69 lakhs on account of IVPs holds good for this ground as well.
This ground of appeal is not allowed.