9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee though a confirmation was filed with regard to the said gifts. The CIT (Appeals) had deleted the said addition. We are in conformity with the order of the CIT (Appeals) where confirmation of gifts has been filed by the assessee and it is customary that the gifts are received from the relatives at the time of marriage. Merely because the receipt was found from the possession of the assessee does not establish that the said titan watch was purchased by assessee. Accordingly, we delete the addition Addition made on account of marriage expenses - CIT (Appeals) where the evidence in the form of invoices were found from the possession of the assessee and also in view of the fact that the marriage of the daughter of the assessee had been solemnized at Ahmedabad. The assessee in his statement had admitted that he and his relatives had traveled by air from Delhi to Ahmedabad for solemnizing the marriage of his daughter. Accordingly, we confirm the addition made on the basis of the evidence/invoices found during the course of search. Addition on account of expenses on pre-marriage dinner at Chandigarh - AO in view of the list found estimated the expenditure @ ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been estimated by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the statement of the assessee that 150 persons had attended the function. Further other miscellaneous expenses have been estimated being customs. Undoubtedly the expenditure claimed to be incurred by the assessee are related to the marriage function. The total addition on account of marriage expenses had been made in the hands of the assessee at ₹ 3 lacs. Assessee fairly admitted hat the ends of justice would be met in case the said addition is restricted to ₹ 1 lac. In view thereof, we restrict the addition at ₹ 1 lac and partly allow the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. Un-explained expenditure under section 69C - In respect of the first addition of ₹ 18,000/-, wherein during the course of search evidence of payment of ₹ 18,000/- to Shri Kimat Rai Garg was found from the possession of the assessee and in the absence of any explanation as to the source, the said sum is to be treated as un-explained expenditure under section 69C of the Act relatable to the block period. However, we uphold the deletion of ₹ 2000/- being petty expenditure Addition on account of unexplained gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 24.11.2006 has erred in deleting the following additions: i) Addition made on a/c of unexplained expenditure on marriage of daughter at ₹ 8,29,664/-; ii) Addition made on a/c of unexplained household expenditure at ₹ 11,06,285/-; iii) Misc. additions on account of share payments at ₹ 21,500/-; iv) Unexplained Gift of ₹ 5,83,156/- ; v) Addition of Rs.,77,156/- on account of undisclosed interest received from M/s Brinsar India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Brinsar Foods Pvt. Ltd.; and vi) Addition on account of unexplained investment in jewellery at ₹ 1.56.446/-. 2. It is prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be cancelled and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard or disposed off. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that search and seizure operations were carried out at the residential premises of the assessee on 20.7.2000. The search and seizure operations were carried out by the Income Tax Department named operation gentleman and the warrants of authorization were is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sarees, suits, silver items, fruit basket, etc. 6. Father Brother of Shri Vishesh Tandon on the occasion of Milani One gold ginny each 7. Relatives on the occasion of Milani ₹ 2100 x 5 in cash 8. Relatives on the occasion of Chunari ₹ 1100 x 15 in cash 5. The assessee himself had calculated the above said expenses at ₹ 6,25,700/- as per page 4 of Annexure A-7. The assessee explained that the said expenses were proposed expenses and since the marriage was performed in Ahmedabad and not at Chandigarh, these expenses were not incurred. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the nature of the expenses was such that would have been incurred irrespective of the place of marriage and rejecting the plea of the assessee sum of ₹ 6,25,700/- was treated as the income of the assessee. 6. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the said addition. 7. The contention of the learned D.R. for the Revenue was that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee does not establish that the said titan watch was purchased by assessee. Accordingly, we delete the addition of ₹ 8700/-. 11. The next addition made on account of marriage expenses was as per para 4.3 of the assessment order on account of traveling expenses from Chandigarh to Ahmedabad for marriage. As per Annexure A-10, pages 6 to 11 seized from the residence of the assessee contained invoices issued by M/s Dhawan Travels Pvt. Ltd. dated 25/26.2.2000 were found, which related to travel by family members of the assessee from Chandigarh to Ahmedabad. The assessee in his statement recoded during the course of search had admitted that he and his family members had traveled from Chandigarh to Ahmedabad by Air. The total expenditure incurred was ₹ 29,841/-. The explanation of the assessee was that the said expenditure was out of shoguns and out of the un-explained income of the AOP. However, in the absence of any details, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 29,841/- which has been deleted by the CIT (Appeals). 12. We find no merit in the order of the CIT (Appeals) where the evidence in the form of invoices were found from the poss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e absence of any evidence having been found of the expenditure being incurred i.e. in the form of any bills, receipts or payment slips, we find no merit in the said addition and we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) in deleting the aid of ₹ 33,025/-. 15. Further the Assessing Officer as per para 4.6 has made addition on account of purchase of silver items/utensils. On the basis of Annexure A-12, page 20 seized from the residence of the assessee, which contained slip of purchases of silver items utensils at ₹ 29,800/-. The assessee failed to furnish any explanation and he same was added as the income of the assessee which was deleted by the CIT (Appeals). We do not confirm with the view of the CIT (Appeals) as the bills for purchase of silver items were found from the possession of the assessee and in the absence of any evidence to explain the source of investment, we reverse the order of the CIT (Appeals) and uphold the addition of ₹ 29,800/-. 16. The next item of expenditure as per para 4.7 of the assessment order is on account of stay at Ahmemdabad. As per Annexure A-12, pages 21 and 22 seized from the residence of the assessee and bill fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee. All these additions were deleted by the CIT (Appeals) and the Revenue is in appeal against the same. 19. The perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer reflects that the marriage expenses at Ahmedabad have been estimated by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the statement of the assessee that 150 persons had attended the function. Further other miscellaneous expenses have been estimated being customs. Undoubtedly the expenditure claimed to be incurred by the assessee are related to the marriage function. The total addition on account of marriage expenses had been made in the hands of the assessee at ₹ 3 lacs. The learned A.R. for the assessee fairly admitted hat the ends of justice would be met in case the said addition is restricted to ₹ 1 lac. In view thereof, we restrict the addition at ₹ 1 lac and partly allow the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. 20. Now coming to the second part of the addition i.e. the shoguns claimed to have been received from the marriage function. The Assessing Officer had estimated the said shoguns amount at ₹ 1 lac though the assessee had claimed that it had received ₹ 2,84 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of ₹ 18,000/- was added as unexplained income of the assessee. Further another document as Annexure A-10 was seized from the premises of the assessee was the cash payment of ₹ 2000/- made to Chandigarh club dated 7.5.1999 and in the absence of any explanation, the same was also treated as un-explained expenditure. Both the additions were deleted by the CIT (Appeals). In respect of the first addition of ₹ 18,000/-, wherein during the course of search evidence of payment of ₹ 18,000/- to Shri Kimat Rai Garg was found from the possession of the assessee and in the absence of any explanation as to the source, the said sum is to be treated as un-explained expenditure under section 69C of the Act relatable to the block period. However, we uphold the deletion of ₹ 2000/- being petty expenditure. The ground of appeal No.1(iii) raised by the Revenue is partly allowed. 23. The issue in ground No.1(iv) is against the deletion of addition on account of unexplained gifts made of ₹ 5,83,156/-. The Assessing Officer as per para 7 of the assessment order had noted that the assessee had received two gifts from the persons, who according to the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest and then net to be credited. The Assessing Officer in view thereof, made an addition of ₹ 8,77,156/-. 26. The learned A.R. for the assessee pointed out that similar issue arose before the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri H.S.Chadha in IT(SS)A No.1/Chd/2007 and vide order dated 30.9.2009 the matter had been restored back to the CIT (Appeals). The relevant findings of the Tribunal in paras 17 to 24 are as under: 17. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. The Assessing Officer while computing the undisclosed income for the block period on the perusal of certain documents seized being part of Annexure A-13, from the residence of Shri Romesh Nikhanj vide panchnama dated 20.7.2000, computed the interest income of the assessee from the two companies M/s Brinsal Foods (P) Ltd and Brinsal India (P) Ltd for the block period being not reflected in the books of account and worked out the addition of ₹ 15,58,750/- relating to assessment years 1993-94 to 2001-02. 18. The plea of the assessee before the CIT(A) was that the said entries in the seized diaries did not relate to the two companies in which assessee was directo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and accordingly the working of interest by the Assessing Officer was challenged. Further, the plea of the assessee was that the actual interest had already been accounted for in the hands of AOP. 21. The Learned AR before us pointed out that during the course of assessment proceedings of the AOP, addition on account of additional interest was made in addition to the peak investment worked out in the hands of the assessee. However, the said addition was deleted by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal in ITA No. 47/Chandi/2004 dated 17.2.2006 in the case of AOP had upheld the order of the CIT(A). 22. The CIT(A) though has referred to the submissions of the assessee before him including the written submissions filed during the course of appellate proceedings, but has failed to give a finding in respect of the issues raised by the assessee. The claim of the assessee is that the money lending business or financing business was carried on by the assessee and Shri Romesh Nikhaj, AOP apart from the business shown in the two concerns M/s Brinsar India (P) Ltd and Brinsar Foods (P) Ltd. The claim of the assessee against non inclusion of the income in the hands of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee and his family was higher than that of Romesh Nikhaj and his family, the interest was allowed only on the excess amount which in turn was credited to the cash book of AOP. The income being already included in the hands of AOP is not to be included in the hands of the assessee before us. The assessee vide paras 6.4 to 6.6 of written submissions filed before CIT(A), elaborately explained the nature of entries relatable to working of interest for assessment years 1993-94 to 1995-96. 23. In the facts of the present case, in the hands of the AOP, addition on account of peak investment upto assessment year 1995-96 was worked out by the investing wing of the Income Tax Department on the basis of documents / diaries etc. seized during the course of search at the premises of Shri Romesh Nikhanj. The figure of peak investment was worked out at ₹ 95,77,200/-. The plea of the assessee is that the said peak investment includes the income earned by assessee and his family members and Shri Romesh Nikhanj and his family members. Further plea is that once income is assessed in the hands of AOP, no other entry remains on seized documents which is includible in case of assessee or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore us is identical to the issue raised before the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. H.S.Chadha (supra) and following the same parity of reasoning, we remit the issue back to the file of the CIT (Appeals). 28. The last issue raised by the Revenue vide ground No.1(vi) is against the deletion of addition made on account of jewellery found from the possession of the assessee at ₹ 1,56,446/-. The Assessing Officer vide para 9 of the assessment order noted that during the course of search, total value of jewellery found from the possession of the assessee was 3,83,749/-. The assessee claimed that the jewellery belonged to his wife and his mother and the jewellery found was reasonable. However, the assessee failed to give any break-up of the jewellery. The Assessing Officer assumed that 300 gms of jewellery may be allowed in the hands of the wife and 200 gms may be allowed in the hands of three male members. Since the mother of the assessee was not living with him, no relief was given on this account. The Assessing Officer thus made an addition of ₹ 1,56,446/-, which was deleted by the CIT (Appeals). As per the instructions issue by the CBDT, the search team is direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
