2011 (12) TMI 601 - AT - Income Tax

2016 (4) TMI 695 - AT

Issues Involved:
1. Undisclosed investment in the purchase of a flat in Mumbai.
2. Undisclosed investment in the purchase of land at Village Bajri.
3. Undisclosed investment in Plot No. 108, Sector-14, Faridabad.
4. Undisclosed investment in the purchase of land in Dabua Village.
5. Undisclosed investment in 2.5 acres of land at Village Bhakri.
6. Undisclosed investment in Shop No. 2 at H.No. 2/IF/34, NIT Faridabad.
7. Undisclosed investment in a plot at Dabua Pali Road.
8. Undisclosed investment in a plot near Hotel Gazal.
9. Undisclosed investment in property No. 1D/14B, NIT, Faridabad.
10. Undisclosed investment in a plot at Mujesar Phatak.
11. Undisclosed investment in shops at Badhkal Road.
12. Undisclosed investment in the purchase of a Maruti Zen Car.
13. Undisclosed investment in the film "Hamara Kanoon."
14. Undisclosed deposits in a bank account in the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar.
15. Undisclosed income from the repair of electronic goods and interest income on goods sold on credit.
16. Undisclosed income from the Lucky Car Draw Scheme.
17. Undisclosed commission income from the auction of chit business.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Undisclosed Investment in the Purchase of Flat in Mumbai:
The AO added Rs. 10,51,153/- as undisclosed investment in a flat in Mumbai, rejecting the assessee's explanation regarding loans and cash flow statements. The CIT(A) partially deleted the addition, accepting the explanation for Rs. 6,72,000/- but sustaining Rs. 1,72,000/-. The Tribunal found no basis for the sustained addition, concluding that the entire addition was unjustified and allowed the assessee's appeal.

2. Undisclosed Investment in the Purchase of Land at Village Bajri:
The AO added Rs. 60,00,000/- based on a statement from Sh. Som Nath. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that Sh. Som Nath did not know the appellant and there was no corroborative evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no justification for the addition.

3. Undisclosed Investment in Plot No. 108, Sector-14, Faridabad:
The AO added Rs. 15,00,000/- based on a vague statement from Mr. Narinder Malhotra. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the lack of evidence and confrontation with the appellant. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no justification for the addition.

4. Undisclosed Investment in the Purchase of Land in Dabua Village:
The AO added Rs. 5,00,000/- based on documents not found during the search. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the documents referred to the appellant's wife, not the appellant. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no evidence to support the addition.

5. Undisclosed Investment in 2.5 Acres of Land at Village Bhakri:
The AO added Rs. 6,00,000/- based on statements from Sh. Rampal and Sh. Lakhichand. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the lack of evidence and confrontation with the appellant. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no justification for the addition.

6. Undisclosed Investment in Shop No. 2 at H.No. 2/IF/34, NIT Faridabad:
The AO added Rs. 3,00,000/- based on documents found at the appellant's mother-in-law's residence. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the documents referred to the appellant's wife. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no evidence to support the addition.

7. Undisclosed Investment in a Plot at Dabua Pali Road:
The AO added Rs. 1,00,000/- based on a power of attorney document. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the lack of evidence linking the appellant to the investment. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no justification for the addition.

8. Undisclosed Investment in a Plot Near Hotel Gazal:
The AO added Rs. 21,00,000/- based on a statement from Mr. Narinder Malhotra. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the lack of evidence and confrontation with the appellant. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no justification for the addition.

9. Undisclosed Investment in Property No. 1D/14B, NIT, Faridabad:
The AO added Rs. 10,70,000/- based on a sale deed. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the sale deed did not support the AO's conclusion. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no evidence to support the addition.

10. Undisclosed Investment in a Plot at Mujesar Phatak:
The AO added Rs. 6,66,666/- based on a statement from Mr. Narinder Malhotra. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the lack of evidence and confrontation with the appellant. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no justification for the addition.

11. Undisclosed Investment in Shops at Badhkal Road:
The AO added Rs. 8,00,000/- based on a statement from Mr. Narinder Malhotra. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the lack of evidence and confrontation with the appellant. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no justification for the addition.

12. Undisclosed Investment in the Purchase of a Maruti Zen Car:
The AO added Rs. 3,35,928/- based on the car being found at the appellant's residence. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the car was registered to Mr. Gulshan Bhatia and financed by M/s BTL Investments Ltd. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no justification for the addition.

13. Undisclosed Investment in the Film "Hamara Kanoon":
The AO added Rs. 25,00,000/- based on estimated expenses. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the lack of evidence. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no justification for the addition.

14. Undisclosed Deposits in a Bank Account in the Name of Sh. Ashok Kumar:
The AO added Rs. 8,56,931/- based on the cheque book found at the appellant's residence. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the lack of evidence linking the account to the appellant. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no justification for the addition.

15. Undisclosed Income from the Repair of Electronic Goods and Interest Income on Goods Sold on Credit:
The AO added Rs. 3,36,749/- based on documents A-14 and A-17. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the documents did not support the AO's conclusion. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no justification for the addition.

16. Undisclosed Income from the Lucky Car Draw Scheme:
The AO added Rs. 1,07,89,800/- based on documents A-4 and A-5 and statements from third parties. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the lack of evidence and the similarity to the case of the appellant's brother, where the Tribunal had dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no justification for the addition.

17. Undisclosed Commission Income from the Auction of Chit Business:
The AO added Rs. 7,87,000/- based on documents A-4 and A-5 and statements from third parties. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the lack of evidence and the similarity to the case of the appellant's brother, where the Tribunal had dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no justification for the addition.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, and the revenue's appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

← Previous Next →