9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umption basis and without supporting any evidence and hence, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Secondly, the estimation made by the AO on average cost is also baseless and without any evidence and is not judicious. Subsequent to such estimation the AO has proceeded to estimate the 50 watches based on average cost of 25 watches which is essentially estimated over earlier estimation. Thus there is no basis of estimation of 50 watches of ₹ 1,00,64,000/- in spite of the fact that he himself accepted the withdrawal made by the assessee during the block period of around ₹ 3.5 Crores which is over and above the contribution made towards the LIC Premium etc. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances explained above, we are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declaring income of ₹ 84,07,792/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return u/s. 139(5) declaring a total income of ₹ 71,27,578/-. Assessee has surrendered ₹ 20 lacs under the sub-head miscellaneous income under the head income from other sources. A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out in Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Group of Cases on 5.12.2007. The notice u/s. 143(2) dated 12.5.2009 was served upon the assessee. On 19.5.2009 Notice u/s. 143(2) dated 13.8.2009 was issued and served upon the assessee on 13.8.2009. Notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) alongwith questionnaire dated 25.9.2009 was issued and case was fixed for hearing on 6.10.2009. In response to the same, A.R. appeared. During the sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er that during the course of search action a cash amounting to ₹ 6,26,000/- was found out of ₹ 5 lacs was seized. The assessee was asked to explain the source of this cash and assesssee submitted that withdrawal of ₹ 3,10,000/- on 3.7.2010 and ₹ 2 lacs on 1.11.2007. Assessee has not submitted any Written Submissions showing the cash balance of ₹ 6,26,000/-. AO accepted the explanation of the assessee to the extent of ₹ 3.10 lacs as cash was withdrawn which is 2 days prior to the date of search and the balance of ₹ 3.16 lacs added to the total income as unexplained investment u/s. 69A of the Act and completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act on 29.12.2009. 3. Against the aforesaid assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... precious and branded wrist watches the assessee has purchased from the last 40 years and some of them have been given as gift by his friends and relatives. He further stated that AO has not called the name and address of the friends and relatives as well as not asked for any evidence of 40 years back. He emphasized on the arguments that the AO has written in the assessment order that enquiries were made from local watch dealers who sell such branded and precious wrist watches and the AO valued these all 50 watches estimated the value of 50 watches of ₹ 1,00,64,000/- but the AO has not given any Inquiry Report to the assessee as well as has not invited the assesssee to join the enquiry made by him. AO has made the exparte enquiry and m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50 which comes to ₹ 1,00,64,000/-. The AO asked the assessee to explain the source of this investment and the reply filed by the assessee was that most of the wrist watches were purchased by the assessee over a period of time out of his personal drawings and besides, this there could be some watches received by the assessee as gift on various occasions from his relatives and friends. Assessee has also stated that drawings of the assessee during the block period is around ₹ 3.5 crores over and above contribution made towards LIC premium and other statutory payments. But the AO has not accepted the reply of the assessee and has given the relief of ₹ 20 lacs and added ₹ 80.64 lacs to the total income of the assessee as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion the AO has proceeded to estimate the 50 watches based on average cost of 25 watches which is essentially estimated over earlier estimation. Thus there is no basis of estimation of 50 watches of ₹ 1,00,64,000/- in spite of the fact that he himself accepted the withdrawal made by the assessee during the block period of around ₹ 3.5 Crores which is over and above the contribution made towards the LIC Premium etc. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances explained above, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition in dispute by passing a well reasoned order, which does need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same by dismissing the Appeal filed by the Revenue. 8. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
