9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to the date of search – Decided against revenue. Undisclosed income from job work – Held that:- CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee was a partner in firm known as M/s. Mahashakti Jewellers upto AY 1993-94, therefore he thought it appropriate to restrict the addition to the extent of ₹ 1,28,392/- out of addition of ₹ 3,46,392 – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue. Determination of undisclosed income on account of household expenses – Held that:- The estimation in block assessment is to be made on the basis of the material found during the course of search and any estimation is beyond the purview of the block assessment – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue. Unexplained cash found at the time of search – Held that:- CIT(A) has given a finding on fact that Smt. Savitridevi, w/o assessee admitted in her primary statement i.e. in the statement before the start of the search that there may be about ₹ 2000 to ₹ 3000 of cash at her residence and there was also cash belonging to her father which was kept at her residence for the treatment who was hospitalized at Ahmedabad after he met with an accident – ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see that papers contained in Annexure A-1 related to M/s.Mahashakti Jewellers and addition had already been made on the basis of these papers in the case of M/s.Mahashakti Jewellers. ii) deleting the addition of ₹ 10000 on account of unexplained deposit in bank account, ignoring the fact that the assessee had not given any explanation about the source of deposit, either before the AO or during the appellate proceedings: iii) allowing relief of ₹ 218000/- out of addition of ₹ 346392/- made on account of undisclosed income from job work, without any basis and without considering the full facts of the case particularly the house hold expenses of the assessee for which the AO did not make any separate addition; iv) holding that the AO was not justified in determining/estimating undisclosed income on account of house hold expenses, while making assessment u/s.158BC(c) of the Act, although such undisclosed income had been determined on the basis of information available with the AO. That the appellant reserves its right to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal on or before the date the appeal is finally heard for disposal. 2. Briefly stated facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess of M/s.Mahashakti Jewllers cannot be brushed aside particularly when adverse inference had already been made in the assessment of Sh.Kishanlal Jiyalal Soni Prop. M/s.Mahashakti Jewellers. Appellant is an employee of M/s.Mahashakti Jewellers and the finding of certain papers relating to M/s.Mahshakti Jewellers cannot be said unusual. Moreover absolute inference cannot be drawn u/s.132(4A) particularly when appellant had admitted in clear terms that certain papers in Annexure A-1 relate to the business of M/s.Maheshakti Jewellers. There is no other evidence found as a result of search or brought on record by the AO that such purchase of silver were made by the appellant or for that matter appellant had made payment o ₹ 71,204 for job charges for making silver ornaments or the appellant had earned a sum of ₹ 2,22,355 on such transaction. Accordingly, I hold that the AO was unjustified in making addition of ₹ 11,11,782 on account of investment in purchase of silver, ₹ 71,204 on account of payment of job charges for making silver ornaments and ₹ 2,22,355 on account of profit earned. I, therefore, delete these additions totaling to ₹ 14,05,341. Thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per. Thus, this ground of Revenue's appeal is rejected. 9. Ground No.4 is against in holding by the CIT(A) that the AO was not justified in determining/estimating undisclosed income on account of household expenses. 9.1. The ld.CIT-DR has supported the order of the AO. The ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on household expenses as the estimation is outside the purview of the block assessment. 10. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee that the estimation in block assessment is to be made on the basis of the material found during the course of search and any estimation is beyond the purview of the block assessment. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Therefore, this ground of Revenue's appeal is rejected. 11. In the result, Revenue's appeal, i.e. IT(ss)A No.206/Ahd/2013 is dismissed. 12. Now, we take up the Assessee&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order and considered the facts in right prospective. 15. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has given a finding on fact that Smt.Savitridevi, w/o assessee admitted in her primary statement i.e. in the statement before the start of the search that there may be about ₹ 2000 to ₹ 3000 of cash at her residence and there was also cash belonging to her father which was kept at her residence for the treatment who was hospitalized at Ahmedabad after he met with an accident. This finding on fact is not controverted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on record, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, this ground of Revenue's appeal is rejected. 16. Ground No.2 is against the deletion of addition of ₹ 1,06,910/- in respect of unexplained investment in gold ornaments, on the basis of unsubstantiated claim of the assessee without considering the full facts of the case. 16.1. The ld.CIT-DR supported the order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has given a finding on fact in para-18 of his order, which reads as under:- 18. I have considered the submissions of the ld. counsel in tis regard. I have also seen the reasoning given by the AO for making addition on account of house hold expenses. After due consideration of the matter, I hold that the AO was not justified in making this addition because no evidence whatsoever was found during the course of search on the basis of which it could be said that appellant had spent more on house hold expenses than disclosed by him while filing returns for the block period prior to the date of search. No information was also brought on record by the AO on the basis of which it could be said appellant's withdrawals for house hold expenses made by the appellant and his wife were insufficient for meeting the family expenses of the appellant which comprised of two adult members and one small child. Addition merely on estimated basis cannot be made while passing asstt. Order for the block period. Accordingly, I hold that the AO was not justified in making this addition on account of unexplained house hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
