9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espectively for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2014- 15 and rest are sustained in view of the fact that the assessee could not furnish any confirmation of the travel agents. Unexplained investment in jewellery - CIT(A) confirming that the AO was justified in holding that only 100grms of gold jewellery found with the assessee is explained out of the addition of ₹ 29,79,754/- made by the AO towards alleged unexplained investment in jewellery - HELD THAT:- If the total jewellery is calculated as per the board’s circular, the availability would be of 2500 gms. Assessee’s brother Shri Vipin Chouhan has purchased jewellery of ₹ 20 lacs through cheque which is estimated for 450 gms. Thus, the total jewellery of 2950 gms. stand explained whereas jewellery kept in locker belongs to his deceased mother who passed away on 26.9.2010 and the same was in the possession of the wife of the assessee for safe custody because she is the eldest daughter-in-law of the family. If this jewellery is considered then there would be no surplus. We find that assessee was required to prove that jewellery was jointly held and since the jewellery have been recovered from the possession of the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is group of appeals is taken up for hearing together for the sake of convenience. First we take up assessee s appeal in case of Vivek Chouhan being lead case as both the parties submitted that similar facts and circumstances are involved in these group appeals. These appeals are time barred by 76 days. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessees sent the appeal papers through chartered bus to Mr. S.S. Deshpande but, the telephone number was incorrectly recorded on the delivery slip by the bus co. and for this reason, the appeal papers could not be received on time. Subsequently, the bus co. had called the office of the local Counsel, who has sent the appeal papers, and after receipt of such information, follow up was made and the appeal papers were delivered to the office of Mr. S.S. Deshpande and then the appeals could be filed. On the other hand, ld. CIT/DR opposed the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. After considering rival submissions, we find that the assessees have filed applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals along with the affidavit. We are of the view that assessee was not at fault for the delay, therefore, in the intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... traveling agents. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee on the ground that no supporting documentary evidences as payments made to the travel agents have been furnished. He further observed that the expenses shown by the assessee appears to be looked. Thus, the AO estimated the expenditure and made the additions of ₹ 3,00,000/-, ₹ 5,00,000/-, ₹ 4,97,175/-, ₹ 1,60,060/- ₹ 8,00,000/- u/s 69C, respectively for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2014-15. 5. Ld. counsel for the has reiterated the submission as made before the authorities below and filed written synopsis. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused material available on record. We find that the AO has estimated unexplained expenditure on foreign tours undertaken by the assessee. Ld. counsel for the assessee has, during course of hearing, drew our attention to the various advertisements by the travel agents in respect of foreign tours offered by them. After considering totality of facts, we are of the view that it would serve the interest of justice if estimate by the AO is reduced to 50%. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wife of the assessee for safe custody because she is the eldest daughter-in-law of the family. If this jewellery is considered then there would be no surplus. Looking to the rival submissions, we find that assessee was required to prove that jewellery was jointly held and since the jewellery have been recovered from the possession of the assessee, therefore, contention of the assessee could not be accepted. However, the contention of the assessee that apart from the jewellery covered by CBDT Circular, the assessee has certain jewellery where he has evidences of purchase of the same, this aspect requires verification at the level of the AO. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the issue back to the file of the AO with direction to the assessee to furnish the requisite evidences in support of the claim and then the AO will decide the issue afresh in terms indicated hereinabove. Thus, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes only. Issue No.4- Cash found 10. In the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 2,95,333/- apportioning and treating the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the AO with direction to the assessee to furnish the requisite evidences in support of the claim and then the AO will decide the issue afresh in terms indicated hereinabove. Thus, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes only. 17. In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. 18. Now, we shall take up the appeals in case of Vineet Chouhan in IT(SS)A Nos.314 to 317/Ind/2017 and I.T.A. No.830/Ind/2017 for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2014-15. 19. For the assessment years, 2010-11 to 2013-14, the assessee has taken first ground with regard to sustaining the addition by the ld. CIT(A) holding that the AO was justified in making addition in the years where the assessment proceedings were not pending and no incriminating material was found during the course of search. Both the parties submitted that facts and circumstances of this issue are identical to that of the case of Vivek Chouhan. Therefore, following the reason given in the case of Vivek Chouhan (supra), we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly this issue is dismissed for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2013-14. 20. The assessee has taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in making addition of ₹ 1,04,44,784/- towards unexplained opening capital. Facts are that the assessee has earned capital gains and also profit from the partnership firm. The same have been disclosed in the returns filed earlier. No balance sheet was prepared in the earlier assessment years since the returns were filed on the presumption income u/s 44AD for the first time. The assessee prepared the balance sheet for the assessment year 2014-15. While preparing the balance sheet, the opening capital was shown at ₹ 1,04,44,784/-. The AO asked to explain the justification of the same. The assessee prepared the income chart based on the returns filed earlier to arrive at the quantum of the opening capital. However, the AO did not agree with the submission of the assessee and made the addition. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 24. Ld. counsel for the has reiterated the submission as made before the authorities below and filed written synopsis. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 25. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the ld. Counsel for the assessee has claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
