9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) has himself erred and contradicted himself when he observes that no addition can be made on the basis of the loose papers. Thus, on one hand she is stating that there is no material and on the other hand she is stating that there are materials in the form of loose papers. Decided in favour of assessee. Unaccounted/undisclosed income in the form of Gifts - We find that it is clear that the assessee has received watch worth of Rs. 40 lacs from the same company and in the same agreement in which she has undertaken advertisements and promotional activities and has received remuneration of Rs. 1.4 crores. Hence, the addition as perquisite u/s. 28(4) has no infirmity. Furthermore, the statement of the assessee that the actual value of the watch is much less has rightly been rejected by the CIT(Appeals) has no corroboratory evidence in this regard has been produced. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in this regard. Assessment u/s 153A - This addition is not based upon any incriminating material found during search for the document relied upon were impounded during survey. We find that in this case, the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 as under: Q. 19 Do you want to state anything else? Ans. Yes, I admit that based on the above seized papers and the answers to the Q Nos. 11 to 17, I offer following undisclosed incomes, which had accrued to me and Priyanka Chopra through various Events, Shows and Sale of flats in the Years as mentioned above. The application of this cash by the above mentioned activities are as under F.Y. (Rs.) Description Amount 2005-06 Cash-Payment in Evershine Cosmic 15 lacs 2006-07 Cash Payment in Raj Classic 35 lacs 2007-08 Cash expenditure for renovation of NavKaran Apt. 901 25 lacs 2007-08 Cash Payment for purchase of Studio Aesthetique 50 lacs 2008-09 Cash Payments for Property at Bandra MHADA 15 lacs 2010-11 Cash payments made for the commercial Unit 3.35 crores 2010-11 Cash Payments made for the land in Savantwadi 1.00 crore Further, in order to make peace with the department and considering the other entries in the various seized documents and any other issues that may sprung up during the course of investigation, I further offered Rs. 30 Lacs for the F.Y. 2010-11 to cover up any such discrepancies. I also promise to pay the taxes on the same in due course. 5. Subsequently, statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not convinced. He observed that the assessee has not contradicted the seized material on the basis of which she had disclosed an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs being made for purchase of Studio Aesthetique. Instead, the assessee has simply stated that there is no cash component as agreed in the statement recorded during the course of search. Therefore, the contention of the assessee is not accepted and the disclosure made during the course of search to the tune of Rs. 50 lakh is treated as undisclosed income for the year under consideration and is accordingly taxed. 5. Against the above order, the assessee appealed before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted that the Assessing Officer has not accepted the submission made by the assessee during the assessment stage and has made the addition arbitrarily. He held that no documentary evidence in this regard has found. He held that no addition can be made solely on the basis of the loose papers. Hence, he held that the assessee s explanation is acceptable in light of the Hon ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kalyanasundaram [2007] 294 ITR 49 (SC). Accordingly, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounted/undisclosed income in respect of professional remuneration received from Ramee Royal Hotel, Dubai, UAE. 3) Addition of Rs. 4,64,000/- made by the Assessing Officer for perquisites given by Ramee Royal Hotel, Dubai, UAE. 4) Addition of Rs. 14 lacs for notional rent for penthouse at Flat no. 901 and 904 of Navkaran building. 11. The assessee has also filed an additional ground in this regard which reads as under: Additional Ground No 1:- The addition of Rs 16,00,000 made in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. Sec 153A for the assessment year 2008-09 in the case of the appellant on account alleged receipt from Ramee Royal Hotel is bad-in-law because the addition is not based on any document or valuable asset belonging to the appellant seized u/s 132. The documents relied upon in the assessment order were impounded during the survey action u/s 133A. Additional Ground No 2 :- The addition of Rs 4,64,000 made in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. Sec 153A for the assessment year 2008-09 in the case of the appellant on account alleged receipt of tickets from Ramee Royal Hotel is bad-in-law because the addition is not based on any document or valuable asset belong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... less. 17. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the orders of the authorities below. We find that it is clear that the assessee has received watch worth of Rs. 40 lacs from the same company and in the same agreement in which she has undertaken advertisements and promotional activities and has received remuneration of Rs. 1.4 crores. Hence, the addition as perquisite u/s. 28(4) has no infirmity. Furthermore, the statement of the assessee that the actual value of the watch is much less has rightly been rejected by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has no corroboratory evidence in this regard has been produced. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in this regard. Hence, we uphold the same. Apropos addition in serial nos. 2 3: 18. On this issue, the Assessing Officer made an addition by observing as under: Regarding addition of Rs. 16 lacs: On verification of Annexure A-7 of page nos. 65-66 dated 18-06-2007 118 dated 04-07-2007 seized during the course of search it is seen that as per page no. 118, the assesses has received professional receipts of Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. l lak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dehorse any seized material/incriminating material found during search, addition in the case of abated assessments u/s. 153A is not sustainable. We further note that this additional ground has been raised for the first time. It also needs reference to the factual records. Since, it is an important legal ground and goes to the root of the matter, we admit the additional ground and remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the issue afresh in accordance with the ratio from the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra), and factual details. Apropos addition of Rs. 14 lacs on account of notional rent: 22. In this regard, the assessee has also raised additional ground which read as under: Additional Ground No 3:- The addition of Rs 14,00,000 made in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. Sec 153A for the assessment year 2008-09 in the case of the appellant as income from House Property from Flat No 901 904 Navkaran Appts is bad-in-law because the addition is not based on any document or valuable asset belonging to the appellant seized u/s 132 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of the above said properties. Therefore, the annual value of the above said properties is computed as under: S.No Flat No. Investment Value (Rs.) Annual Rent (7% of Investment) 1 Penthouse 901 1,25,00,000 8,75,000 2 Penthouse 904 75,00,000 5,25,000 Total 2,00,00,000 14,00,000 Therefore, deemed rental Income of Rs. 14,00,000 is charged on estimate basis and is taxed accordingly. Further, as the property has not been used for any official use, the depreciation claimed on Penthouse and depreciation on furniture fixture totaling to Rs. 21,88,367/- is disallowed and is added to the income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 24. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 25. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 26. In this regard, the assessee has also raised an additional ground wherein it is urged that addition is not based upon any incriminating material. On the same reasoning, as the previous ground adjudicated by us wherein we have admitted the additional ground and remitted the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, we similarly admit this ground. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
