2009 (4) TMI 470 - AT - Income Tax

Search and Seizure cash - assessee filed block return under Form No. 2B disclosing undisclosed income - AO has passed the assessment order - it is submitted by the assessee that his mother and father are residing separately in Churu. Therefore the expenditure on their maintenance is not to be added in his income - three daughters having been majors and having their own sources of income the assessee is not spending anything for their maintenance - maintenance which is met by the assessee is only on himself and his wife - Departmental authorities are not able to bring out any contrary material on record Department directed to delete the addition by allowing the issues raised by the assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition of cash found in the common bedroom of major daughters.
2. Sustenance of addition on account of expenditure incurred on Grah Parvesh ceremony.
3. Sustenance of addition on account of low household withdrawals.
4. Charging of interest under s. 158BFA(1) of the Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Confirmation of addition of cash found in the common bedroom of major daughters
The major daughters of the assessee had been filing their returns for income earned by them prior to the search, explaining the possession of the cash seized. Both the AO and the CIT(A) failed to provide any material contradicting the daughters' statements. As the daughters were separately assessed to income tax before the search, the addition of cash in the assessee's hands was deemed unjustified and was deleted.

Issue 2: Sustenance of addition on account of expenditure incurred on Grah Parvesh ceremony
The assessee had disclosed details of a land purchase and subsequent expenditure during assessment proceedings. The amount spent on the ceremony was shown to be part of funds received from a land purchase cancellation agreement. The authorities could not refute these details with any contrary material. Consequently, the sustained addition for the ceremony expenditure was deemed unjustified and was directed to be deleted.

Issue 3: Sustenance of addition on account of low household withdrawals
The assessee argued that maintenance expenses for his parents and daughters were not his responsibility as they resided separately and had their own income sources. The authorities failed to present any contradictory evidence. Therefore, the addition for low household withdrawals was considered speculative and not legally sustainable, leading to its deletion.

Issue 4: Charging of interest under s. 158BFA(1) of the Act
The judgment directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate the interest under s. 158BFA(1) of the Act after implementing the order's appeal effect. This issue was deemed consequential and required further action by the AO.

In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was partially allowed based on the analysis and decisions made on the various issues raised during the proceedings.