9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 53,992 representing undisclosed income of the assessee shown in the wife's hands. 2. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 7,955 representing undisclosed income of the assessee shown in the hands of minor son. 3. Addition of Rs. 5 lacs to cover up unaccounted investment in trading of explosives, unaccounted cash, household articles, and entries rotated by the assessee in the names of his wife and son. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 53,992 representing undisclosed income of the assessee shown in the wife's hands: The Revenue disputed the deletion of Rs. 53,992, arguing that the assessee's wife had no independent source of income as per her statement under Section 132(4). The Departmental Representative emphasized her lack of knowledge about any properties or income sources. Conversely, the assessee's representative argued that the wife was a regular income-tax and wealth-tax assessee, with her capital and income being regularly assessed. The Tribunal noted that the wife had been assessed independently since 1981-82 and that the income in question was already taxed in her hands. It held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was justified, as the income could not be taxed twice or in the hands of more than one person. 2. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 7,955 representing undisclosed income of the assessee shown in the hands of minor son: Similar to the first issue, the Revenue contended that the minor son had no independent source of income. The assessee's representative maintained that the son was also a regular assessee since 1981-82, with his capital and income being assessed separately. The Tribunal found that the son's income had been regularly assessed in his own name and that the Department had not previously clubbed his income with the assessee's. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld. 3. Addition of Rs. 5 lacs to cover up unaccounted investment in trading of explosives, unaccounted cash, household articles, and entries rotated by the assessee in the names of his wife and son: The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 5 lacs based on three credit bills found during the search, which were not entered in the books. The assessee argued these were credit purchases and not indicative of unaccounted investment. The Tribunal noted that the AO had made the addition considering the unaccounted sale of explosives worth Rs. 2 lacs and other discrepancies in the assessee's statements and records. The Tribunal partially agreed with the AO but found the entire addition of Rs. 5 lacs excessive. It sustained an addition of Rs. 3,08,000, considering the evidence on record and the nature of the statements made during the search. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletions of Rs. 53,992 and Rs. 7,955. It partly allowed the assessee's appeal, reducing the addition of Rs. 5 lacs to Rs. 3,08,000. The Tribunal emphasized that an income cannot be taxed twice and that statements made during searches should be cautiously evaluated, considering the circumstances under which they were made.
|
