9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary for deciding this appeal are that by an order, the Assessing Officer finalised the assessment of the respondent under section 143(1) on a total income of Rs. 15,320 but in pursuance of a search and seizure operation conducted at the business premises of the firm, Mohar Singh Ishwar Dayal, Ballabgarh, and the residential premises of Shri Vidya Rattan, he made an addition of Rs. 1,45,000 by treating the purchase of the plot in the name of the assessee's minor son as unexplained investment. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide his order dated July 31, 1991, and that order was upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000 and after deducting the investment of Rs. 45,000 shown by the assessee, added the difference of Rs. 1,45,000 as unexplained investment in the plot. (iii) An identical addition was made in the hands of Sh. Vidya Rattan father of the assessee, in the assessment year 1987-88. In fact, the aforesaid addition in the hands of the assessee has been made on a protective basis as the substantive addition was made in the hands of Sh. Vidya Rattan. In my appellate order dated June 26, 1991, in Appeal No. 103 of 1991-92 for the assessment year 1987-88 in the case of Sh. Vidya Rattan, father of the assessee, the issue of unexplained investment in the aforesaid plot was dealt with and examined by me in detail. Following my appellate order, supra, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded in the sale deeds. The Revenue claims that the total investment made is at Rs. 3,66,400 and there is unexplained investment of Rs. 2,86,400 but as would be seen from the facts given, there is no material evidence to establish that the assessee made investment of Rs. 2,86,400 over and above that recorded in the sale deeds at Rs. 80,000. In the absence of any such evidence, and the investment having been proved, no addition could be made under section 69 of the Income-tax Act. This view is fully supported by the aforecited decisions of the Tribunal. Moreover, the assessees have laid cogent evidence by way of receipts and copies of sale deeds to show that the assessees acquired the said plots for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/Rs. 45,000 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
