9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the contents of the notings also, therefore, his other stand taken subsequently is irrelevant. Also merely because the assessee is inconsistent in his explanation does not ifso facto and on its own alone lead to the conclusion that a particular noting represents the income of the assessee. There has to be some material on record, more importantly, in the absence of any explanation by the assessee, to form the basis of making the addition. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the arguments of the Revenue. Addition u/s 69 made on the basis of certain figures mentioned on Annexure A-4 - house hold expenses - HELD THAT:- The assessee has attributed the notings in document A-4 to be representing household expenses while the Revenue has treated them as investment. We find that the only reason for the Revenue for treating the same as investment is the statement given by the assessee as reproduced above. But as noted above, the statement does not say that the notings in other diaries represents only the investment made by the assessee. The assessee has stated that they also represents household expenses. Therefore, this interpretation of the Revenue is based on incorrect app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(Central), Gurgaon [(in short CIT(A) ] dated 25.9.2013, passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ). 2. Brief facts relating to the case are that a search u/s 132(1) of the Act was conducted on 16.1.2009 at the residences and offices of the individuals and group concerns of M/s A.P. Shrestha (Goyal) Group, which included the assessee also. The assessee was engaged in the business of property consultant and earned commission income besides Long Term Capital Gains. Post search action, assessment was framed on the assessee u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned year, making various additions on account of unexplained cash credit and unexplained expenditure. 3. The assessee filed an appeal to the CIT(A), who in turn upheld the order of the AO. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has now come up in appeal before us. 5. Ground Nos.1 and 2, it was pointed out, were interrelated . The same read as under: 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 68 of the Act. 8. Before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee reiterated his contentions, after considering which the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO holding at para 5.3 of his order as under: 5.3. I have considered the submissions of the assessee and the impugned order. The dairy A-5 was seized from the residence. Ownership is not in dispute. Page 2 of the diary was stated to be ₹ 20 lakhs saved after the marriage of Chitra . This statement u/s 132(4) was later changed to earnings from commission during AY 2009-10 and duly reflected in the return. A scanned copy is placed at page two of the impugned order. On the other hand the assessee has contended that the diary did not constitute books of accounts so as to be hit by section 68. It was also argued that the addition was made solely on the ground that there had been contradictory statements and that the figures were petty expenses. On a perusal of the scanned copy it is evident that against the figure 20.0 0 the narration is profit balance after marriage Chitra. The marriage of Chitra is not in dispute. On the same page there are some other figures viz. 2.50 'bua' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified the addition. The Ld. DR contended that when the statement was recorded after search and in various letters submitted during assessment proceedings, the assessee had stated the amount to represent the saving after the marriage of Chitra, later on the assessee had retracted when confronted with his statement made on 21.1.2009 by stating that the same represented the commission income earned by him and it was duly disclosed in his return of income. The Ld. DR, therefore, contended that this inconsistency in the stand of the assessee showed that he was hiding something from the Revenue Authorities and, therefore, justified the addition made. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. The issue relates to addition made on account of notings in the document Annexure A-5 of figure 2000 with the narration against it profit balance after marriage Chitra . The assessee had contended that these were the surplus remaining from shagun and other collections during marriage of his brother-in-law s daughter Chitra. The fact of marriage of Chitra and that the figures related to the marriage of Chitra has, we find, been accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition was made are as under: 515=00 Mukesh L.G. 100=00 Suresh Patiaa 17.12.2008 1=40 Ravi 17.12.2008 100=00 From jiwan 17.12.2008 14. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the same. He stated that the same pertained to household expenses incurred on 17.12.2008. with ₹ 550/- being incurred on TV repair, ₹ 100/- given to one Shri Suresh Patiala, ₹ 140 given to Ravi and ₹ 100 given to Jiwan. The AO rejected the explanation of the assessee for the reason that in his statement made on 21.1.2009 the assessee had submitted that the diary contained details of investment made by him written in small alphabets and numerals. He, therefore, multiplied the said figure by 100 bringing the total sum of the page to ₹ 71,600/- adding back the same to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo diaries and rest of the amount written is against household daily expenses which my wife and children used to incur on daily basis. 18. On going through the same a vital fact which emerges is that the question raised to the assessee was vis- -vis the noting in document A-5 and not document A-4, on the basis of which the addition has been made in the present case. The reply of the assessee also is accordingly on the notings in document A-5 and a perusal of the same reveals that the assessee had explained the notings in document A-5 as being ₹ 20 representing ₹ 20 lacs saved after the marriage of Chitra and which amount was further invested with various individuals written in small alphabets and numerals in other seized diaries and the rest of the amount is against the household daily expenses. This statement, we find, is a general statement about the notings in the other diaries and states that the notings in other diaries represents both the investments and household expenses. The assessee has attributed the notings in document A-4 to be representing household expenses while the Revenue has treated them as investment. We find that the only reason fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rary and unjustified. 7. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) has failed to consider the contention of the assessee that there was a double addition of ₹ 8,05,677/- in as much as same entries appearing on two different documents have been added twice over which is arbitrary and unjustified 22. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the course of search certain documents were found. Annexure A 6 Page 16 to 34 contained bills of expenses of household goods. The assessee vide questionnaire dated 26.11.2010 was asked to explain the sources of these expenses. The assessee failed to explain the sources of expenses of ₹ 20,65,692/-, the details of which are given as under: Sr. No. Page No. Name of the party Description item Date Amount 1. 16 Pooja Saree Saree 6.6.2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnish any evidence that these expenses were actually incurred by his daughters. As the assessee had failed to explain the sources of these expenses, it was held that the assessee had incurred these expenses from undisclosed sources. Therefore, the AO treated the expenses of ₹ 20,65,692/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 24. Before the Ld.CI T(A) the assessee requested for admission of additional evidence in the form of two affidavits of the daughter of the assessee and of the son-in-law of the assessee stating on oath that the bills found during the course of search and forming part of Annexure A-6, belonged to them and that they were regular income tax assessees. The assessee had also filed copies of income tax returns of the said two persons. The Ld. CIT(A) refused to admit the same stating that the assessee had given no reason as to why the same were not filed before the AO. Thereafter the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO in the absence of any evidence filed by the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source of the expenditure incurred on account of the said bills. 25. Before us the Ld.Counsel for the assessee c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was required which was not afforded by the AO who passed the order within 15 days of filing of reply by the assessee explaining the contents of the impugned document. 28. We, therefore, admit the same for adjudication and restore the issue back to the AO to verify the evidences, now filed and decide the issue afresh after considering all the contentions raised by the assessee. Needless to add that due opportunity be given to the assessee of hearing. Ground of appeal Nos.5, 6 and 7 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 29. Ground No.8 raised by the assessee reads as under: 8. That all the aforementioned additions are based on dumb documents and only under the realm of suspicion, surmises and conjectures which merit deletion at the outset. The above ground was not pressed and the same is dismissed as not pressed. 30. Ground No.9 raised by the assessee reads as under: 9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the charging of the interest under sections 234-A, 234-B 234C of the Act which is not chargeable i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
