9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The second question will also enure for the benefit of the assessee as from the record it is clear that other concerns were not Benami concerns of the assessee. For the forging reasons, the present appeal is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - IT reference No. 25 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 12-11-2014 - K.S. JHAVERI AND K.J. THAKER, JJ. Nitin K. Mehta, Advocate for the Appellant Mrs. Swati Soparkar, Advocate for the Respondent JUDGMENT K.J. Thaker, J. In compliance to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court:- (1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the benami businesses as belong to the Assessee. 2.1 In Appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved by the same, the Assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. The Tribunal vide its order dated 21.1.1997 deleted the additions holding that the revenue has failed to prove the benami nature of the businesses carried on in the name of four employees and the assessee's wife. Against the said order, the revenue filed reference before this Court. This Court also rejected the reference of the revenue. The revenue therefore, filed SLP before the Apex Court. The Apex Court vide its order dated 17.09.1999 directed the Tribunal to refer the questions to this Court as mentioned hereinabove. 3. Lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been made contribution from time to time. The assessee took possession of the bunglow in 1974 when only ground floor was constructed. Since then he has been living there. The assessee has constructed first floor during 1986 to 1988 and he has incurred the expenses for first floor structure to the tune of ₹ 2,03,185.65 ps. but this amount has been withdrawn from the account of the firm in which the assessee is a partner. As per say of Mr. Shah even departmental valuation officer has also accepted that the cost of construction of first floor worked out to ₹ 2,06,060/-. There was, therefore, no reason for making addition of ₹ 4 lacs on the basis of alleged disclosure made by the assessee in his statement recorded under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that count. Even if the board Circular may not have retrospective operation, looking to the quantum of holding and assessee's explanation, we are of the view that this is a normal holding which can be found in any middle class Indian family and hence no addition could have been justified on that count. So far as addition of ₹ 1 lac on account of unaccounted investment in furniture is concerned, it is stated by the assessee that on the ground floor furniture was made before 15 years and assessee had spent ₹ 25,000/- for renovation after making withdrawal from the firm's account. It is further submitted that the furniture on the first floor was partly received and paid out of withdrawals from the firm. At the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the first statement in the morning. In this first statement in the morning there is no acceptance of any benamidari or any disclosure. It is notable that the second statement of the assessee started at 8:45 pm. which according to the assessee continued upto 6 am. next day. This is contained from pages 13 to 26 of the paper book and contains 35 questions and answers. Till question No.21 of the second statement there is no allegation of any benamidari. From question No.22 the statement starts talking about proprietorship of different concerns in the name of his various employees. Even in answer to question No.22 he could not give the names of the proprietors of Kamal Traders, Naman Traders, Sampat Traders, Adarsh textiles. In the last sent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded make certain disclosure. It is notable that the disclosure. Made in answer to question No.12 appearing on assessee's paper book page No.32 in the statement given on 31.8.90 talks about disclosure of 24 lakhs in 14 concerns as group disclosure. The issue regarding group disclosure has neither been discussed by the A.O. nor by the CIT(A). Under I.T. Act an assessment has to be made on an assessee on an income determined in his case for a particular year. The quantum of disclosure made in each and every 14 concerns have not been identified by either of the lower authorities. The department has also not contested the fact that this assessee's son suffered from diabetes. In view of the above circumstances we see reason to believe tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
