9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the findings, made essentially upon remand by the ITAT, set aside the addition of Rs. 22,25,885/- attributed to the assessee. The AO had held that the additions of the amount which was not hitherto disclosed by the assessee was warranted because he had contributed in the purchase of a Lajpat Nagar property (F-18, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi) by his wife. Further additions were made by the AO. 3. Search operations were conducted upon the assessee on 22.02.1996 leading to block returns. The initial assessments under Section 158BC were appealed against. Ultimately, the ITAT on 24.11.2003 remitted the matter after its initial decision was set aside by this Court under Section 260 on 21.09.2007. The ITAT after remand remitted certain iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever the amount found and shown invested by the wife of the assessee that has to be taken in the hand of the wife of the assessee and not in the hand of the assessee as the wife of the assessee is assessed to tax regularly. It is a matter of fact, which I have verified that the Agreement to sell the same property was duly registered in the name of the wife of the appellant, Smt. Asha Chandana. There is no adverse observation in this regard by the AO as well. No new facts have been drawn by the AO to suggest whether the appellant had contributed any consideration for purchase of this property, though disclosed and undisclosed sources. In view of this, keeping in view the fact that the property was duly registered in the name of the wif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elow are found correct: - Bank A/c Name of the Bank Date of opening Description Initial Capital 1386 State Bank of Patiala 06.11.95 By cash 5,000/- 15224 Bank of Baroda 06.05.95 By cash 5,000/- 1111 Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank 03.05.95 By cash 1,000/- 1913 Andhra Bank 23.04.93 By cash 1,000/- Therefore, the addition on this ground is restricted to that extant. In view of this, appeal is allowed." 6. The CIT (A) also disagreed with the AO and set aside the findings with respect to additions of Rs. 70,49,757/-. The ITAT was of the opinion that so far as the additions made on account of payments attributable to the assessee through his wife for an acquisition were concerned, the AO took note of the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of various bank account relating to these three concerns. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed in part." 9.2 The assessee vide letter dated 10.02.2000 submitted the opening balances of various bank accounts which are as under and filed copies of these bank accounts: Bank A/c Name of the Bank Date of opening Description Initial Capital 106374 Allahabad Bank 01.09.1995 By Cash 5,000/- 11123 Union Bank of India 14.06.1995 By Cash 2,000/- 106293 Allahabad Bank 05.04.1995 By Cash 1,000/- 15723 Bank of Madurai 16.08.1994 By Cash 5,000/- 106314 Allahabad Bank 04.05.1995 By Cash 2,500/- 9.3 Therefore, by following the direction of the ITAT vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it and after the sale proceeds were received by the assessee the amounts payable, were paid by the assessee to the suppliers. In any case, there was substantial sufficient stocks in respect of the stocks dealt by the assessee and were duly recorded in the books of accounts. It was submitted that unless there is an evidence found or is estimate any such an alleged investment, which too is based on no basis. It was also submitted that the entire addition made was based on hypothetical and surmise full consideration based on no valid material and was merely conjectural. 28. Also there is no basis to allege that the assessee had made any investment purportedly as a capital contribution. It is a matter of record that the assessee was supplying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d High Court in the case of CIT v. Ashok Rastogi reported in 100 CTR 204 wherein their Lordships in para 4 have held that no addition can be made unless the assessee is found to have made any investment. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) IT(SS)No.6/D/86 Dated 31.07.2002 Nihalsons Jewellers Vs. Dy.CIT. ii) IR (SS) No.87/Del/1997 dated 12.10.2000 M/s Kuwer Fibers (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT" 7. This Court is of the opinion that the chequered history of the litigation shows unanimity of one aspect: that the assessee's wife was separately assessed to income. She had declared the acquisition of the property. She was the registered owner. No attempt was made on the part of the revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
