9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k period 01.04.1990 to 17.10.2000 declaring nil income. Assessment in case of the assessee was completed for the aforesaid block period vide order dated 31.10.2002 determining income at Rs.6,77,97,225/-. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and vide order dated 31.12.2007, the Tribunal restored the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. While completing the assessment afresh, in pursuance to the directions of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer merely repeated the same assessment order which was passed earlier. In the process, he added an amount of Rs.5,61,580/- towards investment in unexplained jewellery on protective basis while making identical addition at the hands of assessee's wife Smt. Jyoti Jaggi on substantive basis. The assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals). After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals), though, deleted the protective addition of Rs.5,61,580/- at the hands of the assessee, however, he concluded that the addition to the extent of unexplained jewellery of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source of such investment, the assessee stated that the investments were made prior to the block period. In support of such contention, the assessee filed the copy of the wealth tax return for the assessment year 1992-93. The Assessing Officer, however, did not find merit in the submission of the assessee and added back the amount of Rs.50 lakhs. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee took a specific plea that even, the seized material if is to be considered on its own merits, the unexplained investment in shares works out to Rs.1,45,904/-. After considering the submissions of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the addition to Rs.1,45,904/-. 3.2 We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. As could be seen from the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in para 8.8 of the impugned order, after examining the facts and materials on record, including the seized materials, he has given a categorical finding that the investment in shares not reflected in the records of the assessee works out to Rs.1,45,904/-. The aforesaid factual finding of learned Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh passport of Mr. Thiara to prove the identity of that person. There is no evidence contradict, the claim of the appellant. The verification of the foreign bank account was not carried out by the revenue as directed by Hon'ble ITAT. Although there is no basis for presuming that the deposit in the said bank account was equivalent of Rs.50,00,000/-, incomplete evidence has been produced by the appellant in the form of balance statement and summary of interest / charges / tax. No enquiry was made" by the revenue as directed by Hon'ble ITAT. Am agreement between the Government of Republic of India and the Government of the Isle of Man for the Exchange of Information with respect to taxes was signed at London on 4th day of February, 2011. The AO is directed to immediately make a reference to the authorities of Isle of Man through the FT&TR Division of CBDT to verify the details of the said account. This addition will be ultimately subject to the outcome of that enquiry, as the real facts will be revealed only thereafter. For the present, both the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- sustained, and relief of Rs.25.00,000 - allowed to the appellant, by the CIT(A) earlier shall subsist. Further, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 4, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.11,76,300/- made on account of unexplained life insurance premium paid abroad. 5.1 We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. While deciding the issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as under: "11.4 I have considered the submissions made, orders of CIT(A) & ITAT, and the reassessment order. The ITAT, vide Para-38 quoted above, had rejected this ground of appeal raised by the appellant. There is not further appeal by the appellant before the Hon'ble High Court. This forum, being lower authority, is not competent to adjudication a ground already rejected by the Hon'ble ITAT. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is rejected." 5.2 As could be seen from the aforesaid observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals), this issue was decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in earlier round of litigation vide order dated 31.12.2007 passed in IT(SS)A No. 03/Del/2005, which was accepted by the assessee. That being the factual position on record, this cannot be a subject matter of dispute now. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded to the aforesaid factual position. Accordingly, this ground is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant gets relief of Rs.5,26,73,645/-." 9.2 We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The amount of Rs.1,72,18,103/- comprises of two items, an amount of Rs.59,38,103/- being peak balance of debtors and Rs.1,12,80,000/- being peak balance of creditors. Alleging that the seized material were found from a ledger maintained for M/s. Seasons Creation Pvt. Ltd. and Duke Hosiery, the Assessing Officer made the addition alleging that the assessee was unable to furnish the details called for. While deciding the issue in the first round, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition holding that the issue has to be examined by the Assessing Officer in the context of confirmation letter issued by M/s. Seasons Creation Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Mela Ram Jaggi & Sons and M/s. Duke Hosiery and addition, if any, should be made in case of respective business entities. Against the aforesaid decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. While deciding the issue, Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh keeping in view the decision taken in case of M/s. Seasons Cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of any contrary material brought before us to disturb the finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals), we do not find merit in the ground raised. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 11. In ground no. 5, the Revenue has challenged deletion of Rs.48,54,096/- made on account of investment in shares/debentures. 11.1 While identical issued in the corresponding ground raised by the assessee, being ground no. 2 in IT(SS)A No.02/Del/2014 in the earlier part of the order, we have upheld the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. Accordingly, this ground having become infructuous is dismissed. 12. In ground no. 6, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition made of Rs.22,20,000/- being deposits made in foreign bank accounts. 12.1 While deciding identical issue, arising in the corresponding ground raised by the assessee, being ground no. 3 in IT(SS)A No. 02/Del/2014 in the earlier para of the order, we have upheld the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, this ground, having become infructuous, is dismissed. 13. In ground no. 7, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.25 lakhs made on account of foreign tour expense ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
