9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 1224 - AT - Income TaxAssessment framed u/s 158BC - Deposits made in the bank accounts against sale of shares - HELD THAT - We have already upheld the addition of Rs. 38,099/- and also are in conformity with the order of CIT (Appeals) with regard to Rs. 30,000/-. The addition of Rs. 33,000/- in the hands of the assessee is also justified in the absence of any proof being filed by the assessee with regard to the availability of the cash in hand. In addition to the three additions upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we further uphold the addition relatable to the deposits made in the bank accounts against sale of shares totaling Rs. 141,667/-. In view thereof, we partly allow the ground of appeal No. 1 raised by the revenue. Cash deposits in the bank account which was claimed to be out of tuition fee - HELD THAT - By rejecting the plea of the assessee that it had made cash withdrawals on earlier dates and the said cash was available with the assessee. Consequently, ground Nos. 3, 4 and 5 raised by the assessee are dismissed. Unexplained investment in the property - HELD THAT - The assessee claimed that regarding its income for the year 1996-97 was more than its outgoing and in view of the assessee having spent Rs. 56,302/- against bills on various dates, no addition was made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). We are in conformity with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in this regard specially after the verification exercise carried out by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) during the appellate proceedings. Upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) we dismiss ground No. 2 raised by the revenue. Unexplained investment of FDR in the name of the wife of the assessee - HELD THAT - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the plea of the assessee in view of the said withdrawals which had been verified by the Assessing Officer and also in view of the approximate income of Rs. 75,000/- from different sources being available with the assessee. The ld. DR for the revenue has failed to controvert the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and in view thereof, we find no merit in ground No. 3 raised by the revenue. Unexplained investment in the purchase of household items - HELD THAT - Addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as approximately Rs. 70,000/- for the purchase of various items was paid through cheques and balance amount was held to be out of the known sources of income. We find no merit in ground No. 4 raised by the revenue in this regard in view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances and same is dismissed. Investment in purchase of cars - HELD THAT - In Remand proceedings, remand report was called for and the Assessing Officer accepted the payment of Rs. 107,109/- paid towards the purchase of Maruti car and the said investment was treated as explained. With regard to the second Maruti car, it was noted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the new car was purchased on 11.09.1996 and the old car was sold on 08.12.1996 hence, the new car being purchased before the sale of the old car, does not justify the claim of the assessee and an addition of Rs. 77,153/- was upheld in this regard. In the totality of the facts and circumstances and in view of the remand report, we find no merit in the ground of appeal No. 5 raised by the revenue and the same is dismissed. We also find no merit in the issue raised by the assessee vide ground No. 6 where the old car was sold later than the date of purchase of the new car and consequently, the said sale proceeds of old car not being available with the assessee, the claim in this regard was not justified. We uphold the addition of Rs. 77,153/- and dismiss ground No. 6 raised by the assessee. Investment in purchase of jewellery - HELD THAT - The assessee had purchased an item of jewellery from the jewellery and the Assessing Officer had made the addition in the absence of any explanation of sources of investment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition because of the salary drawn by the assessee. In the entirety of the abovesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in ground No. 6 raised by the revenue. Unexplained investment in plot - HELD THAT - In the absence of any details, the cost of acquisition of the plot was taken at 'nil' by the Assessing Officer and the entire sale consideration was treated as income from capital gains. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that in the remand proceedings vis- -vis the various bank deposits, the Assessing Officer has noted that Rs. 30,000/- had come from sale proceeds of the above land which was purchased in the year ending 31.3.1987. The loss on the sale of the plot was claimed at Rs. 5,000/- as the assessee had shown the cost at Rs. 35,000/-. In view thereof, the addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). We find no error in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and upholding the same, we dismiss ground No. 7. Addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of a hand written document found during the course of search which reflected that the assessee had sold property - HELD THAT - Where the document was found from the possession of the assessee, the presumption is that the said document belongs to the assessee and the onus is upon the assessee to explain the nature of the document. In the instant case, the hand written document found from the possession of the assessee was claimed to be a dumb document as no proof of the property or date of the transaction was mentioned in said property - no evidence was found by the Department to establish its case of transfer of remittance of Rs. 10 lacs to London. In the absence of any corroborative evidence found to establish that the assessee as owner of any property, had sold the said property or his share in property for a sum no addition on the basis of such document, which clearly is a dumb document, could be made in the hands of the assessee. Upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we dismiss the ground of appeal No. 8 raised by the revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of various bank deposits. 2. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained investment in property. 3. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained investment of FDR purchased by the wife of the assessee. 4. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained investment in purchase of household items. 5. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained investment in purchase of Maruti Car. 6. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained investment in purchase of jewelry. 7. Deletion of addition of capital gain on sale of plot. 8. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained investment in property. 9. Treatment of deposits in the hands of the assessee's wife as the income of the assessee. 10. Sustaining additions related to bank deposits in the name of the assessee's wife. 11. Sustaining addition on account of deposits in bank accounts. 12. Sustaining addition on account of unexplained investment in the purchase of a car. 13. Charging of interest under section 158BFA(1)(a) of the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Various Bank Deposits: The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 35,56,533/- made on account of various bank deposits from F.Y. 1990-91 to 1997-98. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) had verified the entries and found many of them to be explained. However, for certain entries, the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence, resulting in partial additions being upheld. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow partial credit for past savings but confirmed the addition of Rs. 38,099/- as income from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal also reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 1,41,667/- related to the sale of shares due to lack of evidence. 2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment in Property: The revenue disputed the deletion of Rs. 56,302/- related to unexplained investment in property. The CIT(A) found that the entries were verified and accepted by the Assessing Officer during remand proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the verification exercise supported the deletion. 3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment of FDR Purchased by the Wife of the Assessee: The revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 50,000/- for an FDR purchased by the assessee's wife. The CIT(A) accepted the explanation that the FDR was funded by withdrawals verified by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. 4. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment in Purchase of Household Items: The revenue appealed against the deletion of Rs. 26,895/- related to household items. The CIT(A) noted that most payments were made through cheques and the remaining amount was from known sources. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's ground. 5. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment in Purchase of Maruti Car: The revenue and the assessee both appealed concerning the purchase of Maruti cars. The CIT(A) accepted the source of funds for one car but upheld the addition for the second car due to the timing of the sale of the old car. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's and assessee's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions. 6. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment in Purchase of Jewelry: The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 14,000/- for jewelry purchases. The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the salary drawn by the assessee. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. 7. Deletion of Addition of Capital Gain on Sale of Plot: The revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 30,000/- related to the sale of a plot. The CIT(A) found that the sale proceeds were verified during remand proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's ground. 8. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment in Property: The revenue appealed against the deletion of Rs. 21,60,000/- related to a handwritten document found during the search. The CIT(A) found no supportive evidence to prove the sale of property. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the document was a "dumb document" with no corroborative evidence. 9. Treatment of Deposits in the Hands of the Assessee's Wife as the Income of the Assessee: The assessee argued that the deposits in the hands of his wife should not be included as his income. The CIT(A) allowed partial credit for the wife's savings but upheld some additions due to lack of evidence of independent income. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's plea and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. 10. Sustaining Additions Related to Bank Deposits in the Name of the Assessee's Wife: The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 38,099/- related to deposits in his wife's bank account. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to consider 50% of the amount as income from undisclosed sources. 11. Sustaining Addition on Account of Deposits in Bank Accounts: The assessee appealed against the addition of Rs. 30,000/- related to deposits claimed to be from tuition income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision due to lack of evidence. 12. Sustaining Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment in the Purchase of a Car: The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 33,000/- related to deposits in bank accounts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision due to lack of proof of cash availability. 13. Charging of Interest under Section 158BFA(1)(a) of the Act: The assessee contested the charging of interest under section 158BFA(1)(a). The Tribunal found the issue to be consequential and dismissed the ground. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of both the revenue and the assessee, upholding some additions while deleting others based on the evidence and explanations provided. The decision emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with adequate evidence and the role of remand proceedings in verifying such claims.
|
