9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial. The three additions in dispute were made with the following observations:- "2. As per page 3 of the seized document No. 1 a payment of Rs. 28,000 was made on 15-4-1991 to M/s. Nohria Ram Krishan Kumar. The assessee was asked to explain the source of this deposit and it was asserted by him that this loan have been given by his father Sh. Ram Nath Mittal to the above said firm. It has been consistently argued by the assessee that all the documents seized during the course of search belongs to his father but no proof of any nature has been tendered with respect to this deposit. Therefore, this deposit is treated as unexplained investment and added in the income of the assessee. 3. Seized document. No. A-1 page-7 contains the detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen search was carried by the Revenue authorities at Moga. The residential premises when search was carried is ancestral and does not belong to the assessee. But without considering above aspect and without bothering to know that all the investments added in the hands of the assessee, in fact, belonged to his father, the three additions were made and sustained. 5. The learned Departmental Representative opposed the request of the assessee to adduce additional evidence at this stage of 2nd appeal. It was emphasized that sufficient opportunities were allowed to the assessee by the Assessing Officer to establish his case, but those were not utilized by the assessee. Assessee s attitude in appellate proceedings was also non-cooperative. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, clearly certifies that FDR, of Rs. 20,000 alongwith interest of Rs. 4,368 was paid and credited to the account of Sh. Ram Nath Mittal on 1-8-1991. The assessee has also produced copy of account No. 30457 where total amount of Rs. 24,368 is credited. The Assessing Officer vaguely writes that FDR of Rs. 24,368 was encashed on 1-8-1991 without recording that it was encashed by the assessee or that it belonged or was owned by the assessee. The additional evidence sought to be produced would entitle the Bench (or the revenue authorities) to pronounce the judgment and would remove vagueness in the material found and used against the assessee. 8. As far as 3rd addition of Rs. 55,500 is concerned, the assessee once again claimed that the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
