9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unexplained investment. 2. Addition on account of undisclosed household expenses. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unexplained investment: The case revolves around a search conducted on 20th Dec., 2002, in the premises of the Singhvi group of Jodhpur, which led to the seizure of various incriminating evidences. A loose paper marked No. 1 of Annex. A-1 was found at the residence of the assessee, revealing certain sale transactions in coded language. The assessee agreed to purchase three plots for a total consideration of Rs. 2.05 crores, with the stamp duty and registration fees to be borne by the sellers. The AO interpreted the symbols (+) and (-) on the seized paper as representing payments by cheque and cash, respectively. Consequently, the AO concluded that the assessee paid Rs. 174.25 lakhs by cheque and Rs. 30.75 lakhs in cash. The AO added Rs. 10.75 lakhs under Section 69 of the Act, considering it an unexplained investment. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's view, agreeing that the signs (+) and (-) indicated payments by cheque and cash, respectively. The assessee contested this addition, arguing that the (-) sign represented registration charges, not cash payments. Upon hearing the rival submissions, the tribunal scrutinized the seized paper and found no dispute regarding the total sale consideration of Rs. 2.05 crores. The tribunal noted that the registration charges were to be borne by the sellers, as corroborated by the affidavit of Shri Shyam Aggarwal, the power of attorney of the seller. The tribunal emphasized that in a block assessment, additions can only be made based on seized material/evidence, not on probabilities or presumptions. The tribunal observed that there was no direct evidence of the payment of Rs. 9.50 lakhs in cash on 11th Nov., 2002. The statement of Shri Shyam Aggarwal and his affidavit supported the assessee's claim. The tribunal concluded that the addition was based on mere suspicion and not on concrete evidence. Therefore, the tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 10.75 lakhs from the total undisclosed income of the assessee. 2. Addition on account of undisclosed household expenses: The AO estimated the household expenses of the assessee's family, consisting of nine members, based on the statement of the assessee during the search. The AO recorded a statement from Smt. Rohini Singhvi, the daughter-in-law of the assessee, indicating a foreign trip for honeymoon. The AO estimated the household expenses for the block period, resulting in an addition of Rs. 5,96,280, which was sustained by the CIT(A). The tribunal heard the rival submissions and noted that the AO himself had estimated the household expenses ranging between Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 30,000 per month for different assessment years. The tribunal found that the addition was not based on seized material but on estimations. The tribunal emphasized that household expenses cannot be estimated based on general statements or the presence of modern amenities in the house. The tribunal observed that the foreign trip expenses were recorded in the books. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that no addition on account of undisclosed household expenses was warranted in the block assessment. The tribunal deleted the entire addition of Rs. 5,96,280. Conclusion: The tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the additions made under Section 69 for unexplained investment and on account of undisclosed household expenses. Ground Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 were dismissed as they were either not pressed or general in nature.
|
