9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on income accrued in India only. The assessee's grounds in this behalf are allowed. Addition on account of unexplained source of funds - hand written page containing debit and credit entries in assessee's account with Deutsch Bank, Singapore - Held that:- Assessee has demonstrated that paper contains details of transfer of his own funds from foreign bank accounts maintained for the investment and business activities carried out in those countries - admittedly the assessee being a non-resident claims to have activities and bank accounts in these countries, thus in these circumstances the burden to prove that assessee's explanation if false or the receipts outside India were as a result of any income which accrued in India was on the Department which AO has failed to discharge the burden and no adverse material has been brought on record - remittances from the assessee's own account outside India to Indian bank accounts cannot be taxed u/s 68 - in favour of assessee. Addition on account unaccounted cash credits - Held that:- Share capital and loans had been received by C-I India from its holding company Y2K Systems Ltd Mauritius through banking channels - C1 India has been held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T ]- in favour of assessee for statistical purpose. - IT Appeal NOS. 1428 to 1430 (DELHI) OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 24-7-2012 - R.P. TOLANI, SHAMIM YAHYA, JJ. ORDER R.P. Tolani. Judicial Member These are three appeals by the assessee against separate orders of CIT(A)-I, New Delhi dated, 8-2-2012 for A.Y. 2001-02 2002-03; dated 10-2-2012 for A.Y. 2003-04. Since common grounds are involved for adjudication in these appeals, the same are heard together and being disposed of by a consolidated order, for the sake of convenience. 2. Assessee has raised various grounds. Common grounds Nos. 1 to 4 in all these appeals are not pressed, hence dismissed. 2.1 Ground nos. 9 10 in A.Y. 2001-02 ground nos. 14 15 in A.Y. 2002-03; ground nos. 10 11 in A.Y. 2003-04 are general in nature, requiring no adjudication. 3. Coming to other grounds, common ground nos. 5, 6, 6.1, 6.2 6.3, raised in all the appeals, are as under- 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not admitting the additional evidence filed on 11-02-2011 under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 in spite of calling for remand report f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.3 Common issue raised in ground no. 10 for A.Y. 2002-03 ground no. 7 for A.Y. 2003-04 is as under: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in adding a sum of ₹ 24,40,000/-(A.Y. 2002-03) ₹ 23,20,000/- (A.Y. 2003-04), on the presumption that the same was paid by the assessee to his wife Smt. Renu Nanda out of undisclosed sources towards her maintenance expenses. 3.4 That leaves the individual grounds which are raised in following years: A.Y. 2001-02 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in adding a sum of ₹ 10,51,20,000/- made on the basis of handwritten page allegedly containing debit and credit entries in assessee's account with Deutsch Bank, Singapore on the ground that no explanation was given with regard to the source of the funds. 7.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the above addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not correct as deposits in foreign bank account of the non-resident are not exigible to tax in India as alrea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2nd February, 2007, Delhi Police searched the premises of one Dr. M.V. Rao who was found to be impersonating himself as Scientific Advisor to the Prime Minister of India. Delhi police accordingly informed the Directorate of Income tax (lnv.) that during the course of search action on one Dr. M.V. Rao they have found cash amounting to Rs. two Crores lying at his Green Park house along with some incriminating papers. Consequent thereto, the Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-II, Delhi issued Warrant of Authorization under section 132 of the Income tax Act, 1961 for search seizure action at the premise of said Dr. M. V. Rao. 4.3 Subsequently, DIT (lnv) requested the Delhi Police to hand over photocopies of the documents seized by them. Search and seizure operations were also carried out at assessee's premises by income tax department on 28-2-2007 along with one Shri Mohan Sambhaji Jagtap. Consequent to search, all these cases were centralized u/s 127(2). Notices were issued for proceedings u/s 153A and these assessments are accordingly framed u/s 153A read with Sec. 143(3). 4.4 Assessee filed his returns of income u/s 153A claiming the same status i.e. 'Non Resident' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agtap and assessee. It resulted in seizure of some other papers and statement on oath of Shri Jagtap. 4.10 During the course of search proceedings a document in Russian Language was found seized as page no. 4, Annexure no. 2 from the residence of Sh. Mohan Sambhaji Jagtap on 28-2-2007. The Russian to English translation to this document was arranged during the course of assessment proceedings. 4.11 This document has been signed by Sh. Mohan Sambhaji Jacthap as the agent. The remittance has been made to the bank account of Globtech International Inc. According to the AO, a perusal of the above document it is amply clear that parts 53-65K worth US$384460 have been sold in India and on this sale the commission due of USD 38446 has to be paid to the account of Globtech International Inc. This is in accordance with an agreement dated 30.03.1998. The document bears a date stamp of 07.05.2001. 4.12 During the course of search proceedings, one profile of Sh. Suresh Nanda was found seized marked as page nos. l to 4, Annexure A15. As per this document assessee was alleged to have formed Globtech International Corporation as partnership concern dealing in consultancy and sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Institutions Pvt. Ltd. M/s Claridges SEZ Pvt. Ltd. has obtained an in principle approval from Ministry of Commerce for establishing a multi product SEZ and M/s Crown College Education Institutions Pvt. Ltd., which is planning a multi disciplinary college or a Golf Course in the Pan vel land . 4.14 Assessing Officer inferred that on paper these companies were controlled by entities situated out side India or by the entities which were ultimately controlled by entities situated out side India. For example M/s Claridges Hotel Pvt. Ltd. is ultimately controlled by an entity situated in Mauritius by name of Universal Business Solutions, Port Louis, Mauritius, M/s Claridges Hotel Pvt. Ltd. in turn owns various subsidiary companies which own different properties. 4.15 On papers, though there appeared to be no connection between assessee and concerned Indian companies but their Board of Directors went on appointing assessee as Chairman and his son Sh. Sanjeev Nanda as Managing Director of these companies. Thus, it was presumed that these companies were owned by assessee. 4.16 According to Assessing Officer the assessee has failed to disclose his exact and true relatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ans. Jly bank accounts are as follows- Deutsche Bank, New Delhi NRO NRE ale Some FDRs in the State Bank of India, branch I don't remember Demat a/c with the ICICI Bank I have interest in following companies as a share holder: Crown Corporation (P) Ltd. Dynatron Services (P) Ltd. Cl India (P) Lt-Investment through Y2K Ltd., Mauritius Claridges Hotels (P) Lt-Investment made through Mauritius based company UBS. 4.21 Apropos C 1 India Pvt. Ltd, it was inferred that assessee controls the day to day functioning of the company. An e-mail from one Shri Vivek Aggarwal, President and CEO of C-l India Pvt. Ltd. was found and seized addressing his resignation to Sh. Suresh Nanda citing his inadequate compensation. This was construed to be indicting that assessee controlled the affairs of Cl India Pvt. Ltd. 4.22 Apropos the balance sheet and the Profit and Loss accounts of M/s. Y2K Systems International Limited, AO inferred that the company does not have any significant income. It has been used as mere conduit to channelize assessee's unaccounted money in the guise of loans and other borrowings. 4.23 Based on the above facts, it is was observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... previous year, if he: ( a ) is in India in that year for a period or periods amounting in .all to one hundred and eighty two days or more; or ( b ) . ( c ) having within the four years preceding that year been in India for a period or periods amounting in all to three hundred and sixty five days or more, is in India for a period or periods amounting in all to sixty days or more in that year. Explanation - In the case of an individual, ( a ) being a citizen of India, who leaves India in any previous year [as a member of the crew of an Indian ship as defined in clause (18) of section 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (44 of 1958), or] for the purpose of employment outside India, the provisions of sub-clause (c) shall apply in relation to that year. ( b ) being a citizen of India or a person of Indian origin within the meaning of Explanation to clause (e) of section 115C, who, being outside India, comes on a visit to India in any previous year, the provision of Sub-clause (c) shall apply in relation to that year as if for the words sixty days occurring therein, the words one hundred and eighty two days had been substituted 4.29 Thus under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-resident, the rigor of clause (c) of section 6(1) is diluted to some extent by providing a relaxation for the assessment year succeeding the year in which he became a non-resident, namely, he will be treated as Non-Resident if he is in India for less than 182 days in that year. Thus, these amendments were brought to mitigate the hardship being faced by the non-resident assesses and was introduced to do away with the mischief which was inadvertently caused by earlier provisions. 4.32 Consequent to budgetary amendment in Finance Act, by way of explanatory notes a Circular of CBDT No 684 dated 10.06.1994 in this behalf was issued to clarify the meaning and purpose of amendment as under-- 19.2 Suggestions had been received to the effect that the aforesaid period of one hundred and fifty days should be increased to one hundred and eighty-two days. This is because the non-resident Indians, who have made investments in India, find it necessary to visit India frequently and stay here for the proper supervision and control of their investments. The Finance Act, therefore, has amended clause (b) of the Explanation to section 6(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, in order to extend the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - fifteen years. ( c ) The A.O referred to assesses profound social ties maintained in India with his son, wife and other relations and to keep control over Indian companies which were sufficient to hold that the assessee was inside India and a resident in India for all practical purposes. ( d ) The AO made reference to the renovation carried by the Assessee at his farm house in India to show that assessee was to be treated as inside India . 4.35 Consequently, AO made the additions in this behalf in all these years. Further assessee's residential status was changed from Non-Resident to Resident and thus the entire global income of the assessee was brought to tax in India. 4.36 Aggrieved assessee preferred first appeal. CIT(A) however confirmed the additions. Aggrieved, assessee is before us. 5. Ld counsel for the assessee Shri Ajay Wadhwa first adverted to the common ground about the status of Non Resident and contends that-' 5.1 The assessee has been a Non-Resident since more than 25 years. Status of Non Resident has been accepted by the respective Assessing Officers year after year. 5.2 During his entire history of assessments, they have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eady omitted and no longer remain on statute book: a. Clause (b) of section 6(1) which was omitted from the statue by the Finance Act 1982 w.e.f. 1st April, 1983. It had provided that an individual would be resident in India if he maintained for himself a dwelling place in India and has been in India for 30 days or more in that year. b. The AO's order shows that he has applied conditions of the omitted provisions and the theory of dwelling place in India underlying such provision. That is why he has referred to the improvement of the farm house, family ties, business interest of the assessee in different concerns and the like, which indicated to dwelling place; 5.5 Reliance is placed on General Finance Co. v. ACIT [2002] 257 ITR 338 (S.C) where the Supreme Court found that the Constitutional Bench had already decided in Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd v. Director of Enforcement AIR 1970 SC 494 and Kohlapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 811 that where a provision is omitted, it should be deemed to have never been part of the statue at any part of time. The Assessing Officer in order to wily nily change the status to Resident has trave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for determining the residential status of a person of Indian origin in India is number of days of stay in India. This is held by the Authority of Advance Ruling in ABC 223 ITR 4621 Dr Virindra Kumar 308 ITR 28; Canoro Resources 313 ITR 2: The Explanation to section 6(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 relaxes the provision requiring less than 60 days stay in India during the relevant year for Indian citizen and persons of Indian origin. Lower authorities failed to appreciate that this relaxation does not apply to foreign citizen. 5.7 The Assessing Officer at para 7.14 has himself referred to the Finance Minister's speech to hold that the relaxation extended to self employed and other occupations irrespective of their vocation and nature of visits to India. Self employed means and includes who have their own business abroad This clearly shows that the relaxation is applicable to the assessee. 5.8 In the case of CIT v. Abdul Razzaq 337 ITR 350 (Ker), the word 'employment' outside India appearing in Explanation - (a) to section 6(1) means going abroad to take up employment or any vocation referred to in circular which includes self employment like busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... managing companies in India and therefore is a resident going abroad for business on following mistaken inferences as: ( a ) Assessee is resident of Dubai, which has issued residence health cards; driving license. Business is owned there and business activities are carried therefrom. ( b ) The assessee has been considered a non-resident in last 20 years and comes to India only to meet his family members and look after his investments. ( c ) He has not drawn any salary/remuneration from any company in India and has never been a working director or working employee ever since he became non-resident 2o years ago. ( d ) Infotech Services Ltd of Jersy had invested by way of loan into Y2K Systems (P) Ltd of Mauritius which is the Holding Company for M/s C-l India (P) Ltd. The assessee is a major shareholder in Infotech Ltd. In order to protect his interest in Infotech Ltd,, through his company the assessee may have involved himself sometimes in the affairs of the M/s C-l India (P) Ltd. The running of M/s C-l India (P) Ltd and its management is operated by professional CEO, CFO and directors and not by assessee. ( e ) Claridges Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Claridges SEZ etc came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p him in legal matters and for moral support and to keep in touch with family. The assessee's wife does not live with him as they have estranged relationship for which monthly maintenance is provided to her as per the order of the court. These facts in any way have no adverse reflection on Non resident status and have been arbitrary used by AO against assessee. ( o ) The assessee was a full time Chairman-cum-Managing Director in a company UBS Trading FZC situate at Sharjah (UBS) for the years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. This is evidenced by audited Balance Sheets of UBS which are found in the searched premises. The assessee is 99% share holder in UBS, which has not been disputed, as per the seized Annexure 6E, Balance Sheet and Profit Loss Account this company. ( p ) From these facts it shall be properly appreciated that the assessee for all practical purposes was fully involved in the business activities of UBS Trading FZC, Sharjah and apart from huge remuneration, he also received dividend from the said company. 5.13 Lower authorities failed to consider that: ( a ) Claridges Chairmanship came about much later i.e AY 2004-05 and not in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad a stake in Y2K Systems International Ltd. by way of loan. To look after the investment it was desirable to involve himself in some matters of the Company. C1 India is completely independent and is professionally managed by a Chief Operating Officer and assessee has no role to play in day to day affairs. The Company interacts with its parent Company for its financial needs and is controlled by Y2K Systems International Ltd. h. The burden of proof is on the person who alleges. The allegation that the assessee has remitted money into C-1 India Pvt. Ltd. from undisclosed sources is squarely on the Department. The assessee has discharged the onus that lay upon even by filing the balance sheets of Y2K Systems International Ltd., the list of shareholders of Y2K System International Ltd. and a positive submission that he has not made any investment whatsoever into Y2K Systems International Ltd. or C-1 India Pvt. Ltd. i. The amount of share application money and loan amount has been held to be the unexplained income of the assessee at the same time these amounts have been taxed in the hands of C-1 India (P) Ltd as unexplained income by using the same language in the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... connected through Y2K system. vii The Department has gathered information from Mauritius about M/s C-I India Pvt Ltd. However, this information is not provided to the assessee despite repeated requests. viii. Without supply of copies of Mr Rao's statement and all documents are proposed to be used against assessee. They cannot be relied up against assessee. It is trite law that, no addition can be made on the basis of documents found from a third party without examining the third party and linking the contents of the documents with him. Reliance is placed on following judgments: ( i ) Bangodaya Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT 224 CTR 62 ( ii ) DCIT v Mahendra Ambalal Patel 40 DTR 243 ( iii ) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT 301 ITR 134 ( iv ) CIT v. Salek Chand 300 ITR 426 (All) ( v ) SMC Share Broker Ltd 288 ITR 345 (Del) ( vi ) JMD Computers 20 DTR 317 ( vii ) S.M. Aggarwal [2007] 293 ITR 43 ( viii ) Amarjit Singh Bakshi 263 ITR 75 ( ix ) Krishna Textiles 11 DTR 217 ( x ) M.A. Chidambaram 63 ITR 203 (Mad) ( xi ) Kishan Chand Chela Ram 125 ITR 713 (xii) A.N. Dyaneswaran [2008] 214 CTR (Mad) 482 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they were the assessee husband's undisclosed income. 5.21 In the case of Man Singh 1 ITD 741 (Delhi), it was held that mere rejection of assessee's explanation that the house was made partly out of her savings and partly out of loans advanced from her husband does not establish that the house belongs to the husband. 5.22 Apropos the addition on account of alleged payments to estranged wife Smt Renu Nanda, Id counsel vehemently argues that the edifice of this addition is based on pure surmises and conjectures. Facts in this behalf are- ( i ) The assessee has an estranged relationship with his wife Mrs. Renu Nanda. Vide Deed of Settlement dated 04.04.1998, expiring in 2000, the assessee was required to support her financially during the currency of legal separation. The assessee for the F.Y. 2001-02 paid Mrs. Renu Nanda a sum of ₹ 7,60,000/- towards the maintenance i.e. day to day expenses. The expenses on account of guards, servants, driver and other capital expenditure were met by the assessee from his account by way of account payee cheques. ( ii ) The Assessing Officer has assumed that the expenditure should have been a total sum of ₹ 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r's wedding it is pleaded that the addition has been made on the basis of some loose papers in respect of ( i ) Mr. Paul Nanda ₹ 13,00,000/- ( ii ) Abujani Sandeep Khosla ₹ 14,50,000/- ₹ 5,70,000/- ₹ 12,75,000/- 5.25 According to the assessee proper explanation about the expenditure was furnished. However, AO still made the addition without appreciating that: ( i ) The addition of ₹ 12,75,000/- has been made twice. ( ii ) No rebate for cash in hand of ₹ 44,66,000/-available with the assessee has been given by AO. It has been held on presumption that assessee could not keep such a huge cash in hand. ( iii ) The expenditure was incurred by the assessee and her wife jointly and their withdrawals in the year amounted to ₹ 53.66 lacs which has also not been considered. ( iv ) Reliance is placed on Hon'ble Delhi High Court's judgment in the case of Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del.), for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the purposes of carrying on business in India. 6.3 The material obtained during the search indicates that the assessee was carrying on business activities by way of investments in hospitality sector i.e hotel Claridges at Delhi, Faridabad and Mussorie,' investment in Ol India acquiring various business properties! commission in arms dealings. Thus, looking at the frequency of business activities it cannot be said to be a person who being outside India comes on a visit to India in previous year in terms of explanation (b) to section 6(1). Assessee is rather inside India who goes abroad for business. 6.4 Thus, the assessee's case is not covered by clause (b) but the same falls under clause (c) of section 6(1). The status of the assessee, therefore, has been rightly held as 'Resident' which should be upheld. Order of AO and CIT(A) are relied on for this purpose. 6.5 Apropos other additions ld. DR relies on the orders of lower authorities. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee in reply contends that apropos the assessee's status, no new information or fact has been unearthed during the search. The fact about the assessee's being share holder in Y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and by the AAR in the case of Dr. Virendra Kumar and Canoro Resources ( supra ). Thus, the only factor for determination of the status of non-resident is the number of days of stay in India. The distortion of provisions of sec. 6(1)(b) (c) is without any basis and contrary to the express provisions and binding CBDT clarifications. 7.4 Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri Ajay Wadhwa further relied on Hon'ble Supreme court judgment in the case of Vodafone 341 ITR 43 which lays down a clear proposition that the companies being incorporated entities under respective law possess independent and distinct status than their share holder or contributories. In case of structured investment transactions should not be disturbed on suspicions or casual considerations. In assesses case all the companies concerned are duly incorporated in respective legal jurisdictions. Necessary papers about their incorporation, existence, bank accounts have been produced. The investments in properties, assets and shares etc. have been made by structured deals. All of these legal transactions are being disturbed on surmises and conjectures, assessee having furnished proper explanation supported with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal Son Ltd. v Government of Hyderabad [1954] 25 ITR 449. We do not think the decision is applicable to the facts of this case. Learned senior counsel for the assessee has relied on the Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill introducing the Explanation, contained in 134 ITR 137 (St.) [Para 35 of the Finance Bill], which reads as follow:'- (iii) It is proposed to provide that where an individual who is a citizen of India leaves India in any year for the purposes of employment outside India, he will not be treated as resident in India in that year unless he has been in India in that year for 182 days or more. The effect of this amendment will be that the 'test' of residence in (c) above will stand modified to this extent in such cases. Similarly the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued Circular No. 346, dated 30-6-1982, which reads as follows-' 7.3 With a view to avoiding hardship in the case of Indian citizens, who are employed or engaged in other avocations outside India, the Finance Act has made the following modifications in the tests of residence in India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rson is resident in India in a Previous Year in respect of any source of income, he shall be deemed to be resident in India in the Previous Year relevant to the Assessment Year in respect of each of his other sources of Income. c. Relevant Previous Year means, the Previous Year for which residential status is to be determined d. It is not necessary that the stay should be for a continuous period. e. It is not necessary that the stay should be at one place in India. f. A person may be resident of more than one country for any Previous Year. g. Citizenship of a country and residential status of that country are two separate concepts. A person may be an Indian national/Citizen but may not be a resident in India and vice versa. h. No. of days of stay in India determines the status. i. Assessee can take any vocation in any of the countries. j. During these years assessee had for more greater business engagements abroad as compared to India. Therefore it cannot be assumed that he did not come from outside of India. k. The explanation (b) to sec. 6, the explanatory notes for this amendment as clarified by CBDT in this behalf a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days. In these facts and circumstances the assessee's arguments on this issue deserve to be upheld. 8.3 In view of the facts, circumstances and case laws cited and referred above on behalf of the assessee we hold that the determinative test for the status of Non Resident being number of days of stay in India and in assessee's case in these three years, the days of stay being less than 182 days; the status to be applied in this case is to be held as Non Resident as claimed by assessee. Thus, the assessee will be liable to tax on income accrued in India only. The assessee's grounds in this behalf are allowed. 9. Apropos the addition of ₹ 10,51,20,000/- made on the basis of a hand written page allegedly containing debit and credit entries in assessee's account with Deutsch Bank, Singapore on the ground that no explanation was given with regard to the source of the funds, is to be deleted as the same does not represents income accrued in India. Assessee has demonstrated that paper contains details of transfer of his own funds from foreign bank accounts maintained for the investment and business activities carried out in those countries. The AO has not le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount received by C-1 India belongs to him. It was further contended that the same amount with the same explanation was held to be belonging to C-1 India and was also added substantively in his hands. As such, the same amount had been taxed substantively in two hands with the same explanation and findings. The nature of the amount is also the same being money allegedly belonging to Mr Suresh Nanda and purportedly brought in by him as share capital in C-1 India. It is trite that the same amount cannot be taxed doubly unless the nature of the amount changes or it is so provided in the Act. various judgments have been cited by both parties but this issue is well settled and does not need any judicial examination. Same additions were made in both the cases on substantive basis. Both the parties agreed that the facts circumstances are similar in both the cases and the issues may be decided keeping in mind the view taken in the case of the assessee. In our considered view C1 India has been held as a separate entity held by department by way of assessments. It has not been held to be a Benami concern of the assessee. The addition have been made on account of Share applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition inasmuch as both were separated by way of deed of settlement dated 4-4-1998 and the payments based thereon on were already made. The addition has been made not based on any evidence or incriminating material, indicating that any payment was made out of books. The sole basis of addition is an assumption that there was some unwritten understanding between the assessee and his estranged wife Smt. Renu Nanda. Therefore, it has been assumed that lesser amount for support was paid by the assessee as compared to earlier years. In our considered view the basis of addition being only on presumptions, there being no material what so ever, the addition is deleted. We find merit in the argument of ld. Counsel that with estranged relations on record such presumption is baseless. This ground of assessee raised in A.Y. 2003-04 is deleted. 13. The only ground left is in respect of unexplained expenditure of ₹ 45,95,000/- on the wedding ceremony of assessee's daughter, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that there are mistakes in the amounts alleged to be paid to one Mr. Pal Nanda as mentioned in paper book page 278 which has not been considered. Similarly, the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
