9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as an addition made under section 69B/69C as assessee is not the owner of the asset and he has not paid any amount more than the registered sale price - against revenue. Unexplained Cash - Held that:- Department had seized Rs..8.00 lakhs in assessee’s premises in the course of search. It is also not in dispute that an amount of Rs..6.00 lakhs was seized from assessee’s mother Smt. K. Rajeshwari. The Department having seized the cash of Rs. 14.00 lakhs, it has to give credit for such seized cash either in the hands of the assessee individual or in the hands of Shri V. Sankar (HUF) or mother of the assessee Smt. K. Rajeshwari. In the circumstances, no infirmity in the direction given by the CIT (A) in directing the AO to grant credit for a sum of Rs..14.00 lakhs in the hands of the assessee and in case, if credit is given for such cash seized in the hands of Shri V. Sankar (HUF) and Smt. K. Rajeshwari, the credit given in the hands of the assessee has to be withdrawn - against revenue. De novo assessment made under section 153(A) - Held that:- As per provisions of section 153A to 153C it provides for fresh assessments for six years preceding the year of search and assessments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 6. The counsel for the assessee relied on the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 7. The assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted as under: (i) Generally, under the head drawings all personal expenses relating to an individual are included. However, in the case of the appellant, the expenditure incurred by the appellant for electricity, water tax, etc. have been separately accounted upto A.Y. 2004-05 Under the head drawings, the appellant s other expenses only are taken. Therefore, the drawings may appear low up to A.Y. 2004-05, whereas in fact they are not. (ii) The places of residence of the appellant, his father and his brothers are as under: Person Place of residence Shri G. V. Vishwanathan 54, Thennamaram Street, Vellore Shri V. Sankar 54, Thennamaram Street, Vellore (Staying with father) Shri V. Sampath Gandhi Nagar, Vellore Shri V. Sekar Bangalore, NRI till 2007-08 Shri V. Selvam 54, Thennamaram Street, Vellore (Staying with father upto A.Y. 2004-05) From the table, it can be seen that the appellant stayed with his father ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n or Shri V. Sekar. Shri G. Vishwanathan is in the same situation as the appellant; Shri V. Sekar is living in a city, where cost of living is higher. 7. Next, the ld. AR argued that legally the additions made will not survive as, Section 69C can be invoked only in a case where there is a finding of fact that an expenditure has been incurred , 1. No material whatsoever was found at the time of search to prove that the drawings estimated by the A.O. was incurred by the appellant during the financial year relating to A.Y. 2002-03 as required u/s 69C. 2. No statement was recorded to arrive at a finding that appellant had incurred the amount estimated as drawings by the A.O. 3. In the absence of any finding of fact that the appellant had infact incurred the estimated expenditure on drawings, during the relevant financial years, the addition made towards drawings u/s 69C is bad in law. The appellant relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Lubtec India Ltd. 311 ITR 175 (Del); ii) CIT vs. C.L. Khalri 282 ITR 97 (MP); iii) Prabhu Dayal Lallu Ram vs. ITO 63 TTJ 557 (Del); iv) M.P. Mallival vs. JCIT 10 SOT 319 (Hyd)(TM); v) ITO vs. L.N. Mehta (HUF) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Nos. 706 to 709/Mds/2012 for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to assess the income added under section 69B/69C, as income from other sources. 11. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment assessed certain incomes as unexplained investment/expenditure under section 69B/ 69C of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) contending that he has voluntarily disclosed these incomes either in the course of assessment proceedings or in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 153(A) as income from other sources. The assessee contended that he had offered these amounts as income from other sources voluntarily from the notings in the diaries, which were not deducted either by the DDIT (Investigation) or by the Assessing Officer. The additional amount offered by the assessee relates to properties, which were purchased by the Vellore Institute of Technology and not by the assessee. The assessee is not the owner of the asset and he has not paid any amount more than the registered sale price and therefore, the addition cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, such expenditure should also be assessed under other sources and not under section 69C of the Act. Thus, the conclusion of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was that the amount offered cannot be assessed under section 69B/69C, but should be assessed under other sources . Nothing was placed on record to controvert these findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, we find no good reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in holding that the amounts offered by the assessee are to be assessed as income from other sources and not to be treated as an addition made under section 69B/69C of the Act.. The grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are rejected. 16. The other issue in the appeal of the Revenue in I.T.A. No. 708/Mds/2012 for the assessment year 2007-08 is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to give credit to a sum of Rs..14.00 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. 17. The contention of the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was that a sum of Rs..8.00 lakhs was seized from assessee s residence and Rs..6.00 lakhs was seized from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
