9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assignment Ltd. against which the appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That the impugned order re-determining total undisclosed income of the appellant at Rs. 19,73,079 and consequent determination of total tax liability of Rs. 11,83,848 suffers from grave illegal infirmities and errors in as much as determinations and additions made towards the undisclosed income of the appellant are founded on illegal, unauthorised and factually incorrect grounds, not sustainable in law and on the facts of the case. 2.1 That the learned AO acted without authority of law and without jurisdiction in assessing the peak amount of Rs. 1,55,669 as undisclosed income of the appellant, out of the deposits of Rs. 21,31,738 appearing in her bank account in Benaras State Bank Ltd. in different asst. yrs. 1992-93 to 1996-97 (already disclosed prior to the date of search), on grounds not factually correct and not legally sustainable. 2.2 The allegation of the learned AO that there was a seizure of the bank pass book of the appellant s above account was factually wrong and is not borne out by the seized material, and hence the impugned addition cannot be sustainable in law. 3.1 Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des a paper book copies whereof were duly given to the learned Departmental Representative. Both the parties were heard at great length. 6. The learned counsels took us through copy of the said bank account placed at pp. 74-106 for the block period 1st April, 1986 to 19th April, 1996, and that such bank account stood duly recorded in her books of accounts year after year which duly find place in the balance sheet of all the years covered by the block period as per copies placed at pp. 166-178 by highlighting the above bank account in the said balance sheets. According to the learned counsel, explanations of each entries in the bank account was also filed as per details placed at pp. 107-165 of the paper book and we were also taken through the letter dt.29th March, 2001, along with copy of cash book for the block period as filed before AO copies of which are placed at pp. 188 to 225 of the paper book. The learned counsel clarified that in fact the bank account of the appellant was not seized during search as is evident from Panchnama copy placed at pp. 180-183 and the observations of the AO to the contrary are incorrect. It is vehemently argued that when the AO himself concedes in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direct the AO to examine the sources of bank deposits and for that purpose will allow reasonable opportunity to the appellant to file necessary evidences to support her claim. For statistical purposes, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 9. The only other ground is against the addition of Rs. 18,17,410 being the difference between the actual sales consideration of Rs. 10 per share for purchase of Rs. 2,59,630 shares of M/s Alankit Assignment Ltd. during the financial year 1995-96 and the sales consideration of Rs. 3 appearing in the seized transfer deeds. The AO has discussed this issue in paras 7 to 12 at pp. 4-5 of the assessment order by giving details in para 8 of the assessment order and by rejecting the submissions of the appellant as made vide letter dt.25th Jan., 2001before the AO. The AO has further observed that it is a closely held company, managed by the husband of the assessee and shares were allotted to the shareholders in the year 1991-92 @ Rs. 10 per share and the appellant had shown transfer of these shares @ Rs. 3 per share as on 1st June, 1995, as per the seized transfer deeds. The AO has assumed that the appellant must have made the payment at the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of unpaid purchase price of share @ Rs. 10 per share. 13. Therefore, the aforesaid observations of AO is not correct on facts. 14. Copy of confirmation alongwith relevant supporting documents namely copies of their assessment order/balance sheet as on 31st March, 1996 and 31st March, 2000, placed at page Nos. 34 to 71 which prove the appellant s case, also filed alongwith letter dt.8th March, 2001, page Nos. 32 and 33 which remain uncontroverted and disproved by the AO. All such overwhelming evidence conclusively proves that no payment had been made to any of the parties on or before1st June, 1995, as assumed by the AO and even till the date of search i.e.,19th April, 1996. 15. Mentioning of Rs. 3 in the transfer deed was a clerical mistake which once made continued to be made in all the transfer deeds because all the transfer deeds are admittedly of1st June, 1995, which was probable also. 16. When the purchase of shares @ Rs. 10 stood recorded in the account books of the appellant during the financial year 1995-96 which were seized, the AO was not justified in alleging that it was an afterthought. Moreover, the provisions of Chapter XIV-B are also not applicable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of search viz., 19th April, 1996. The AO has been factually wrong in assuming even the payment of Rs. 3 per share. As regards mentioning of Rs. 3 in the transfer deeds which according to the appellant had occurred because the clerk concerned mentioned Rs. 3 in one transfer deed which continued to be made in all the transfer deeds because all the transfer deeds are admittedly of1st June, 1995, appears to be plausible. We also find that the purchase of such shares @ Rs. 10 stand recorded in the account books of the appellant during the financial year 1995-96, which were seized, the AO could not treat the same as an afterthought. The explanation of the appellant that the shares had been purchased by the appellant to increase the shareholding of the promoters viz. the appellant and her husband Sh. Alok Kumar Aggarwal both being promoters of M/s Alankit Assignment Ltd. which was the prerequisite to acquire the NSE membership which was actually acquired in February, 1996, could not be ignored. The most important aspect is that no evidence was found during search nor any evidence had been brought by the AO on record to prove his assumption that the appellant had paid Rs. 18,17,410 whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
