9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the name of Suman Bala Chopra, wife of the assessee, in the books of M/s Sanjay Textiles, Kanpur. The basis of making addition by the Assessing Officer is that Suman Bala Chopra, wife of the assessee, is not assessed to tax and the Assessing Officer has straight away invoked the provisions of section 64 of the Act for making this addition without pin pointing as to which clause of sub section (1) of section 64 is applicable in the present case. As per the copy of ledger account of Suman Bala Chopra with M/s Sanjay Textiles, Kanpur, appearing on page No. 21 of the paper book for the financial year 1996-97, it is seen that the opening balance shown is ₹ 58,764/- and this is admitted by the Assessing Officer in Para 11 that the assessee’s wife had made investment of ₹ 58,764/- prior to block period. Once it is accepted by the Assessing Officer that the investment with M/s Sanjay Textiles, Kanpur was made by the assessee’s wife in the pre block period then income accruing out of such investment cannot be added in the hands of the present assessee. This is also noted by the Assessing Officer in the same Para of the assessment order that no fresh deposit was made by Suman Bal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . GARODIA, A.M. This is assessee s appeal directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A)-I, Kanpur dated 26/08/2013 for the block period ending on 27/10/2002. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. BECAUSE the authorities below have erred in law and in making/sustaining the following additions:- (a) payment of insurance premium 3,107 (b) interest on deposit with M/s. Sanjay textiles, Kanpur as made by Smt. Suman Bala Chopra (wife of the appellant) 74,093 (c) dposit in SB A/c. No. 1863 with Allahabad Bank, Sakkarpati Branch, Kanpur, in the name of the appellant 1,58,810 (d) Deposit in SB A/c. No. 709 with United Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd, Godarinpurwa Branch, Fazalganj, Kanpur, standing in the names of Rajendra Kumar Chopra Harish Kumar Chopra 2,16,843 2. BECAUSE none of the additions as aforesaid as have been made/sustained by the authorities below fell under the definition of un-disclosed income as contained in section 158BB of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f his order. 4. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all we reproduce Para 4.1 from the order of learned CIT(A) in which he has reproduced the written submissions submitted by the assessee before him, which is as under: 4.1 In this regard, the Ld. A.R. of the appellant has submitted as under: That as regards the other additions as per ground no.-1(a), (b), (c) and (d), it is submitted that these amounts are already covered in the income surrendered by the appellant in his Block Return. In respect of addition of ₹ 3,107/- as per ground no.- 1(b), it is submitted that Truck No.- UP 78 B 1033 belong to Shri Rakesh Kumar Chopra, nephew of the appellant and such a fact had been got clarified by the A.O. through enquiries made from the office of R.T.O. During the course of the assessment proceeding it had been explained that insurance co. had wrongly mentioned the name of the appellant in the cover note and in support of this contention, a corrected cover note was a/so placed on record. Thus, this addition of ₹ 3,107/- was not justified. 5.1 From the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he income on account of salary, commission, fees or any other form of remuneration from a concern in which an individual has substantial interest, can be added in the hands of the spouse. In the present case, this clause is definitely not applicable because the nature of income added is interest income and not salary, commission, fees etc. As per clause (iv) of sub section (1) of section 64, if any income is accruing to the spouse of the assessee from some assets transferred by the assessee otherwise than for adequate consideration in that case, such income accruing to the spouse will be added in the hands of the assessee who has transferred such assets to the spouse. Hence, before proceeding to invoke the provisions of section 64(1)(iv), this is pre-requirement that this fact is established that some asset has been transferred by the assessee to his spouse otherwise than for adequate consideration and the income in dispute is accruing on such asset which was so transferred by the assessee to his spouse. As per the assessment order, there is no such allegation of the Assessing Officer and nothing has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to establish that the amount stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not justified and section 64 is not applicable. Hence, this addition is deleted. 9. Ground No. 1(c) and 1(d) are regarding deposit in SB account No. 1863 with Allahabad Bank ₹ 1,58,810/- and SB account No. 709 with United Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. ₹ 2,16,843/-. Regarding these two grounds, it was submitted by Learned A.R. of the assessee that no material was found in course of search and therefore, no addition can be made in block assessment. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT vs. Ravi Kant Jain [2001] 250 ITR 141 (Del) (ii) CIT vs. Bimal Auto Agency [2009] 314 ITR 191 (Gau) (iii) CIT vs. Smt. C. Sabira [2011] 338 ITR 226 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. R.M.L. Mehrotra [2010] 320 ITR 403 (All) 10. He also reiterated the same contentions which were made before learned CIT(A) and which have been reproduced by him in Para 6.1.2 of his order. 11. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 12. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all we reproduce the relevant Para from the order of learned CIT(A) i.e. Para 6.1.2 where learned CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. When we examine the veracity of this contention, we find that copy of original return of income filed by the assessee for assessment year 1997-98 to 2001-02 is available on pages 6 to 18 of the paper book. As per the same, in assessment year 1997-98, the assessee has disclosed net income from truck plying being truck No. UAN 9214 at ₹ 24,000/-. Similarly in assessment year 1998-99 ₹ 24,000/- was disclosed as income in respect of the same truck and ₹ 2,000/- was disclosed for another truck No. UP 78B 3175 purchased on 25/03/98 and in this manner, total income as per section 44AE was worked out at ₹ 26,000/- but the assessee disclosed the income of ₹ 36,000/- in that year. Similarly, in assessment year 1999- 2000, the assessee disclosed income of ₹ 48,000/- in respect of both these trucks. For assessment year 2000-2001 also, same amount was disclosed in respect of these trucks. For assessment year 20001-2002 also, the assessee worked out the income in respect of these two trucks and one more truck at ₹ 72,000/- but declared income of ₹ 90,000/-. In the light of these facts, we also examine the finding of the Assessing Officer in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the deposit in the bank accounts is relatable to freight charges and therefore, the total amount cannot be added as income of the assessee because for earning freight charges, expenses are to be incurred and to be allowed and when the assessee itself has shown income in each year on account of operating trucks, which is substantial when compared with these accounts, no further addition is justified because against total deposit of ₹ 3,75,653/- in these bank accounts during financial year 1996-97 to 2002-03, the assessee has shown income from truck plying of ₹ 24,000/- in assessment year 1997-98, ₹ 36,000/- in assessment year 1998-99, ₹ 48,000/- in assessment year 1999-2000, ₹ 48,000/- in assessment year 2000-2001 and ₹ 90,000/- in assessment year 2001-02 totaling to ₹ 2.46 lac in assessment year 1997-98 to assessment year 2001-02. It is also seen that as per the details of deposit in bank account also, as appearing in Para 26 of the assessment order, there was no deposit in bank account after financial year 2000-2001. Hence, in the facts of the present case, the addition is not justified. 13. As per above discussion, we have seen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
