9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect the Ld.A.O to delete the addition of ₹ 24,000/- and ₹ 20,625/- for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2014-15. Amount received from husband towards household expenses - Held that:- No material on record in the form of balance sheet or capital account of the assessee’s husband has been filed which could prove that Rajeev Mazumdar has given ₹ 3,60,000/- to his wife for household needs. This fact could be verified only from the capital account of Shri Rajeev Mazumdar for Assessment Year 2015-16 and for this we direct the Ld. A.O for carrying out the necessary verification by calling details from the assessee after providing sufficient opportunity and if it is found that Rajeev Mazumdar has shown cash withdrawal of ₹ 3,60,000/- for household needs from his capital account, then the cash flow statement given by the assessee should be accepted and the alleged addition to be deleted. Gold jewellery found in the lockers held by the assessee - Held that:- We find that Ld.CIT(A) has only given relief for the gold jewellery but did not accept the fact that in the Indian customs and traditions at the time of marriage silver utensils are also given to the bride. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Year 2015-16. 4. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is employee with State Bank of India for last many years and regularly filing her income tax return u/s 139 of the Act. A search and Seizure operations u/s 132(1) of the Act were carried out at the residential and business premises of the persons/partners/ associated concerns of Regal Homes Group on 12.08.2014 which is promoted by Shri Kishan Lal Sharma. Some of the group concerns are M/s. Regal Samarth Construction Company, M/s. Regal Kasturi and M/s. Regal Krishna Builders. One of the partners in these three concerns is Shri Rajeev Majumdar. Assessee is the wife of Shri Rajeev Maumdar. Search were also conducted at the residential premise as well as the lockers owned by the assessee. Notices u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act (In short the Act hereafter) for these assessment years i.e. Assessment Year 2009-10 to 2014-15 as well as notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-16 were duly issued and served upon the assessee. Though the assessee had been filing her income tax return regularly but it again furnished the returns in reply to the notices issued u/s 153A of the Act for various as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment Year 2015-16. The other addition made by the Ld.A.O is for unexplained cash deposit in the bank account. 10. We find that during the course of search except the jewellery ornaments found in the locker no other documents pertaining to the assessee were seized. It was during the course of assessment proceedings for the block period, that the information relating to various bank accounts held by the assessee was called from the assessee and in reply detail of two saving bank account and two over draft staff account were produced. These bank accounts are regularly shown in the income tax return filed by the assessee. It was only on the basis of these bank statements that the information relating to various cash deposits were asked from the assessee. These facts clearly shows that the alleged addition for unexplained cash deposits is not based on any incriminating material/document found during the course of search rather it has been made on the basis of documents collected by the Ld. A.O during the course of assessment proceedings. 11. In such situation where no incriminating material/document was found during the course of search whether the Ld. A.O was justified in maki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that no incriminating documents was found. Moreover we find that the addition is sustained merely on the basis of presumptions. We therefore direct the AO to delete this addition . 14. We therefore respectfully following the above referred judgments and decisions and in the given facts and circumstances of the case where no incriminating material was found during the course of search, the alleged additions confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) which were made by Ld. A.O on account of unexplained cash deposit needs to be deleted for Assessment Year 2009-10 to 2012- 13 at ₹ 62,000/-, ₹ 1,33,000/-, ₹ 66,000/- and ₹ 20,000/- respectively. We accordingly order so and allow the first common issue in favour of the assessee. 15. Now we will take up second common issue relating to Assessment Year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 raised by the assessee against the addition confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) at ₹ 24,000/-, ₹ 20,625/- and ₹ 2,07,850/- made by the Ld. A.O for unexplained cash deposits. 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the written submission placed on record, which reads as follows; That during the course of assessment proceedings the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was not required to put any extra efforts or to incur any cost in making such deposits a5 she was herself serving with the same bank which is obvious from the fact that she has even deposited ₹ 1000/-, ₹ 250/-, ₹ 1200/-, in her bank account. 9.6.iv Cash received from the husband must have been utilized for house hold expenses The assessee receives a fixed amount for house hold expenses which was utilized by her as per the needs of the family and at times the funds not immediately required were deposited in the bank account. It may be mentioned that the total contribution received by the assessee in all the years under consideration from her husband in cash for house hold expenses was ₹ 12,00,000/- as against which the assessee has made cash expenses of ₹ 13,18,770/-. Both these figures are readily verifiable from the cash chart submitted before the AO. It may be mentioned that in addition to above house hold expenses were also incurred by cheque for payment of school fees, telephone bills etc. Thus the cash chart submitted by the assessee in which the sources of all receipts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cash received from husband 180,000 180,000 360,000 Household cash expenses incurred 259,405 195,700 301,000 Cash deposited in bank considered by A.O 42,250 124,325 308,207 Cash deposited in bank not considered by A.O 28,300 4,500 - Closing balance of cash in hand 146,480 64,655 - House Hold expenses by cheque 33,866 22,097 88,181 CIT(A) deleted the addition 18,250 103,700 54918+ 45439 CIT(A) confirmed the addition 24,000 20,625 207,850 19. From going through the above chart we find that the assessee who is the employee of State Bank of India is regularly earning income from salary. She has some amount of cash in hand. Assessee also draws cash from bank d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Ground No.2 for Assessment Year 2015- 16 relating to the addition of ₹ 34,495/- which pertains to silver utensils found in the locker held by the assessee during the course of search. During the course of search gold weighing 30.90 grams (Net weight) and 491.56 grams (Net weight) were found in the two lockers in the name of the assessee valuing at ₹ 70,889/- and ₹ 12,75,938/- and the additions of the same were made in the assessment. Ld.CIT(A) following the instructions given by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide its Instruction No.1916 dated 11.5.1994 deleted the addition for the gold jewellery observing that the gold jewellery found in the lockers held by the assessee were within the limit provided in the CBDT instruction No.1916 i.e. 500 grams per married lady and 250 gram for unmarried lady and 100 grams for male member. 23. We are surprised to note that the Ld.CIT(A) did not allowed the claim of silver articles weighing 609 grams and 280 grams valuing ₹ 24,639/- and ₹ 9856/-. CBDT instruction No.1916 dated 11.5.1994, CBDT directs the income tax authorities conducting the search not to seize the jewellery ornaments found during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
