9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bhai Panwala (HUF) for A.Y.2009-2010. All three assessees are relatives and issue involved is also interconnected, and therefore, all three appeals were heard together, and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, we take up the appeal in the case of Kanchanlal Lallubhai Panwala (HUF) in ITA No.145/Ahd/2013. The ground no.1 is as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.72,50,000/- made u/s.68 of the IT Act on account of unexplained cash credits without appreciating the fact that the assessee was not able prove the source of cash deposits and that the survey disclosure was made in the case of sister concerns in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lal Lallubhai Panwala, HUF. He also submitted that this disclosure was actually offered by this assessee in the return of income, and against sale of such excess stock, cash was received and that the cash was deposited in the bank, and therefore, the source of cash deposits also explained. The AO was not satisfied and made addition of Rs.72.50 lakhs on account of cash deposited in bank under section 68. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted this entire addition on this basis that the mistake made during the survey proceedings on account of disclosure of excess stock in the hands of Bhupendra Panwala, HUF was corrected in no time by owning the stock in assessee's hand, and correspond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of R. rs.1,17,04,500/- made u/s.68 of the IT Act even as the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory proofs regarding the source of investment in RBI bonds." 6. The learned DR supported the order of the AO, whereas, the learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that it is noted by the AO in para-5 of the assessment order that during the present year, the assessee has received on 11.4.2008 an amount of Rs.1,17,04,500/- from the maturity of 6.5% RBI relief bonds. He has also noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order also, this is not in dispute that the investment was made in the financial year 2003- 2004 relevant to the asstt.year 2004-2005, and such investment was duly disclosed by the assessee in the balance sheet filed along with return of income of all earlier years, and therefore, even if the assessee is not able to explain the source of investment in the year of investment, then also no addition is justified in the present year. However, the AO is well within its power to reopen the assessment of the year of investment, if he has material in his possession that such investment is out of income which had escaped assessment. The AO may take suitable action in that year as per the provision of law, but in any case, no addition is justified i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case is rejected. 12. The ground no.2 of the Revenue's appeal is as under: "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.20,13,387/- as the facts that the cost of acquisition shown in the balance sheet and in the computation of income as well as the value determined by the valuation officer is contradictory and the report of the DVO was received after the assessment was completed and the AO did not get opportunity to examine the same." 13. The learned DR supported the order of the AO, whereas, the learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A). 14. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record, and gone through the orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of sale proceeds of Rs.7.50 lakhs was declared in the hands of his wife Mitaben. The AO preceded on the basis that both are equal co-owners, and he adopted sale value of Rs.27.50 lakhs in each case, being 50% of total sale value of Rs.55 lakhs. This action is also without any basis. Moreover, as per the valuation done by Sub-Registrar of Sanand, total market value in the present year was worked out at Rs.34.92 lakhs, as against the sale proceeds declared by the assessee at Rs.55 lakhs. When the sale proceedings in the present year is higher by substantial amount, as compared to the valuation done by Sub-Registrar, Sanand, the cost of acquisition can also be higher, and moreover, there is no basis of adopting backward indexation to wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
