9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e A.O. Copies of the relevant pages of cash books were also filed by the appellant during the appeal proceedings as part of the paper book - If the A.O was not satisfied with the authenticity of the entries made in the cash books, some enquiries could have been made to prove so. However, in the absence of such enquiries or evidence, the A.O. cannot be said to be justified at all to make addition considering this cash to be unexplained – In favor of assessee Addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and undisclosed income – addition made on the basis of document seized during search - assessee has denied any relationship with the document at the time of search itself - The document is denied to be in handwriting of the assessee or handwriting of any family member – Held that:- Revenue has failed to collect any corroborative material which could explain the real character of the transaction - document is not clear it does not give any conclusive and meaningful conclusion in respect of the transactions. It also does not establish the correct nature of the transaction. The revenue has failed to collect corroborative evidence to establish t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record. The A.O. has made this addition on the ground that the appellant has not produced any bills or other evidence in support of the contention that these watches were covered with the withdrawals made by the family members of the appellant. However, I agree with the ld. Counsel that for purchasing such like items, normally bills of purchase are not retained. This is particularly so when such items are purchased out of withdrawals for household expense. Though the A.O. is right in observing that in view of the ratio of the decision of various Courts best evidence is to be produced by the assessee but in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant when bills and vouchers in respect of such purchases are generally not retained, the appellant cannot be faulted just on that ground. For coming to the cost of the watches, the A.O. has observed that as per the market enquiries, the value of the watches as on 1.8.2005, as per the details given above comes to Rs.2,24,000/-. However, I agree with the ld. Counsel that without pin-pointing as to exactly what market enquires were made and without confronting the evidence in question to the appellant, the A.O. could not be said t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bers which could cover the purchase of the wrist watches. Further, we agree with the CIT (A) that normally bills of such items like watches are not preserved for record. Further we also agree with the CIT (A) that the Assessing Officer has not made any specific or exact investigations or market enquiries which could establish the estimation of value of these watches. No adverse inference can be drawn on the basis of material on record. Further, the value of the wrist watches adopted by the Assessing Officer was arbitrary. There was no evidence placed on the record which can contradict the prices laid down from the respective websites of the manufacturers in respect of these wrist watches. As per this, the current price comes to Rs.26,940/- for which the withdrawals are sufficient which were of Rs.36,61,292/- for Shri O.P. Bhalla for a period 1999-00 to 2005-06 and Rs.37,17,472/- for the same period of O.P. Bhalla HUF. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we find that the CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition and we dismiss ground no.1 of this appeal. 4. In the ground no.2, the deletion of addition of Rs.1,90,650/- made u/s 69A of the Act has been challenged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer had not proved any manipulation. In these facts and circumstances, we find no merit in this ground of revenue s appeal, hence this ground is also dismissed. 6. In the ground no.3, the revenue had challenged deletion of addition of Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.33,050/- made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and undisclosed income respectively. 7. Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and also submitted that the document, Annexure A-3, was seized. As per the page 5 of this annexure, a calculation of interest on the amount of Rs.30 lacs @ 15% has been worked out. The interest has been calculated on the amount of Rs.20 lacs for one month and Rs.10 lacs for 20 days. This paper also bears the name of Mr. Bansal. The interest amount comes to Rs.33,050/-. Since this paper was found from the residence of the assessee, therefore, it is the assessee to furnish the details and explanation or documentary evidence in respect of this document. The assessee has simply mentioned that this document is not in his handwriting and this is only rough notings and no meaningful conclusion can be drawn thereon. In view of the provisions of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /05 (ITAT Del) 9. We have heard both the sides. The assessee has denied any relationship with the document at the time of search itself. The document is denied to be in handwriting of the assessee or handwriting of any family member. There is no signature of any person on this paper. The assessee has completely denied of giving any loan to a person in the name of Mr. Bansal. The revenue has failed to collect any corroborative material which could explain the real character of the transaction. In the case of Addl. CIT vs. Prasant Ahluwalia, cited supra, it has been held that no addition can be made on the basis of dumb document in the absence of any corroborative material. In the case of Monga Metals (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, cited supra, the ITAT Allahabad Bench has held that it is the revenue to establish that figures in loose papers found in the search constitute undisclosed income of the assessee and taxable under the Act. In the case of Chander Mohan Mehta vs. ACIT, cited supra, the ITAT Pune Bench has held that when the loose papers did not indicate name of the assessee, from the list of persons given in loose papers, it could not be inferred that either loan or any advance is give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
