9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tments of the assessee in the above-said properties. It is no doubt true that the said properties were in the name of the assessee's wife and his son and the assessee had filed returns admitting the rental income from these properties. In the assessment order that the materials were seized in the course of search, to make the investment made as part of the block assessment proceedings. Hence, unless and until the Revenue had had materials seized at the time of search, the income cannot be claimed as a block assessment. Against revenue Undisclosed investment in shares – Held that:- Assessee accepted the ownership of the certificates to an extent of Rs.4,00,000/- and accordingly, the same was assessed for the assessment year 1995-96. As the assessee himself had conceded the investment then said sum liable to be deleted. Partly allowed in favour of revenue Undisclosed investment in business – Assessee argue that investment was made out from income derived from the agricultural lands relating to assessee’s HUF – Held that:- If any investigation done, apart from the search, reveal certain state of affairs, it is always open to the Revenue to bring it under the regular assessment p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus the order sheet dated 07.03.2002 noted the above-said statement signed by the assessee's representative R.N. Patel, Advocate. The Officer pointed out that the said representative was authorised by the assessee and noted the said statement signed by the assessee's representative. It is a matter of record that the assessee was granted an opportunity to cross-examine one Akbar Shah of L.K.S. Gold House. The Officer pointed out to the cross-examination in extenso that the assessee had purchased gold and jewellery to the tune of Rs.1.7 crores with the assistance of the said Akbar Shah and the commission received on the sales were declared as the undisclosed income of his concern. Thus, based on the information received, the Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee was to be assessed at a sum of Rs.1,69,62,679/-, representing the assessee's undisclosed income. Further, the assessment also included the investment made in two house properties situated at 76/1, Chinnathambi Street, Chennai-12, purchased on 04.02.1988 in the name of the assessee's wife Valliammal and at 16, Central Cross Street, M.K.B.Nagar, Chennai, purchased on 01.11.1989 in the name of the assessee's son Balak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds and earning a substantial agricultural income, the Revenue should have considered the same as regards the investment made in P.R.Wines. 9. As regards the thandal business, the Tribunal, however, pointed out that there were no seized documents to hold that the thandal business was done exclusively by the assessee and that the entire investment was only by the assessee. The assessee admitted that the thandal business was carried on along with two other persons. That being the case, the assessment at a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- as though the assessee had made an investment to that end, could not be sustained. It further pointed out that there were no materials seized to make this investment as part of the block assessment. 10. Apart from these enumerated items, there were further investments which were also the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal. For the present, we are not concerned about those issues, considering the following substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition on account of undisclosed investment in jewellery amounting to Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 13. As regards the the investment on shares made by the assessee is concerned, the investment was one of unaccounted sum. So too, with reference to P.R. Wines, he pointed out that the assessee had not let in any evidence that the investment was made out of the agricultural income and hence, the assessment was rightly made at the hands of the assessee to the extent of Rs.10,17,905/- as unexplained investment in P.R. Wines. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee pointed out that as far as the assessment of Rs.1,69,62,679/- in respect of purchases made by the assessee and also representing the assessee's undisclosed income is concerned, there is absolutely no material at the hands of the Revenue to assume that the assessee had undisclosed income. Even the cross-examination of Akbar Shah, representative of L.K.S. Gold House, did not reveal anything to draw an inference that the assessee had transactions on purchase of gold to the tune of Rs.1,69,62,679/-. Thus the Tribunal was justified in deleting the assessment and thereby allowing the claim of the assessee both on the ground that the assessee was granted the opportunity as per the order of the Tribunal as well as o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment. We have perused the same. We find that the assessee had, in fact, made an endorsement through his representative that the assessee had all the statements and documents that he required. It is also a matter of record that the assessee was given an opportunity to cross-examine Akbar Shah of L.K.S. Gold House. Thus, there are hardly any material to support the Tribunal's view that the assessee was not granted any opportunity to substantiate his case or that the remand order of the Tribunal was not properly complied with. The observation of the Tribunal in paragraph 7.5 of its order is devoid of any material and we do not find any justification in the Tribunal drawing an adverse inference against the Revenue. We do not know on what basis the said observation of the Tribunal was made. In the circumstances, we set aside the order of the Tribunal as contained in paragraph 7.5 of its order, which is the basis for deleting the entire addition of Rs.1,69,62,679/-. Without expressing any view on this, the proper course herein would be to set aside the Tribunal's order in paragraph 7.6 deleting the addition of Rs.1,69,62,679/- and restore it to the files of the Income Tax Appellate Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that he had started the business along with four others, each contributing a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- as capital. The Assessing Officer pointed out to an enquiry with two of the partners viz., R.Ramakrishnan and Ilamparithi, who stated that they had no interest in the wine shop. The assessee was asked to produce the details regarding the investment and the assessee had stated that they were out of the income from the investment made or income derived from the agricultural lands of 6 acres at Jamindar Patti, P.M.District, which belonged to the HUF. In the absence of any further material as regards the existence, constitution of the HUF and the assets and liabilities thereon, the Assessing Officer found that the investment thus remaining unexplained, assessment was to be made under Chapter XIV. 22. As far as this aspect is concerned, as in the earlier issue of investment in house property, we do not find any observation in the assessment order that the materials were seized in the course of search, to make the investment made as part of the block assessment proceedings. Hence, unless and until the Revenue had had materials seized at the time of search, the income cannot be claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
