9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 198/Jd/2003, C.O. No. 39/Jd/2003 2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that search action was taken against the assessee on 31st Oct., 2000 during the course of which certain incriminating material/documents were found. A combined panchnama was drawn for the residence situated at C-39, Ambawadi, Jaipur, jointly occupied by Shri Tara Chand and Shri Raj Kumar, the assessee in the instant case. In the bedroom of Smt. Archana, jewellery listed at pp. 1 and 2 of Annex. J was found having gross weight of 1009.120 gms. and 747.700 gms., as against net weight 897.00 gms. and 619.470 gms., respectively. The AO treated gross weight of 747.700 gms. as not explained. Item 5 of Annex. J valued at Rs. 17,807 was also treated as unexplained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in assessee's room cannot be disbelieved. In our considered opinion, the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting this addition. 4. Second ground of Revenue's appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 60,300 on account of value of perquisites. 5. The AO made addition of Rs. 60,300 bdng the value of perquisites on the basis of r. 3 of IT Rules, 1962. The learned CIT(A) deleted the said addition. 6. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, it is observed that no material was found during the course of search showing the personal use of car by the assessee-director in Shubh Grami Marmo (P) Ltd., Jaipur. It is noticed that the addition on account of value of perquisites, in the absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see and other co-owners in their earlier books of account. It is an admitted position that no material was found during the course of search to show that the assesse had invested more than that disclosed in the regular books. By now it is a settled legal position that only the valuation officer's report unsubstantiated. with any material found in the course of search showing unexplained investment cannot be made the basis for addition. It has been held so in CIT vs. Vinod Danchand Ghodawat (2000) 163 CTR (Bom) 432 : (2001) 247 ITR 448 (Bom) and CIT vs. Khushlal Chand Nirmal Kumar (2003) 183 CTR (MP) 503 : (2003) 263 ITR 77 (MP). The later decision was rendered after considering the amendment in s. 158BB by Finance Act, 2002 with retrospecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the AO on account of alleged gifts received from Kalika family and others. 11. On the scrutiny of assessment records, it was observed by the AO that the assessee had received the following gifts in asst. yrs. 1992-93 to 2000-01 and in the asst. yr. 1998-99 from Shri S.N. Kalika family: ------------------------------------------------------ Asst. yr. 1992-93 12,500 Kalika Asst. yr. 2000-01 1,00,000 Pradip Kalika Asst. yr. 2000-01 1,00,000 Vijay Kalika Asst. yr. 1998-99 5,000 Kum. Surbhi from Shri Vijay Kalika Asst. yr. 1998-99 5,000 Master Pankaj from Shri Pradip Kalika ----------------------------------------------- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ives for our consideration in the assessee's cross-objection, is against the levy of surcharge. 15. It is noticed that the search was conducted on 31st Oct., 2000. Proviso to s. 113 mandating the levy of surcharge on tax in the case of block assessment cases was inserted by Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1st June, 2002. Its operation has not been made retrospective in any manner. Hence it is clear that the surcharge could be leviable only if search is conducted after this specified date. Where the search is conducted on an earlier date, the tax determined thereon would not be increased by the amount of surcharge. This view has been consistently taken by several Benches of the Tribunal. The learned Authorised Representative has placed on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
