2012 (6) TMI 346 - AT - Income Tax

Block assessment - Whether Assessing Officer has erred in law in making addition in respect of marriage expenditure of daughter of the Appellant though no evidence in respect of incurring such expenditure was found during the search Held that - expenditure have never been recorded in the books of account of the assessee. - no bills of those expenditure have been obtained by the assessee. - statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act was an evidence by itself. - It is also not the case of the assessee that some of the marriage expenses were incurred and rest were an ad hoc estimation. Rather, this is the case where no expenditure at all was found recorded, but the event of marriage was accepted. ground of the assessee dismissed. Whether Assessing Officer has erred in law in making addition by way of investment in the shares Held that - some of the investments in shares were entered in the books of account, however, in respect of some of the investment in the name of four family members, there was no entry in the books of account. clauses of retraction do not cover at all the impugned addition of Rs. 2 lakhs. This is also not the case of the assessee that no shares at all in the name of those four persons were ever purchased Revenue Department had no option but to assess the amount which was offered by the assessee himself. We find no fallacy in the said addition of Rs. 2 lakhs. ground dismissed Whether Assessing Officer has erred in law in making addition of Rs. 45,000/- by way of unexplained household expenditure though no evidence of incurring such expenditure was found during the search Held that - there was an investment of Rs. 45,000/- in marble. Once an investment was witnessed by the Search Party and the assessee had not furnished any source of the said investment then a deponent must not be excused of his own offer. no supporting evidence either about the source or about the non-existence of the said asset was placed from the side of the assessee, addition is hereby affirmed and this ground of the assessee is dismissed Whether Assessing Officer has erred in law in making addition by way of investment in NSC for the block period 01/04/1995 to 12/12/1995 though no evidence in respect of such investment from undisclosed source was found during the period search Held that - the AO was justified in granting the relief in respect of the encashment amount of NSC and the balance amount was rightly taxed in the block assessment, admittedly which remained unexplained. ground is dismissed. Payment of on money towards purchase of flats - held that - presence of flats was a glaring and apparent evidence of presence of immovable asset which was found unrecorded in the books of account of the assessee. - He (assessee) was very specific about the mode and the manner of payments made i.e. a portion through cheques and rest portion of payment made in cash. This is not the case of the assessee that those flats did not exist at all or did not belong to the assessee. The existence of both the flats were not denied and it was accepted that in addition to the payment through cheques some amount was paid in cash which was admittedly not recorded in the books of account. Under those circumstances, when the declaration was specific and no ambiguity was left while making the said declaration, the AO had no option but to assess the same as undisclosed income. - Decided against the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,30,700/- for marriage expenditure.
2. Addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- for investment in shares.
3. Addition of Rs. 45,000/- for unexplained household expenditure.
4. Addition of Rs. 20,000/- for investment in NSC.
5. Addition of Rs. 2,90,000/- for on-money payment for a flat and Rs. 1,25,000/- for unaccounted investment in furniture.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 1,30,700/- for Marriage Expenditure:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 1,30,700/- for marriage expenditure of his daughter, arguing that no evidence was found during the search. However, during the search, a statement under section 132(4) of the I.T. Act was recorded where the assessee detailed the marriage expenses, which were not recorded in the books of account. The Tribunal noted that the retraction of the statement was made after nine and a half months and was general in nature without any specific evidence to support the claim of coercion or incorrectness. The Tribunal held that the statement recorded under section 132(4) is sufficient evidence and confirmed the addition.

2. Addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- for Investment in Shares:
The assessee argued that the investment in shares was not made in his name and some of the persons were assessed to income-tax. However, the statement recorded under section 132(4) revealed that Rs. 2,00,000/- invested in shares in the names of family members was not recorded in the books of account. The retraction did not specifically cover this amount, and no evidence was provided to support the claim of coercion. The Tribunal confirmed the addition, noting that the statement was specific and the retraction was not substantiated.

3. Addition of Rs. 45,000/- for Unexplained Household Expenditure:
The assessee accepted in his statement that household expenditure was incurred but argued that no evidence was found during the search. The Tribunal noted that the investment in marble was witnessed by the search party and the assessee did not furnish any source for this investment. As no supporting evidence was provided, the Tribunal affirmed the addition.

4. Addition of Rs. 20,000/- for Investment in NSC:
The assessee explained that part of the cash found during the search was from encashment of NSC taken during the A.Y. 1989-90, which was accepted by the AO. However, the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- remained unexplained. The Tribunal confirmed the addition, noting that the statement recorded under section 132(4) was specific and the explanation provided was not sufficient.

5. Addition of Rs. 2,90,000/- for On-Money Payment for a Flat and Rs. 1,25,000/- for Unaccounted Investment in Furniture:
The assessee admitted in his statement about the on-money payment for the purchase of flats and unaccounted investment in furniture. The Tribunal noted that the flats were physical evidence found during the search and the statement recorded under section 132(4) was specific about the mode and manner of payments. The Tribunal rejected the retraction as general and vague, confirming the addition of on-money and unaccounted investment in furniture.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, confirming all the additions made by the AO based on the statements recorded under section 132(4) of the I.T. Act and the lack of substantiated retraction or evidence to the contrary.

← Previous Next →