9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed during search, and thereby upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O of the balance of 1232.8 gms, on account of unexplained investment in jewellery u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of Ld. A.O in making an addition of Rs. 88.900/- on account of undeclared business income. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of Ld. A.O in making addition on account of low drawings made by the assessee for household expenses to the extent of Rs. 300000/-. 5. In any view of the matter and in any case the order under appeal is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. The Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as follows: "(i) Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made of Rs. 39,37,392/- on account of unexplained jewellery found at the time of search by ignoring the facts that no evidences has been produced by the assessee neither at the time of assessment proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in support of his explanation was filed by the assessee. Therefore this amount of Rs. 77,200/- was added to total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11. During the course of search proceeding conducted at the residence of the assessee jewellery of Rs. 39,37,792/- was found but not seized. Assessee in his letter dated 1/12/2011 submitted that the jewelry found at the residence was belonging to different 9 family members and as per CBDT instruction No. 1194 the jewellery may be treated as out of declare sources. The Assessing Officer considered the submission offered by the assessee but did not find reasonable on grounds that the CBDT instruction is applicable at the time of search operation so that proper benefit of each female member of 500 gram and male member of 100 gram and female child of 250 gram has to be allowed at the time of seizure made by the authorized officer. But during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee explained the source of purchase of jewellery in this case. Assessee did not furnish any evidence with regard to source of investment for purchase of jewellery, therefore, the whole amount of Rs. 39,37,792/- was added back in the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- under Section 44AD. As relates to low drawing addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- by the AO, the CIT(A) held that this ad hoc estimation added back without any incriminating evidence whether direct or circumstantial cannot be sustain. 5. The AR submitted that Ground No. l relates to addition of Rs. 77,200/- out of the cash found as unexplained which was confirmed by CIT(A). A sum of Rs. 2,77,200/- was found out of which Rs. 2,000,00/- was surrendered for which there is no dispute but the balance amount of Rs. 77,200/- which was explained to be past saving of 8 members family was not accepted by any of the authorities. Though Ld. CIT(A) finds force in the argument of the assessee that it is reasonable to have Rs. 77,200/- by a family of eight members but in the same breath she held that there was no necessity to keep cash. It is submitted that family of the assessee consists of super senior citizens of 92 years, 80 years and therefore for such kind of a family to have reasonable amount of cash to meet any medical contingency is not something which is improbable. The family members detail showing super senior citizen in the family was annexed to pg. 60 of the Paper Book filed by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the assessee accepting 8% profits were annexed to pg. 6 to 32 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee. As relates to Ground No.4 the AR submitted that since CIT(A) has deleted the addition, hence not aggrieved. 7. The AR further submitted that First ground of departmental appeal is common with Ground No. 2 of the assessee's appeal. GROUND NO.2 it relates to the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- deleted by Ld. CIT(A)Ld. A.O. has discussed this issue in Para-8 of the assessment order whereas Ld. CIT(A) has discussed this issue in Para 8 at Page 8-9 of the CIT(A)'s order. The AR submitted that there was no adverse evidence and the addition was made on estimate and that the total withdrawal by the family members was Rs. 3,48,000/- The chart given to Ld. A.O. which shows that total withdrawal was more than the withdrawals made in earlier years. The cash flow chart of various members of the family showing the amount of withdrawal was annexed to pg. 41 to 45 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee. As relates to GROUND NO.3 it relates to the adjustments of seized cash towards the advance tax liability. Ld. CIT(A) has discussed this issue in Para-9 and case laws mentioned therein. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
