9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition for alleged purchase of jewelry. 2. Addition for unexplained cash found during the search. 3. Levy of surcharge on the assessed tax. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Addition for Alleged Purchase of Jewelry The assessee's appeal contested the addition of Rs. 97,077 for the alleged purchase of jewelry. The AO based the addition on documents found during the search, which the assessee claimed did not belong to him. The AO made specific additions of Rs. 24,303, Rs. 21,466, Rs. 43,753, and Rs. 7,575 based on loose sheets found during the search. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's additions, stating that the documents were found in the assessee's premises, and the general explanation that the documents did not belong to him was insufficient. The CIT(A) did not accept the argument that these documents could be linked to other family members or were mere estimates. The Tribunal's Judicial Member (JM) disagreed with the CIT(A), stating that the documents were "dumb" and did not conclusively prove the purchase of jewelry by the assessee. The JM noted that the premises were jointly occupied by multiple family members, and the documents did not specify dates or the nature of transactions. However, the Accountant Member (AM) held that the documents had a clear nexus with the assessee and represented actual purchases. The AM emphasized that the presumption under s. 132(4A) was not rebutted by the assessee. The Third Member (TM) concluded that the documents could not be considered mere estimates and upheld the addition, citing that the documents were found in the assessee's premises and the assessee failed to rebut the presumption under s. 69A. Issue 2: Addition for Unexplained Cash Found During the Search The AO added Rs. 12,79,620 as unexplained cash found during the search. The assessee explained that the cash belonged to different family members and was supported by business cash balances. The AO rejected this explanation, citing discrepancies and the lack of original cash books during the search. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition, noting that the books of accounts were not reliable and were prepared after the search based on loose papers. The JM found that the assessee's explanation was consistent and supported by evidence, including statements from family members and business records. The JM noted that the AO had accepted the books of accounts in related assessments and that the Department failed to prove the books were unreliable. The AM, however, emphasized that the books were prepared after the search and were not audited. The AM suggested that the matter required further verification. The TM agreed with the AM, stating that the authenticity of the books needed verification and set aside the issue for further examination by the AO. Issue 3: Levy of Surcharge on the Assessed Tax The assessee raised an additional ground challenging the levy of surcharge on the assessed tax, arguing it was against the law as the relevant sections were amended only from 1st June 2002, while the search was conducted on 16th Feb 2000. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground and allowed it, citing that the surcharge could not be levied retrospectively. Conclusion: 1. The addition of Rs. 97,077 for the alleged purchase of jewelry was upheld. 2. The issue of unexplained cash of Rs. 12,79,620 was set aside for further verification by the AO. 3. The levy of surcharge on the assessed tax was deemed illegal and was deleted.
|
