DK Singh, J.M. - (1.) WITH this common order we propose to dispose of all these appeals together for the sake of convenience because the facts in all these cases are almost identical except variation in figures and further because the effective issue required to be resolved by this Bench is also identical.
(2.) Firstly we would like to briefly state the facts relating to ITA No. 173/Chd/1995 filed by the assessee and ITA No. 245/Chd/1995 filed by the revenue arising out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in Appeal No. 420/IT/1993-94, dated 24-10-1994. Originally the assessee in his appeal has taken five grounds. Ground No. 3 was revised with the permission of the Bench which reads as under: "3. The learned CIT erred in having sustained an addition of Rs. 60,747 out of addition made by the assessing officer amounting to Rs. 2,69,422 without any convincing reasons and that also only in one year." The other remaining grounds Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have not been pressed by the learned authorised representative for the assessee and the same are dismissed as not pressed. Whereas in ITA No. 245/Chd/1995, the revenue has taken the following effective grounds: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 2,08,675 out of addition of Rs. 2,69,422 made on account of unexplained investment in the construction of house." 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in giving benefit of intangible additions from the assessment years 1974-75 to 1992-93 especially when the assessee had not taken this stand before the assessing officer and he has not led any evidence to the effect that the amount was in fact available with him. " "3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has further erred in not directing the assessing officer to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of IT Act with Expln. 2 thereto." "4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts in giving credit for the sum of Rs. 50,000 debited in the capital account of Smt. Krishna w/o Shri Thakur Singh on 7-3-1992, towards the construction of house especially when the house was completed on 31-3-1992. The order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) is perverse to the facts of the case." 2.1 In this case the assessee, Shri Thakur Singh (HUF) has shown investment in the property at Rs. 2,99,000 whereas the same was estimated by the valuation officer (VO) at Rs. 5,48,422 and since, according to the assessing officer, the difference in the investment was not explained by the assessee, so, he made the addition of Rs. 2,69,422. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) giving benefit of Rs. 50,000 being withdrawal by the wife of the assessee and assessee's share of Rs. 1, 12,704 in the firm M/s Tirath Singh Parkash Singh & Co. and further share in the firm Tirath Singh Parkash Singh & Co. Rs. 25,505 being available to the assessee for investment and also allowing as rebate of 10 per cent for self-supervision against 7.5 per cent allowed by the assessing officer, susained the addition to the extent of Rs. 60,747 against Rs. 2,69,422 made by the assessing officer. Now against the addition, sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) and relief of Rs. 2,08,675 allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the assessee, both the parties are in appeal before us. Now we would briefly state the facts relating to ITA No. 172/Chd/1995 filed by the assessee and ITA No. 243/Chd/1995 filed by the revenue arising out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in Appeal No. 421/IT/1993-94 dated 24-10-1994. Originally the assessee in his appeal has taken five grounds. Ground No. 3 was revised with the permission of the Bench which reads as under: "3. The learned CIT erred in having sustained an addition of Rs. 74,038 out of addition made by the assessing officer amounting to Rs. 2,45,094 without any convincing reasons and that also only in one year." The other remaining grounds Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have not been pressed by the learned authorised representative for the assessee and the same are dismissed as not pressed. Whereas in ITA No. 243/Chd/1995, the revenue has taken the following effective grounds: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case; the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 1,71,056 out of addition of Rs. 2,45,094 made on account of unexplained investment in the construction of house." "2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in giving benefit of the intangible additions made from the assessment years 1974-75 to 1992-93 especially when the assessee had not taken this stand before the assessing officer and he has not been able to lead any evidence to the effect that the amount was in fact available with him." "3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has further erred in not directing the assessing officer to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act read with ExpIn. 2 thereof." "4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in giving credit for the sum of Rs. 50,000 debited in the capital account of Smt. Pritam Kaur w/o Shri Parkash Singh on 7-4-1992, towards the construction of house especially when the house was completed on 31-3-1992. The order of Commissioner (Appeals) is perverse to the facts of the case. " 3.1 In this case, assessee Shri Parkash. Singh (HUF) has shown investment in the property at Rs. 2,99,000 whereas the same was estimated by the VO at Rs. 5,44,094 and since, according to the assessing officer, the difference in the investment remained unexplained by the assessee, so, he made the addition of Rs. 2,45,094. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) giving benefit of Rs. 50,000 being withdrawal by the wife of the assessee and assessee's share of Rs. 1,12,704 in the firm and also allowing as rebate on account of self-supervision at 10 per cent against 7.5 per cent allowed by the assessing officer, sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 74,038 against Rs. 2,45,094 made by the assessing officer. Now against the addition, sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) and relief of Rs. 1,71,056 allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the assessee, both the parties are in appeal before us.
(3.) IN the last briefly stated the facts for ITA No, 356/Chd/1995 filed by the assessee and ITA No. 666/Chd/1995 filed by the revenue arising out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in Appeal No. 210/IT/Commissioner (Appeals)/Ldh/1994-95 dated 20-1-1995, are that originally the assessee in his appeal has taken five grounds. Ground No. 2 was revised with the permission of the Bench which reads as under: "2. The learned Commissioner erred in having sustained an addition of Rs. 73,224 out of the addition made by the assessing officer amounting to Rs. 2,82,115 without any convincing reasons and that also only in one year." The other remaining grounds Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 have not been pressed by the learned authorised representative for the assessee and the same are dismissed as not pressed. Whereas in ITA No. 666/Chd/1995, the revenue has taken the following effective grounds : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 2,08,891 on account of addition of unexplained investment in the construction of property. The addition was made on the basis of report of the AVO. " "2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has further erred in ignoring Explanation 2 to section 271(1)(c) and not directing the assessing officer to initiate penalty proceedings under that section while allowing credit as such." "I The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has further erred in allowing credit for intangible additions made from 1974-75 to 1992-93 as money spent for the investment in house property." "4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also erred in allowing credit for the sum of Rs. 50,000 debited in the capital account of wife of Shri Santokh Singh on 7-4-1992 towards construction of the house especially when the house was completed on 31-3- 1992. The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is perverse both in law and on facts." 4.1 IN this case, assessee Shri Santokh Singh (HUF) has shown investment in the property at Rs. 2,99,000 whereas the same was estimated by the AVO at Rs. 5,76,000 and since, according to the assessing officer the difference in the investment was not explained by the assessee, so, he made an addition of Rs. 2,77,000. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) giving benefit of Rs. 50,000 being withdrawal by the wife and assessee's share of Rs. 1,12,704 in the firm M/s Tirath Singh Parkash Singh and further share in the firm Tirath Singh and Parkash Singh & Co. 25,505 being available to the assessee for investment and also allowing a rebate of 10 per cent for self-supervision against 7.5 per cent allowed by the assessing officer, sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 73,224 against Rs. 2,77,000 made by the assessing officer. Now against this addition, sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) and relief of Rs. 2,08,891 allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the assessee, both the parties are in appeal before us.;