9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued calling for the returns for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 on 20.10.2008. Particulars of income shown in the original returns and in the returns filed in response to notice under S.153A, are tabulated below- Assessment year Date of filing original return Income as per original return Rs. Income shown in return filed in response to notice under S.153A of the Act. Rs. 2003-04 31.03.2004 1,27,750 1,27,750 2004-05 31.3.2005 1,74,680 1,74,680 2005-06 31.3.2006 1,74,870 1,74,870 2006-07 31.3.2007 2,05.070 4,05,070 2007-08 31.3.2008 2,70,430 5,70,430 2008-09 - - 3,79,540 3. Assessments were completed under S.143(3) read with S.153A for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and under S.143(3) for the assessment years 2009-10. In the course of assessments thus completed for assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee was engaged in the business of arranging purchase and sale of pearls and precocious stones on commission basis, and his passport revealed that he made numerous visits to China and Hongkong. As per the statement of the assessee recorded on 15.5.2008, assessee had visited China and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable since those expenses were not separately claimed by the assessee. That apart, assessee submitted another ledger from the books of the same concern showing allowance of import at Rs. 2,40,000 but the payment of Rs. 85,000 shown in the earlier ledger was missing therein and the total amount of Rs. 2,40,000 was shown as the closing balance. 5. The Assessing Officer opined that except for the above self serving and contradicting ledgers of M/s. Ganesh Narayan Co., the assessee could not furnish any name/address of any other firm on whose behalf commission business in pearls was claimed as done and foreign travels were claimed as undertaken. 6. Assessee further claimed before the Assessing Officer that he had admitted gross commission of Rs. 8,24,984 for the assessment year 2007-08 and net income of Rs. 2,44,3386 had been offered to tax after deducting expenditure of Rs. 5,80,598 towards foreign travel and incidental expenditure. Since no break up of such expenditure could be furnished, though called for specifically, the Assessing Officer opined that in the absence of any substantiating material in support of the expenditure claimed or the basis for the estimated commission, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer reasonably concluded that a large part of expenditure on foreign trips was met, not by the customers as claimed, but by the assessee himself out of unexplained sources. As for estimation of fare component in the estimated expenditure, he found no justification to interfere with the view taken by the Assessing Officer, since he has adopted the same as per the tariff prevailing at the relevant time. He however, found the incidental expenditure estimated by the Assessing Officer to be slightly on a higher side. He estimated the incidental expenditure at Rs. 4,000 per day for assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06; at Rs. 5,000 per day for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and at Rs. 6,000 per day for assessment years 2008-09, and accordingly, gave a relief of Rs. 33,000 for assessment year 2003-04; Rs. 93,000 for assessment year 2004-05, Rs. 1,77,000 for assessment year 2005-06, Rs. 70-,000 for assessment year 2006-07; Rs. 1,45,000 for assessment year 2007-08; Rs. 96,000 for assessment year 2008-09 and Rs. 6,000 for assessment year 2009-10. 10. Still aggrieved, assessee preferred the present appeals before us on this issue. 11. The learned counsel for the assessee, reiteratin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the expenditure per day estimated by the Assessing Officer, to be on higher side, the CIT(A) reduced the rates adopted by the Assessing Officer, and gave appropriate relief. We find that the reliefs granted by the CIT(A) for the years under appeal is quite reasonable, and there is no justification for any further relief from out of the additions sustained by the CIT(A) on account of daily expenditure incurred by the assessee for the days spent abroad in each of these years. We accordingly uphold the orders of the CIT(A) on this issue, and the grounds of the assessee in these appeals, on the issue of unexplained expenditure incurred on foreign trips in the years under appeal, being devoid of merit, are rejected. 14. There is one more issue in the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09, viz. ITA 1158/Hyd/2013, wherein the grievance of the assessee relates to an addition of Rs. 74,22,385 made on account of unexplained investment in property . 15. Facts in brief are that it was noticed that the building at 21-3-75, Chelapura, Hyderabad, where the assessee had been residing belonged to his mother. Investment in the construction of the said house was reflected in the retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis in the hands of any other person, the addition made in the hands of the assessee cannot be considered as a "protective assessment", but has to be considered as substantive addition only and dealt with accordingly. For this reason and also looking to the factual aspects of the matter, including the fact that the property was under exclusive possession and enjoyment of the assessee, notwithstanding the fact that the property stood in the name of his mother, held that the addition made in this behalf has to be treated as substantive. 17. Aggrieved, assessee is in second appeal before us on this issue. 18. The learned counsel for the assessee, reiterating the contentions urged before the Revenue authorities, submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in treating the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee, as a substantive one. On the merits of the matter, he submitted that the property in question stands in the name of the mother of the assessee, and as such, any addition on account of unexplained investment in the construction of the property has to be considered in the first place in the assessment of the owner, i.e. assessee's mother. Merely because the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, only if, in the case of the person, in whose hands substantive addition was to be made, it was found that that person was not the right person to be assessed in respect of such investment, and the person, in whose hands protective addition has been made, is the right person to be assessed in respect of such investment. Further, merely because the assessee is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property, it cannot be said that he is the person in whose hands substantive addition is due. Even the other facts, such as, bills for material, etc. are in the name of the assessee, do not clinch the issue, against the assessee, because assessee's mother being a lady, and may be even aged and not staying locally, it is quite possible that the assessee has played key role in the construction of the property, on behalf of his mother. Further, on purchase bills and other papers, often, for the convenience of delivery of material, easy identification etc., instead of exposing the woman, names of head of family or other prominent male members of the family are mentioned. In any event, Revenue has not brought on record any clinching evidence, to conclude that the unexplained investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
