9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 500 gms. On being called upon to explain the source of investment in gold jewellery, it was stated by the assessee that it belonged to his wife Smt. Kusum Kamra which was received by her at the time of marriage in 1967 from her parents and parents-in-law and also at the time of ceremonial occasions like, birth of son, etc. It was also submitted that part of the jewellery belonged to the wife of Shri Vijay Munjal who was brother of assessee's wife. The reason for keeping the jewellery in the locker by the wife of Shri Vijay Kumar Munjal was also explained. The AO treated gold jewellery of 698.700 gms. as explained and balance gold jewellery of 314.800 gms. was treated as acquired out of undisclosed income of the assessee. As a result of that an addition of Rs. 1,44,808 was made. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the fact that the locker was in the name of Smt. Kusum Kamra, wife of the assessee, who was separately assessed to tax and she had duly stated in her statement that the jewellery belonged to her and her bhabhi. It was clearly stated that her husband had nothing to do with her jewellery. 4. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioning the contents, which have been extracted above, there is not even an iota of evidence to suggest that these represented the loans made by the assessee to the persons named in this page. An important aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that it is a case of search and if such entries had represented the giving of loans by the assessee, as is opined by the AO, there would have been some other material found in the search to correlate the advancing of the loan to these persons outside the books of account. In the absence of any such material placed on record, we are not inclined to disturb the finding of the first appellate authority. Moreover, it is found that the assessee had disowned the paper throughout the proceedings and the said paper was neither found in the possession of the assessee. It is also not the case of the AO that the said paper was recovered from the almirah, etc. of the assessee kept at his office. In view of these facts, we uphold the impugned order on this count. This ground is, therefore, not allowed. 8. Last revised ground of Revenue's appeal and first ground of assessee's cross-objection deal with the addition on account of marriage expenses of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the paper. He, therefore, treated the investment of Rs. 51,400 in the purchase of jewellery amounting to Rs. 98,965. Page 39 On this page the details of sarees were mentioned as per which the assessee had purchased five sarees for Rs. 15,000 and eight sarees of Rs. 7,000 to which Rs. 1,000 debit of earlier bill was added and thus total amount was shown at Rs. 23,000. The assessee considered the expenditure of Rs. 8,000 in respect of this page. It was explained that five sarees of Rs. 15,000 were not purchased. The AO did not accept this explanation for the reason that there was nothing mentioned on this page regarding the return or no purchase of five sarees for Rs. 15,000. He, therefore, considered Rs. 23,000 in the total expenditure of Rs. 53,965 for the purchase of sarees. After considering all these details the AO worked out the headwise expenditure as under: ---------------------------------------------------- Rs. Rs. ----------------------- (i) Jewellery 98,965 [including expenditure mentioned on pp. 34 and 35 as discussed above] (ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ------------- (i) Drawings from Sriganganagar Rs. 26,000 Urban Co-operative Bank on 2-5-1994 (ii) Drawings from Sriganganagar Rs. 1,05,000 Urban Co-operative Bank on 17-10-1994 (iii) Drawings from Sriganganagar Rs. 1,000 Urban Co-operative Bank on 24-11-1994 (iv) Receipt of sagan from near Rs. 60,600 relatives as per details furnished (v) Receipt of sagan from other Rs. 32,000 relatives and friends [Actual Rs. 32,111] --------------- Rs. 2,24,600 ---------------------------------------------------- The AO did not accept the utilization of Rs. 26,000 on marriage as the name of Shri Kundan Lal was shown as the receiver of the amount from the bank. It was explained by the assessee that Shri Kundan Lal was an employee of M/s Bharat Enterprises, a family concern of the assessee and he, being the accountant, used to handle bank deposits and withdrawals of cash and cheques, etc. The AO did not accept this explanation. He, therefore, determined the amount available with the assessee for the marria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s relatable to marriage expenses. In such circumstances, it is found that the addition made by the AO is not only in the realm of estimates but the actual papers found in the course of search and survey coupled with the making of estimates on the strength of such incriminating papers. Turning to the merits of the addition, we find that the learned CIT(A) has discussed all the items one by one and gave sufficient reasons for their acceptance or otherwise. The learned Authorised Representative failed to convince us on allowing any further relief on the additions sustained by the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order and the order passed in rectification, thereby setting right the calculation mistake etc. In the same manner, the learned Departmental Representative also could not explain as to on what basis the view taken by the learned CIT(A) be disturbed. The learned CIT(A) has elaborately discussed separately the contents of pp. 34, 35 and 39 with which we are fully agreeable. The benefit of Rs. 2,24,600, as claimed by the assessee, being the source of investment, has also been fully accepted as the AO had no reason to dispute the withdrawal of Rs. 26,000 made by Shri Kundan Lal, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticed that contract note of sale of shares was not executed as the assessee expressed his inability to deliver the shares to Shri Ranpartap. Further, in his statement before the AO, Shri Ranpartap stated that he had made payments for all the purchases through his bank account. Since the assessee failed to produce any evidence to show that the assessee had received Rs. 9,955 on account of shares through any of his bank accounts, the AO carne to the conclusion that this amount was not genuine. Second amount of Rs. 12,000 was also not accepted by the AO because the assessee had claimed it to be receipt of agricultural income from his brother-in-law. When the assessee was required to furnish evidence to show as to when this income was received and where it was deposited and whether it had been shown in the return, the assessee failed to give any evidence. The AO further observed that no such agricultural income was ever declared in the past. The AO, therefore, did not accept the receipt of these two amounts, namely, Rs. 9,955 and Rs. 12,000 totalling to Rs. 21,955. By subtracting it from Rs. 88,837 shown as total source available for construction/renovation vis-a-vis the total expendit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
