9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee, the AO could have and should have obtained the details from the Bank to find out the veracity of the statement. However, in the instant case, the AO has not made any such effort. The fact that credit of the maturity value of ₹ 1,66,820/- each of the 2 Fixed Deposit Receipts during F.Y. 1995-96 are not in doubt. The AO disbelieved the same on the ground that the source of deposit in the yearly details of Fixed Deposit Receipts has not been explained with supporting evidence and material. It is also a fact that in absence of full details kept by the assessee, the calculation of interest u/s.80L is also not possible. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, a lumpsum addition of ₹ 15,000/- for the block period on account of Fixed Deposit Receipt in the instant case in our opinion will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, out of the addition on account of Fixed Deposit made of ₹ 54,168/- as per para 9 of this order, we direct the same to be substituted at ₹ 15,000/-. The break- up of the same is for A.Y. 1997-98 ₹ 10,000/- and for A.Y.2000-01 ₹ 5,000/-. The AO shall accordingly recompute the income for different years of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he name of their children. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the deposit of ₹ 1 lakh by the assessee stands explained in the light of the cash flow statements and the details given. We therefore direct the AO to delete the addition - ITA No.750/PN/2014, ITA No.751/PN/2014, ITA No.752/PN/2014, ITA No.753/PN/2014, ITA No.754/PN/2014 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2016 - SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM For The Assessee by : Shri Sunil Pathak For The Respondent : Shri Hitendra Ninawe PER R.K.PANDA, AM : The above batch of appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against the separate orders dated 14-12-2014 of the CIT(A)-I, Nashik relating to the Block Period 1997-98 to 2002-03 (upto 17-09-2002). Since identical issues have been raised by these assessees in these appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ITA No.754/PN/2014 (Late Prakashchand Nandlal Modi) : 2. This is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. Facts of the case, in brief, are that action u/s.132 of the I.T. Act was taken in the case of Chintamani Nag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the Interest accruals on the, said deposit accounts for the Income generated in all the A.Ys. of the Block Period and other related issues. The AO is directed to compute the undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period after considering the factual position rather than on mere statement. While computing the undisclosed income, the AO shall reduce the income which is otherwise not subject to tax as per the law and also in view of the Rajasthan High Court Judgment in the case of Chain Sukh Rathi (supra). Accordingly, this part of the Ground is set aside. 5. The AO thereafter completed the assessment determining the undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period at ₹ 1,38,529/-. 6. In appeal the Ld.CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee by observing as under : 8. I have carefully gone through the assessment order, the orders of the Hon'ble ITAT and CIT(A) and the submission filed by the appellant. The detailed facts of the case have already been given in the preceding paras. The AO vide order dated 30/12/2011 passed u/s 158BD r.w.s. 158BC r.w.s. 143(3), r.w.s. 254 of the I.T. Act made an addition of ₹ 30,496/- for AY. 1997-98 and &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that the assessee is a Hawker selling Pooja items and does not maintain books of account. He has already died. He submitted that the income determined by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is extremely high considering the nature of business. Referring to pages 55 and 56 of the paper book the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the deposits made by the assessee with Vijaya Bank on 06-07-1991 (2 deposits of ₹ 1 lakh each amounting to ₹ 2 lakhs) which got matured on 28-07-1995 (Maturity value of ₹ 1,66,820/- per Fixed Deposit totaling to ₹ 3,33,640/-). 9. Referring to page 66 of the paper book the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the following chart : Sr. No. A.Y. Income returned by the assessee before claiming deduction u/s.80L and exemption limit (Rs.) Income assessed by the AO excluding FDR and deduction u/s.80L and exemption limit (Rs. Addition to the income on estimate basis made by the AO (Rs.) Addition on account of FDR made by the AO (Rs.) 1 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intamani Pat Pedhi PN Modi MP Modi RP Modi AP Modi SP Modi Total Chintamani Patsanstha 150000 50000 150000 100000 100000 550000 Chhatrpati Agrasen 40000 140000 40000 20000 40000 280000 Lokmanya Patpedhi 20000 20000 20000 20000 20000 100000 Mata Madhavi Patsanstha 15000 15000 Total 210000 210000 210000 140000 175000 945000 12. Referring to page 59 of the paper book the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the details of business income shown in the block return fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arguments made by both the sides, perused the order of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee in the instant case has not maintained any books of account and has filed the return of income for the block period, the details of which are already given at Para 9 of this order. We find the AO accepted the returned business income for A.Y. 1997-98 at ₹ 51,700/- but for the subsequent years he made certain additions, the details of which are already given at Para 9 of this order. In our opinion, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition on account of business income for different assessment years appears to be in the higher side. We therefore direct the AO to substitute the income excluding Fixed Deposits and deduction u/s.80L and exemption limit as under : Income returned by the assessee before claiming deduction u/s.80L and exemption limit (Rs.) Income assessed by the AO excluding FDR and deduction u/s.80L and exemption limit (Rs.) To be determined as per our directi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, out of the addition on account of Fixed Deposit made of ₹ 54,168/- as per para 9 of this order, we direct the same to be substituted at ₹ 15,000/-. The break- up of the same is for A.Y. 1997-98 ₹ 10,000/- and for A.Y.2000-01 ₹ 5,000/-. The AO shall accordingly recompute the income for different years of the Block Period. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly partly allowed. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.750/PN/2014 (Mahendra Prakashchand Modi) : 17. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under : 1. The CIT(A) erred in determining the undisclosed income at ₹ 23,015/- by not allowing the proper credit for the available cash flow for the investment in FDRs and by confirming the additions to the estimated business income. 2. The undisclosed income should be determined at Rs. NIL. 3. The appellant craves leave to Add/Alter/Amend/Delete any of the grounds of appeal. 18. After hearing both the sides, we find the details of addition after appeal effect is as under : Sr. No. A.Y. Income returned by the assessee before claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome returned by the assessee before claiming deduction u/s.80L and exemption limit (Rs.) Income assessed by the AO excluding FDR and deduction u/s.80L and exemption limit (Rs. Addition to the income on estimate basis made by the AO (Rs.) Addition on account of FDR made by the AO (Rs.) 1 1997-98 38,000/- 38,000/- NIL NIL 2 1998-99 26,000/- 26,000/- NIL NIL 3 1999-2000 27,300/- 27,300/- NIL NIL 4 2000-01 28,000/- 28,000/- NIL 50,000/- 5 2001-02 35,661/- 35,661/- NIL NIL 6 2002-03 51,475/- 51,475/- NIL 85,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the instant case. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. ITA No.752/PN/2014 (Ratimohan Prakashchand Modi) : 24. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under : 1. The CIT(A) erred in determining the undisclosed income at ₹ 74,381/- by not allowing the proper credit for the available cash flow for the investment in FDRs and by confirming the additions to the estimated business income. 2. The undisclosed income should be determined at Rs. NIL. 3. The appellant craves leave to Add/Alter/Amend/Delete any of the grounds of appeal. 25. After hearing both the sides, we find the details of addition made by the AO is as under : Sr. No. A.Y. Income returned by the assessee before claiming deduction u/s.80L and exemption limit (Rs.) Income assessed by the AO excluding FDR and deduction u/s.80L and exemption limit (Rs. Addition to the income on estimate basis made by the AO (Rs.) Addition on account of FDR made by the AO (Rs.) 1 1997-98 10,074/- Clubbed in Father ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dering the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the deposit of ₹ 1 lakh by the assessee stands explained in the light of the cash flow statements and the details given. We therefore direct the AO to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. ITA No.753/PN/2014 (Archana Prakashchand Modi) : 28. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under : 1. The CIT(A) erred in determining the undisclosed income at ₹ 21,197/- by not allowing the proper credit for the available cash flow for the investment in FDRs and by confirming the additions to the estimated business income. 2. The undisclosed income should be determined at Rs. NIL. 3. The appellant craves leave to Add/Alter/Amend/Delete any of the grounds of appeal. 29. After hearing both the sides, we find the only addition made by the AO is on account of FDR made by the assessee amounting ₹ 66,985/-, the details of which are as under : Sr. No. A.Y. Income returned by the assessee before claiming deduction u/s.80L and exemption limit (Rs.) Income assessed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
