9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anda & Brajaranjan Panda, all are independent assesses on their own accord having own source of income from house property etc., acquired in the year 1986 and when the income from the same property is offered to tax by all of them since then till today duly accepted by the department and addition of the house property in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration tantamount to double addition. 3. For that, the addition of Rs. 1,88,990/- added towards interest income deserves to be deleted on the ground that, not only it is unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case but also, unwarranted as per the statutory provisions as the interest income belongs to Premananda Panda(HUF), Smt Birajini Panda, Manoranjan Panda, Chittaranjan Panda & Brajaranjan Panda, all are independent assesses on their own accord having own source of income and when the income from the interest income is offered to tax by all of them since then till today duly accepted by the department and addition of the interest income in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration tantamount to double addition. 4. For that, the addition of Rs. 3,21,870/- added towards unex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad in law as the deposits belongs to Premananda Panda(HUF), Smt Birajini Panda, Manoranjan Panda & Brajaranjan Panda, all are independent assesses on their own accord having own source of income and when the income from the deposits is offered to tax by all of them since then till today duly accepted by the department. 9. For that, non acceptance of the so called additional evidence by the CIT(A) that goes to the roots of the matter filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) even after sending the same for remand report is out and out illegal, unjustified & unsustainable being devoid of merit deserves to be accepted and considered in view of natural justice & fair play. 10. For that, the appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend further grounds, if any, at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. The assessee for A.Y.1993-1994 has raised the following grounds:- 1. For that, the order of the forum below is arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and erroneous and has been passed on improper application of mind, being devoid of merit as such deserves to be quashed in limine. 2. For that, the addition of Rs. 44,400/- added towards income from house property deserves to be deleted on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for remand report is out and out illegal, unjustified & unsustainable being devoid of merit deserves to be accepted and considered in view of natural justice & fair play. 6. For that, the appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend further grounds, if any, at the time of hearing of appeal. 4. The assessee for A.Y.1994-1995 has raised the following grounds:- 1. For that, the order of the forum below is arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and erroneous and has been passed on improper application of mind, being devoid of merit as such deserves to be quashed in limine. 2. For that, the addition of Rs. 45,600/- added towards income from house property deserves to be deleted on the ground that, not only it is unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case but also, unwarranted as per the statutory provisions as the house property income belongs to Premananda Panda(HUF), Smt Birajini Panda, Manoranjan Panda, Chittaranjan Panda & Brajaranjan Panda, all are independent assesses on their own accord having own source of income from house property etc., acquired in the year 1986 and when the income from the same property is offered to tax by all of them since then till today ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to add/alter/amend further grounds, if any, at the time of hearing of appeal. 5. The assessee for A.Y.1995-1996 has raised the following grounds:- 1. For that, the order of the forum below is arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and erroneous and has been passed on improper application of mind, being devoid of merit as such deserves to be quashed in limine. 2. For that, the addition of Rs. 57,600/- added towards income from house property deserves to be deleted on the ground that, not only it is unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case but also, unwarranted as per the statutory provisions as the house property income belongs to Premananda Panda(HUF), Smt Birajini Panda, Manoranjan Panda, Chittaranjan Panda & Brajaranjan Panda, all are independent assesses on their own accord having own source of income from house property etc., acquired in the year 1986 and when the income from the same property is offered to tax by all of them since then till today duly accepted by the department and addition of the house property in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration tantamount to double addition. 3. For that, the addition of Rs. 3,61,004/- added to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds, if any, at the time of hearing of appeal. 6. From the above grounds of appeal, we observe that there are some common grounds in all the assessment years under consideration, therefore, for the sake of brevity, we are deciding first to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.426/CTK/2000 for the A.Y.1992-1993 and decision of the same will apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals also. 7. Brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1994-1995, the AO observed that the assessee had made huge investments. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s.147 of the Act and notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued. The assessee submitted that the original return filed by him may be treated as return filed in response to notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. Later on other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee was retired Government employee. The information was received from the State Vigilance Department that the assessee has made huge investment on acquisition of different assets and deposits during the period relevant to this assessment year. Therefore, for examination of source of such investment and called fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee are general in nature and, therefore, the same do not require any adjudication. 11. With regard to ground No.2, ld. AR submitted that the addition made on account of unexplained investment in gold and silver and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not just and proper. In this regard, ld.AR submitted that the assessee has himself declared in his wealth tax return that he was having possession of 590 gms of gold at the relevant time and the same has been incorporated by the AO in his assessment order at para 5.3 page 3. Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee family consists of his wife, three sons and one daughter and as per the CBDT Instruction No.1916, dated 11.05.1994, gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gms. per married lady, 250 gms per unmarried lady and 100 gms per male member of the family is allowable. Similarly, the ld. AR drew our attention to page 220 of the paper book showing the statement of movable property wherein at Sl.No.3 it is mentioned that the assessee has shown statement of movable property as on 15.01.1965 that he was having 100 kgs. Silver. Therefore, day by day, on regular use of the silver, it has been reduced to 13 kg. during the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee is acquitted of the offence then the confiscated property is to be returned to him. So the natural corollary to this provision is that if there is no possibility of recording any conviction as in the case of death of the person affected and abatement of the criminal trial against him, a confiscation cannot be made as there is no possibility of the person affected being convicted for the offence under the P.C.Act. Ld. AR before us relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sushila Devi Vs. CIT, (2016) 144 DTR 29 (Delhi), wherein in para 9 the Hon'ble High Court has held as under :- "9. The respondents' rationale or justification is entirely insubstantial. The petitioner says that she was married in mid 1960s and her daughters were born in 1967- she was 70 when these proceedings were started. The respondents do not deny this. In the circumstances, the further explanation that the jewellery belonged to her and represented accumulation of gifts received from family members over a period of time, and also acquired during the subsistence of her marriage is reasonable and logical. The nature of ownership of a woman's Stridhan is explained by the Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther occasions such as birth of a child etc. Collecting jewellery of 906.900 grams by a woman in a married life of 25-30 years is not abnormal. Furthermore, there was no valid and/or proper yardstick adopted by the Assessing Officer to treat only 400 grams as "reasonable allowance" and treat the other as "unexplained". Matter would have been different if the quantum and value of the jewellery found was substantial. Respectfully following the above observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above cases, we are of the opinion that the addition made on account of possession of gold of 590 gms. worth of Rs. 2,17,350/- is not sustainable. 15. Further, with regard to addition on account of possession of silver of 13 kgs. worth of Rs. 3,21,870/-, we have gone through the paper book at page 220 and found that the assessee was having 100 kgs. of silver since the year 1965. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that in the relevant assessment year the assessee must have 13 kgs. silver which he has already shown in the wealth tax return. Before us, ld. DR did not bring any cogent material on record to controvert the above facts. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Smt Birajini Panda(Wife), Manoranjan Panda(Son), Chitaranjan Panda(Son) & Brajaranjan Panda as well as return filed for the Partnership firm M/s Jagmohan Industries towards ton the ground that all the returns were filed after the Vigilance raid conducted in the office & residential premises of the Deceased assessee on dated 22nd April, 1995 on the ground that, the assessee filed Income Tax returns in the name of his HUF, wife and sons before the ITO, Srikakulam(A.P.) in the month of march,97 showing various sources of income trying to explain away different investments. However, such returns were filed for the first time, much after the search by the Vigilance Department was conducted and the investments were unearthed in his case. Thus, the filing of such returns is held to be an afterthought, not supported by necessary evidences and hence no cognigence can be given to those returns and the details furnished therein". 2. That it is clearly evident from the observations made in the assessments orders passed by the Ld AO for the A/y-1992-93,93-94,94-95 & 1995-96 at the time of assessment proceeding notices U/s 143(2) & 142(1) were issued and explanation & clarification were subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Requested to kindly accept the fresh or additional evidences and adjudicate the appeals on merit as the Factual Matrix deserves to be evaluated & analysed to arrive at Just & proper Justice to the appellant and prevent any Miscarriage of Justice as Article 265 of the Constitution of India postulates that no tax shall be levied upon the citizens except by the authority of the law, And further be pleased to pass any such order/direction/rule as would be fit and proper in the eye of law. And for this act of your kindness, the appellant as in duty bound shall ever pray. In addition to this, ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has filed evidences before the authorities below, however, the AO as well as the CIT(A) refused to accept the same on the ground that they constitute to be fresh evidence during appellate proceeding. Therefore, ld. AR requested that the additional evidence filed by the assessee to substantiate the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) as agitated in the above grounds may kindly be accepted and the assessee may kindly be given an opportunity to substantiate his claim by submitting the documents in the form of additional evidence. 20. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
