9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of S.K. Gupta. The gift was made by the father of S.K. Gupta for the benefit of his HUF and the amount was utilised in petty business of Khaddar in different years. The AO for the reasons recorded in the assessment order, rejected the explanation of the assessee added the entire amount shown for both the assessment years in question in the individual hands of S.K. Gupta treating the same as his undisclosed income. He, however, completed the assessments in the hands of the assessee-HUF on protective basis at the income disclosed in the returns. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO aggrieved against the order of the CIT(A) the assessee is now in second appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The authorised representative of the assessee reiterated the submissions as made before the authorities below. He further submitted that returns for earlier years 1985-86 to 1987-88 in the status of HUF were filed under the Amnesty Scheme and the same were completed by the AO as returned by the assessee and no action under s. 263 or 148 has been taken thereagainst and as such the assessments for the said years stand accepted by the Department and the AO, therefore, was unjustified in disb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee on the ground that the assessee failed to prove the nucleus of HUF by placing material evidence on record and that the income disclosed in the status of HUF virtually was the undisclosed income of the individual. Accordingly the AO added the income in the hands of the individual and made assessment of income disclosed in the hands of HUF on protective basis. Admittedly the addition of Rs. 12,220 made by the AO in the hands of the individual for asst. yr. 1988-89 has been deleted by the CIT(A) vide his order, dt.17th Jan., 1991, on the ground that like addition had been confirmed in the case of firm S.K. Gupta Co. We also find that in the case of the firm for asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1988-89 the Tribunal vide its order, dt.21st April, 1998, has quashed the assessment orders. It will, therefore, be presumed that at present there is no substantive assessment of the amount disclosed by the assessee in the status of HUF and for the purpose the consequential effect of the Tribunal s order, dt.21st April, 1998, in firm s case for asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1988-89 is to be considered. Accordingly, order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO with the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) reduced the addition for low household withdrawal to Rs. 6,000, by observing that addition of Rs. 15,000 was also made in the case of firm S.K. Gupta Co. to cover inadequate drawing of partners. Giving credit of Rs. 15,000 added in the firm s hand, the CIT(A) reduced the addition to Rs. 6,000. Looking to the size of the assessee s family and also taking into consideration the fact that no house-rent was being paid and the children were studying in local Hindi medium schools, in our considered opinion there was no justification to uphold the addition of Rs. 6,000, on account of low household withdrawals. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 6,000 sustained by the CIT(A) is quashed. 11. Ground Nos. 3 to 6 raised by the assessee are as under: "3. That the learned CIT(A) has further erred in not appreciating the submissions made by the assessee with regard to an addition of Rs. 35,813 on account of alleged unexplained investment in the construction of building on the plot at Shibbanpura made on protective basis in the hands of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the said addition as unjustifiably made instead of deleting the same on altogether irrelevant grounds. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eved in any manner. Accordingly, ground Nos. 3 to 6 raised by the assessee have become infructuous and the same stand dismissed as such. 14. Ground No. 7 raised by the assessee is as under: "That the learned CIT(A) has further erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 19,943 being the income claimed to be belonging to assessee s wife. The submissions made and evidence produced by the assessee have arbitrarily been rejected. No valid reason or basis has been given while upholding the aforesaid addition." 15. The authorised representative of the assessee contended before us that the CIT(A) has wrongly sustained the addition of Rs. 19,943 representing income of assessee s wife Smt. Pushpa Gupta holding that the house property in her name as well as income therefrom was assessable in the appellant s hands. He contended that the house property belonged to the wife of applicant Smt. Pushpa Gupta and the same was accepted by the Department in asst. yr. 1992-93 when the assessment was framed under s. 143(3) vide order, dt.18th Oct., 1994. The case was selected for scrutiny and after detailed enquiry the Department accepted the return of Rs. 22,080 as income from house property. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts in different years or in different hands. In view of these facts the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition in the hands of the assessee. The addition is accordingly deleted. 18. Ground Nos. 8 and 9 raised by the assessee are as under: "8. That likewise the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 55,000 being the amount appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee s wife representing loans in the names of various persons. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that there was no material on record which indicated that the said amount represented the alleged undisclosed income of the assessee. 9. That in doing so, the reliance placed on the statements recorded at the time of search is totally uncalled for. The reasons given for upholding the aforesaid addition are insufficient to lead to a conclusion that the said amount represented the undisclosed income of the assessee." 19. The learned counsel contended that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the material evidence on record which fully established that the said amount did not represent the undisclosed income of the assessee. He contended that the assessee has fully established his cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has simply agreed with the finding of the AO without recording reasons and in this way the finding of the CIT(A) is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) on the issue in question is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO to adjudicate the issue in question afresh in the light of our observation above and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Order accordingly. 22. Ground No. 10 raised in this appeal is as under: "That the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,10,000 being the alleged unexplained credit in the bank account of the assessee s mother, on the ground that similar addition has been upheld in the case of the firm. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the said amount stood explained in the hands of the assessee s mother and no addition is called for either in the hands of the appellant or the firm." 22.1 The aforesaid ground was not pressed on behalf of the assessee at the hearing. Accordingly, ground No. 10 is rejected as not pressed for. 23. Ground Nos. 11 to 13 raised in this appeal are as under: "11. That the learned CIT(A) has further erred in merely resto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
