9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this amount was made in the hands of Shri Kamal Narayan Jaiswal and only protective addition has been made in the hands of the assessee. 5. We have considered this issue in the case of Shri Kamal Narayan Jaiswal and in view of our findings therein, the addition made by the AO is deleted. 6. Ground No. 9 related to the addition of Rs. 27,04,539 representing unexplained investments in the FDRs along with accrued interest thereon. 7. As mentioned earlier, the assessee is wife of Shri Kamal Narayan Jaiswal. During the course of search and seizure operation, certain FDRs were found which were in different names. Few FDRs were also in the name of the assessee. In his original order, the AO made certain additions on account of undisclosed investment in these FDRs. 8. On appeal, it was claimed before the Tribunal that there have been double additions on account of FDRs. Certain additions have been made on account of maturity value of the FDRs whereas the additions have been made again on their renewal. The Tribunal considered these facts and vide its order mentioned above, set aside this issue for fresh adjudication. Consequent to the order of the Tribunal, the AO reconsidered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the assessee. The addition made by the AO was, therefore, unwarranted and deserves to be deleted. 12. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the AO. 13. We have considered the rival submissions. During the course of search and seizure operation, certain FDRs were found and seized. A note book which allegedly mentioned certain other FDRs was also found and seized. The value of all these FDRs even which was noted in the note book was also brought to tax by the AO. We have verified all these FDRs and notings in the note book. As mentioned earlier, a trust was created in the name of Indrani Devi Benefit Trust. The beneficiary of the trust as well as managing trustee was the assessee. As per will of deceased, Shri Shiv Prasad Jaiswal, father of the assessee, the investment in various FDRs aggregating Rs. 3,50,000 became the property of the trust. In order to prove the genuineness of the trust, the assessee has produced the witnesses before whom the trust deed was executed. Even the notary was also examined by the AO. As the FDRs which became the property of the trust were not taxed earlier, the same were offered for taxation under VDIS. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Chapter XIV-B can not be made merely on the ground of surmises and doubts. The addition made by the AO in respect of FDR at Sr. No. 3 is, therefore, deleted. 18. FDR at Sr. No. 4 is of Rs. 1,24,727. Similar is the position of this FDR as has been observed in the case of FDR at Sr. No. 3. The addition of this amount is also unwarranted and the same is deleted. 19. The FDR at Sr. No. 5 is of Rs. 1,01,225. This FDR was not found during the course of search. But the noting in the diary seized at the time of search indicated some details of this FDR. It gives the FDR No. 9/152/627820 24th March, 1991 101225 under the head "Central Bank of India, Nagpur". Though the assessee claimed that no such FDR stood in the name of the assessee, we find that specific details about such FDR have been noted in the diary. The assessee could have rebutted the contention of the Department by producing documentary evidence to the effect that the FDR number mentioned above did not really exist or the assessee has no concern with such FDR. That has not been done. At the same time when the specific details of the FDR was available with the AO, he could have got it verified from the bank. This has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not been made, we set aside this issue and restore back to the file of the AO to make investigation of this FDR through the bank. The assessee is also free to file any evidence in support of her claim that no addition of the value of the FDR, if any, to her income was warranted. The AO will take a view on the basis of his investigation. 25. The FDR at Sr. No. 11 is of Rs. 2,960. After verification, we found that the FDR was of Rs. 29,607. This FDR which finds place at Sr. No. 9 has already been considered for taxation. Accordingly, the addition of the same does not arise and the same is deleted. 26. The FDR at Sr. No. 12 is of Rs. 25,586. This FDR was neither found nor seized during the course of search. Even in the note book, except mentioning the figure, no details whatsoever have been mentioned. We, therefore, hold that under Chapter XIV-B, no addition of the value of such alleged FDR was warranted. The addition made by the AO is deleted. 27. The FDR at Sr. No. 13 is of Rs. 1,91,800. The addition has been doubly made. The addition of this FDR has been considered in the hands of Shri Kamal Narayan Jaiswal, the husband of the assessee. As we have considered this FDR in h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 82-83, the question of making any addition on account of undisclosed investment in jewellery does not arise. The copies of computation of wealth were also submitted. The balance jewellery belonged to her married daughter, Smt. Alpana Jaiswal. Looking to the status and customs in Hindu society, the jewellery to this extent could be possessed by any ordinary family. This issue travelled upto the Tribunal who vide its order dt. 22nd Feb., 2000, set aside the issue to AO with certain directions. On reconsideration, the AO treated investment in jewellery weighing 155 gms. as unexplained and added the same to the income of the assessee as undisclosed income. 33. It was argued that the total weight of jewellery was less than 500 gms. There was no dispute that 266 gms. jewellery was declared by her in her WT return. So, the question of any addition on account of such jewellery does not arise. In view of Board s circular where it was prescribed that jewellery worth 500 gms. may not be seized indicates the intention of the Board that even an ordinary family could possess jewellery worth 500 gms. Regarding undisclosed investment in silver ornaments, the AO on reconsideration treated investm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
