9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e confirmation and Permanent Account Numbers of the relatives - we find that assessee did not explain, who are those relatives and on what occasions those sums have been received. In any way, under the Provisions of Section 56(1)(v) of the Act, sum of money exceeding is only taxable. Though above provisions are applicable from 1/4/2005, but it can be used as a guide. Therefore looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that out of addition, assessee deserves relief is considered as reasonable and hence, addition to that extent is deleted. Further, assessee is also entitled to the excess - Therefore, even otherwise, the addition is covered as expenditure. In view of this, the learned Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition on account of deposited in the bank account. Thus, ground no. 1 of the appeal is allowed. Disallowing adhoc allowance under section 37(1) - HELD THAT:- The assessee also did not deny that the complete third party evidences are not available with her. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) in confirming this disallowance. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is dismissed. Addition under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntings the name of artist/painter Rouble Nagi is mentioned. It is stated before us that this is the name used by the assessee for her paintings. Most of the other paintings, the name of the artist is unknown. The valuation has been made by the revenue for each of the painting and there is no basis available that how the above paintings have been valued. Naturally if the paintings are made by the assessee herself, it cannot be added in the hence of the assessee u/s 69B of the act. In view of this we set-aside the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to segregate each of the painting if made by her. The AO is directed to verify and reduce the addition to that extent. Further, the amount of printing already recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee should also be reduced from un accounted income u/s 69B of the act. The assessee is directed to produce such details before the learned assessing officer, which may be examined and issue may be decided afresh. Addition based on slips having noting of sale/purchase of jewelry which were seized at the time of search - The claim of the assessee is that all these slips bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at assessee is an individual deriving income from business and profession from interior designing and artist. She filed her return of income on 20th October, 2003, declaring total income of ₹1,51,320/-. Subsequently, search took place on Nagi Group on 30 May 2008. Notice under Section 153A of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued. In response to that notice, assessee filed a return of income on 17th November 2009, at ₹ 2,55,585/-. 04. On scrutiny, the Assessing Officer noted that credit in the bank account of the assessee was of ₹16,38,128/-. Assessee could not explain satisfactorily the source of such credit to the extent of ₹12,89,721/- which was added by the learned Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act. Assessee has claimed business expenditure of Rs 176997/-. The learned Assessing Officer further disallowed 25% of such expenditure as assessee failed to furnish third party documentary evidences. Therefore, disallowance out of the expenditure was of ₹44,249/-. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act at ₹15,89,560/-. 05. Assessee, aggrieved with assessment order pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed during the course of assessment proceedings the expenditure could not have been disallowed. He submitted that compete details of such expense in form of ledgers accounts and vouchers/supporting were produced but it is not possible to maintain 100 % third party evidences. 11. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. 12. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the confirmation of the addition of ₹2,69,736/- and ₹1,30,000/- under section 69A of the Act. We find that assessee has deposited a cash of ₹4,63,500/-. The claim of the assessee is that she has withdrawn cash of ₹3,29,735/- from her bank accounts and has also shown cash sales of ₹1,93,764/-. Thus, she is having source of cash deposit available with her, amounting to ₹ 5,86,163/-. Out of that she has deposited ₹ 4,63,500/- in the bank account. The learned CIT(A) accepted the cash deposit to the extents of ₹1,93,674/- being cash sales but disbelieved redeposit of cash in bank account holding that whether that cash was avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered as expenditure. In view of this, the learned Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of ₹2,69,736/- and ₹1,30,000/- on account of deposited in the bank account. Thus, ground no. 1 of the appeal is allowed. 14. Ground no. 2 is with respect to disallowance of expenses being 25% of ₹1,76,997/- which has been agreed by the assessee before the learned Assessing Officer. The assessee also did not deny that the complete third party evidences are not available with her. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) in confirming this disallowance. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is dismissed. 15. Accordingly, ITA No. 5940/Mum/2019 for Ay 2003-04 filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 5941/Mum/2019 AY 2004-05 16. ITA No. 5941/Mum/2019, is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A) for A.Y. 2004-05 dated 24.07.2019 raising following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of ₹3,20,000/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. The action is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal before us. 20. The learned Authorized Representative submitted a paper book and case law compilation. 21. With respect to Ground no [2] he submitted that on identical reasons as prevalent in A.Y. 2003-04, assessee submitted that total credit of ₹11,16,590/- is out of known sources. He referred to page no. 5, stating that while explaining the sources of the same, assessee has stated that these are the cash deposits out of the funds withdrawn from her bank account. He referred to the page no. 6 of the order of the learned CIT(A), wherein the submissions are made. He submitted that undisputedly the cash of ₹3,83,000/- has been withdrawn from the bank account which has not been used by the assessee anywhere else and therefore, while explaining the total source of deposits in bank account of ₹11,16,590/-, the credit of ₹3,83,000/- should have been allowed to the assessee. 22. With respect to Ground no [1] , addition of ₹3,20,000/- under section 69C of the Act, he submitted that during the course of search a loose paper was found belonging to Orion Enterprises where quotation of ₹6,40,000/- was given to a customer in respect of interior d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee did not submit the reason for withdrawal of cash and its redeposit, addition could not have been made. This is also so, because, the withdrawal from the bank account is of small sum and redeposit is also of small sum. Accordingly, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹3,83,000/- under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed. 25. Ground no. 1, is with respect to the addition of ₹3,20,000/- under section 69C of the Act. During the course of search a loose paper pertaining to Orion Enterprises was found wherein the extra work of ₹6,40,000/- was mentioned. There was no address or date mentioned there on. During the course of appeal before the learned CIT(A), assessee submitted letter dated 23rd December 2011 from Orion Enterprises that above document belongs to them. It was further stated that this was a quotation for the work to be done for Mr. Marwah, in his flat at 902, Imperial heights, Pali hill. Orion Enterprises further stated that assessee has received advances on account of the above work and it has been offered for income tax as income in A.Y. 2006-07. Assessee also submitted the copy of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 153A of the Act was made on 30th December, 2010 at a total income of ₹61,60,410/-. 30. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT(A), who after taking remand report of the learned Assessing Officer noted that the correct figure of bank deposit is only ₹41,31,305/- against ₹57,22,157/- mentioned by the learned Assessing Officer. As per the records of the earlier assessment orders, the learned CIT(A) disbelieved and confirmed the addition of ₹2,08,242/- and ₹8,35,300/-. 31. Assessee is aggrieved by that order and has preferred this appeal before us. 32. The learned Authorized Representative submitted a paper book where n he submitted cash flow statement as well as other documentary evidences. 33. He submitted that sum of ₹2,08,242/- is loan and gifts received from relatives and further cash deposit of ₹8,35,300/- is from the bank accounts. He referred to the cash flow statement placed at page no. 2 and 3 of his Paper Book. He also referred to the remand report placed at page 11 of the Paper Book. Therefore he submitted that sum deposited in bank accounts is partly out of sales, cash withdrawn from bank accounts ear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,80,851/-. On search, in response to notice under section 153A of the Act on 17th November, 2009, she filed her return of income declaring income of ₹8,73,615/-. 40. During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer found that total credits in the bank account of the assessee is ₹71,94,129/- out of which source could not be explained to the extent of ₹58,16,658/- which was added under section 69A of the Act. Further, ₹2,63,743/- being 25% of the total expenditure was disallowed on adhoc basis. Assessment order passed on 30th December 2010, at ₹69,54,020/-. 41. Assessee approached the learned CIT(A), who after obtaining the remand report from the learned Assessing Officer held that there is no credit of 58,16,658/- but the correct sum of credit is only ₹16,21,552/-. He upheld the addition to the extent of ₹50,000/- which was stated to be out of cash withdrawal from the bank account. He further confirmed the disallowance of ₹2,63,743/- out of the expenses. 42. The assessee is aggrieved with that order and is in appeal before us. 43. The learned Authorised Representative and learned Departmental Repre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e agreed for earlier years, 25% of disallowance out of total expenditure, when accounts are audited, is also not warranted. However, we are of the view that personal nature of expenses also cannot be ruled out. In view of this, in the interest of justice, we direct the assessee to restrict adhoc disallowance of expenses to only 10% of total expenditure other than depreciation. Thus, out of the total expenditure of ₹8,26,359/-, the adhoc disallowance at the rate of 10% i.e. ₹ 82,635/- is confirmed and balance disallowance deserves to be deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is partly allowed. 45. In the result, ITA No. 5943/Mum/2010 for A.Y. 2006-07 is partly allowed. ITA No. 5944/Mum/2019 AY 2007-08 46. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 24th July, 2019, for A.Y. 2007-08 raising following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 5,15000/-and Rs. 6,31,790/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 2. The Ld CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent for purchase of flat of ₹14,87,000/- and investment in fixed deposits on the basis of noting in loose sheet paper no. 22 of ₹10,05,000/-. 50. Therefore, assessee is aggrieved with that order and has preferred the appeal before us. 51. The ground no. 1 is against the confirmation of addition of cash deposit of ₹5,15,000/-, ₹ 4 lacs on account of unexplained fixed deposit and ₹6,31,790/- on account of dividend and mutual fund income not offered for taxation. 52. On careful consideration and on perusal of hearing both the parties, we find that the assessee has explained the source of cash deposit of ₹5,15,000/- being withdrawal from her own bank account. This ground is identical to ground in earlier years, where the learned CIT(A) disbelieved that cash withdrawn from the bank account of the assessee are available with her. The learned CIT(A) held that it is merely a bald statement without any supporting evidence. In the earlier years, we have reversed the finding of the learned CIT(A) and deleted the above addition for the reason that if there is no other evidence with the Revenue of spending the above amount anywhere else , credit for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the learned Assessing Officer. The learned Assessing Officer may examine the same and decide this issue. 55. Accordingly, ground no. 1 of the appeal is allowed with above direction. 56. The [2] ground of appeal is with respect to the addition of ₹24,92,000/-. The fact shows that a loose paper numbers 21 and 22 are found during the course of search. On page no. 22 certain noting were found which shows that there is an office area of 390 sq. Ft. . Noting also has reference of ₹ 28,80,000/-. This sum is bifurcated in ₹13,93,000/- has been shown in cheque and ₹ 14,87,000/- have been shown in cash. The noting also shows details relating to registration of the property. The backside of the above page shows details of various fixed deposits. It is also mentioned that per sq. ft. rate is ₹7,236/-. When it is multiplied to area of 398 sq. ft., the resultant figures is ₹28,79,928/-. As there is mention of ₹13,93,000/- by cheque, the remaining amount of ₹ 14,87,000/- was added as unexplained investment of the assessee under Section 69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect to the addition of ₹10,05,000/-, there is a mention of fixed deposits of ₹10,05,000/- on that loose paper. Assessee has stated that she has fixed deposit of ₹ 45 lacs as on that date. Therefore, amount of ₹10,05,000/- is covered in the fixed deposits of ₹ 45 lacs. Assessee has also stated that the details are available in the balance sheet of the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) both did not consider the above explanation of the assessee. We hold that when assessee is having fixed deposit of ₹45 lacs and when assessee claims that fixed deposits stated in page no. 22 is not an unaccounted fixed deposit but included in the same. Ld AO did not found that in which bank this FDR is placed. During search also there is no recovery of such FDRs. Further, when assessee is showing that the fixed deposits of ₹ 10 lacs is also part of the total deposit of ₹45 lacs already disclosed by the assessee and when there is no mention of the name of bank etc, same cannot be added to the total income of the assessee. It is also to be seen that the learned Assessing Officer has held that assessee has obtained fixed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2007-08 is partly allowed. ITA No. 6458/Mum/2019 Ay 2008-09 64. ITA No. 6458/Mum/2019 is filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09. The following grounds of appeal are raised:- 1. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 2. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts. of the case in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 15,89,027/- u/s 69A of the Act. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 3. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 8,84,792/- u/s 69A of the Act. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 4. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 5. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the assessing office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is placed at page no. 4 of the paper book submitted. On reading of the above paper, the learned Assessing Officer noted that there are two figures mention of AB 15 MSF 14 71. There is one more figure of ₹5,00,000 mentioned against MSF and therefore, the learned Assessing Officer was of the view that as figure against the name of MSF is mentioned ₹ 5,00,000/- , the figure mentioned against AB of 15 and MSF of 14, are also in lacs but written in two digits. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer was of the view that against the AB, the sum is ₹ 15 lacs instead of 15 and Sum against the MSF is ₹ 14 lacs against 14 and therefore, the total addition of ₹29 lacs (+) plus 5 lacs was made under Section 69A of the Act. Order of ld AO was confirmed by ld CIT [A] . 72. Assessee explained that this is merely a loose paper and does not have any evidentiary value. It was stated that the learned Assessing Officer unnecessarily and without any basis stated that figures written in two digits are transaction lakhs.. It was further stated that merely because one of the figure is mentioned in lacs, the double-digit figures could not be also considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd MSF-14 which have been interpreted by the lower authorities at ₹ 15 lacs and 14 lacs. The assessee gave the explanation that ₹15 is with respect to the gift of ₹ 15,000/- to Mr. Atul Bhalla and ₹ 14 is with respect to interest to Mark S Fernandez on his loan of ₹10 lacs repaid. With respect to the transaction of Mark S Fernandez, assessee has stated that he has given a loan of ₹12 lacs to M/s Orion Enterprises on 8th January 2007, and which has been repaid on 31st March 2007, to the extent of ₹10 lacs and assessee has maintained this explanation consistently. There is no evidence that assessee has paid ₹ 15 lacs to Mr. Atul Bhalla and ₹ 14 lacs to Mark S Fernandez. The learned Assessing Officer has also not called for examination of these two individuals. In view of this, addition of ₹ 29 lacs made by the lower authorities is merely on conjunctures and surmises. Therefore, we do not agree with the addition confirmed by the lower authorizes to the extent of ₹ 29 lacs. However, with respect to addition of ₹ 5 lacs mentioned on the same loose paper with respect to Mark S Fernandez cannot be faulted with becau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. 81. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and found that the impugned document was found from the premises of Orion Enterprises. Admittedly, in the seized paper the name of the assessee is not mentioned. Further, the learned Authorized Representative of the assessee has specifically stated that these documents are the audit query sheets of the auditors and not in the handwriting of the assessee. When these documents do not pertain to the assessee and when assessee has stated that the query should be raised in case of Orion Enterprises from where the document is found. The remand report also confirms that document is found from the premises of Orion Enterprises then, how these documents are related to the assessee and why assessee is asked to explain the same in her individual capacity is not known. Further, even otherwise the expenditure of ₹ 17 lacs has not been incurred by the assessee at all and therefore it cannot be outstanding. There is no reference that when the same were paid or from which source the same have been paid and to whom. In view of this, the addition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sundram Mutual fund, which has been misinterpreted by the Revenue Authorities as Sundaram Hotel etc. 86. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the lower authorizes. He submitted that the assessee did not submit proper information before the lower authorities. 87. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the order of the lower authorities. On careful consideration of the various information submitted by the assessee, we find that the above additions made in the hands of the assessee is on account of complete misreading and misunderstanding on the part of the lower authorities. On 6th November 2007, the assessee received a sum of ₹ 1,59,792/-, which is credited in the bank statement, which is also placed at page no. 49 of the Paper Book. This is received from Sundram BNP Paribas Mutual Fund on account of redemption proceeds. Further, ₹ 6,50,000/- credited on 11th July 2007, is also transferred from HDFC Bank Ltd by cheque no. 161459 from the account of the assessee. Respective bank account of HDFC bank of the assessee from where the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further, these expenses were wrongly booked by the accountant under the head furniture and fixtures, which was subsequently rectified. Therefore, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. Assessee was asked to prove negative before the lower authorities that no such accommodation bills were obtained by her. If the evidence of incurring some expenditure is found, source of such expenditure can be asked. However, we fail to understand that how assessee will prove that she has not obtained any accommodation bills of furniture. In fact additions made by her in Furniture and fixture and other assets can be verified and if those additions are found bogus, additions of the same can be made. Therefore, in our opinion the addition of ₹9 lacs in the hands of the assessee is unjustified. Hence, ground no. 4 of the appeal is allowed. 93. Ground no. 5 is with respect to the addition of ₹ 1,17,164/-. No arguments are advanced on this ground. In view of this, no interference is called for and ground no. 5 is dismissed. 94. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No. 6548/Mum/2019 is partly allowed. In ITA No. 6835/Mum/2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 96. The fact shows that the on the basis of search on 30th May, 2008, return of income filed on 16th October, 2009, at a total income of ₹6,67,100/-. The assessment under Section 143 read with Section 153B of the Act was passed on 13th December, 2010, at the total income of ₹4,89,07,513/-. The learned Assessing Officer in all made twelve different additions/ disallowances amounting to ₹4,82,40,353/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and therefore, assessee is in appeal against the additions sustained by the learned CIT(A). 97. The first ground of appeal is against the addition of ₹ 4 lacs. The fact shows that according to page no. 1 Annexure A-1, seized during the search, it shows that assessee received gift of ₹2 lacs each from his father and his brother. Assessee was questioned and it was stated that no such transactions took place. However, during the course of assessment proceedings on 16th December, 2010, assesses submitted that she is the only daughter and her father and brother has decided to give 2 lacs each to her and therefore, these gifts are received by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e loans there were Notings suggesting that the aggregate consideration for the Delhi property is for ₹ 265 lakhs which comprised of cheque component of rupees hundred and 40 lakhs and cash component of ₹ 125 lakhs.. Down payment of ₹ 35 Lacs for the said loan of rupees hundred and 5 lakhs for the property was to be arranged from internal sources of the assessee. As per seized document i.e. page number seven of annexure A 1, cash component of rupees hundred and 25 Lacs for the Delhi property was to be organised from internal sources of ₹ 45 lakhs, loan already taken from Mr ATul Bhalla of ₹ 45 lakhs and balance ₹ 35 lakhs from the cash amount of ₹ 95 lakhs to be arranged by one finance broker. Further the balance cash of ₹ 60 lakhs from finance broker was to be utilised for repaying the loan of ₹ 45 lakhs to Atul Bhalla and the balance of ₹ 15 lakhs for payment of income tax. Based on this the learned assessing officer asked the assessee to explain the above noting based at page number 6 and 7 of annexure A 1. The assessee submitted that she is in the habit of making notes of the various proposals and the transactions i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on this account. 101. Therefore the assessee is aggrieved, the learned authorised representative referred to the paper book and submitted that though the learned CIT A as agreed that the transaction of Delhi property has not materialised, still he proceeded to make an addition of ₹ 90 lakhs out of the same. He submitted that the main reason for which the learned CIT A has made the addition is with reference to the assumption made by him that assessee has already having ₹ 90 lakhs in her hand. He submitted that this is the case of search, had the amount been available with the assessee, it would have been found during the course of search. There is no reason given by the learned CIT A that if the Delhi property has not materialized by the assessee, why would assessee borrow a loan of ₹ 45 lakhs from somebody else and where from the assessee would on a further 45 lakhs. He therefore submitted that the addition of ₹ 90 lakhs made by the learned CIT A is merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises and with no evidence. He further submitted that the newspaper also do not indicate that assessee is having those sums 102. The learned departmental ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rialised, the financial transactions with respect to that property also did not materialise, in absence of any contrary evidence. In view of this the addition made by the learned CIT A of ₹ 90 lakhs u/s 69A is without any merit. Hence deleted. Accordingly ground number 2 of the appeal is allowed. 104. Ground number 3 is with respect to the addition of ₹ 1,280,000/ u/s 69B of the act confirmed by the learned CIT A. During assessment proceedings AO noted that in the course of search action certain slips giving description of jewelry and also the value/amount were seized aggregating to ₹ 1,280,000/ . When questioned, assessee submitted that the above slips are merely estimates and the transactions have never materialised. The AO noted that description of the jewelry on the sale slips do not match with any of the jewelry items found at the time of search action and therefore he made the addition. 105. The matter reached before the learned CIT A after obtaining the remand report on submission of the assessee as well as the joint of the assessee confirmed the above addition. 106. The learned authorised representative submitted that these are the loose pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 383,000 u/s 69B on the basis of the Notings in the seized material. During the course of assessment proceedings the learned assessing officer observed that certain documents having Notings of purchases/remaking of jewelry were seized. Assessee could not explain the Notings with evidences and therefore this was added as income of the assessee. 111. On appeal before the learned CIT A, the submissions of the assessee, remand report of the AO and rejoinder of the assessee was considered and the addition was confirmed. 112. Learned authorised representative reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. The learned departmental representative supported the order of the learned CIT A. 113. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that seized documents shows that there are Notings of making charges of ₹ 22,000 and also cost of stone emerald of ₹ 107,000/ . This fact was not denied by the assessee before the lower authorities or before us. In view of this we dismiss ground number 4 of appeal. 114. Ground number 4 is with respect to the addition of ₹ 1,236,900 u/s 69B of the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds at the time of her marriage and therefore no addition in her hand can be made. 119. The learned departmental representative payment please supported the orders of the lower authorities and referred to the inventory of jewelry found. He submitted that if the assessee has received these items as gift from her friends and relatives at the time of marriage, she should have submitted the confirmation or at least the details from womb these gifts have been received. In absence of this there is no infirmity in the order of the lower authorities. 120. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that jewelry has been found during the course of search from the possession of the assessee. The jewellery was inventorised. The claim of the assessee that this has been received as a gift from relatives and friends is not at all substantiated but merely remained a claim. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the learned lower authorities in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,867,098/ u/s 69B of the act after granting benefit of 500 g of gold jewellery to the assessee in terms of CBDT instruction numb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it would be apparent that no addition is required to be made. He further stated that the paintings in the balance sheet are included in the residential premises cost of the assessee. 124. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. 125. We have carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities and the submission made before us. The inventory of the paintings are also produced before us. It is apparent that in most of the paintings the name of artist/painter Rouble Nagi is mentioned. It is stated before us that this is the name used by the assessee for her paintings. Most of the other paintings, the name of the artist is unknown. The valuation has been made by the revenue for each of the painting and there is no basis available that how the above paintings have been valued. Naturally if the paintings are made by the assessee herself, it cannot be added in the hence of the assessee u/s 69B of the act. In view of this we set-aside the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to segregate each of the painting if made by her. The AO is directed to verify and reduce the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given back there would also be some credit in the name of Mr Sanjay Kumar amounting to ₹ 2 lakhs which is paid by credit card of HDFC bank. Invoice is prepared by Anmol Jwellers. The total transactions recorded in all these jewelry slips is ₹ 6,634,555/ . However at the time of search only jewelry worth ₹ 1,867,098/ was found. There is a wide variance between the jewelry recorded in this slips with the jewelry found during the course of search in possession of the assessee. Looking at the slips, it is apparent that these jewelries are not purchased by the assessee for her own use, otherwise those would have been found at the time of search. Further most of the slips do not bear any date. But it is true that these documents were found during the course of search from possession of the assessee. The claim of the assessee is that all these slips belong to Anmol Jwellers and he would confirm their real nature of the transaction. Despite this statement, the learned AO did not summon Anmol Jwellers. In view of this, we set-aside the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to produce Anmol Jwellers before the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
