9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of undisclosed investments/loans/advances for the block period 1st April, 1988 to 19th Nov., 1998. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has, on facts as well as in law, erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,83,975 made by the AO on account of interest earned by the assessee. 3. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that there was a search at the premises of the assessee and her husband as also at the business premises on 19th Nov., 1998. The respondent is also a regular taxpayer and so is her husband. The respondent along with her husband had substantial shareholdings in M/s Bonn Nutrients (P) Ltd. The respondent was drawing a salary of Rs. 3 lakhs per annum from the said company. During the course of search, certain documents were f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents are to be considered in the hands of her husband, namely, Shri Manjit Singh. The AO however, was not convinced with the claim of the assessee. As per the AO, since the document seized during the course of search was in handwriting of the assessee, the addition was required to be made in the hands of the assessee. The addition of Rs. 20,35,000 was made on account of document No. 3 of Annex. 8 on account of advances. A further sum of Rs. 8,83,975 was added on the basis of the same document as interest earned by the assessee. Assessee appealed to the CIT(A) against the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A), Ludhiana, vide impugned order dt. 30th March, 2001, held that the issue relating to the document being Annex. 8 was before the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome derived from organizing kitties and earning of interest. The learned counsel for the assessee also invited our attention to the affidavit of the assessee's husband wherein he has categorically stated that the entire documents seized in the course of search belonged to him and that he will be responsible to be assessed in respect of the income as per the said documents. Our attention was also invited to the statement of the respondent as well as that of her husband wherein it has specifically been declared that the document being Annex. 8 related to the husband of the assessee and that the respondent had merely made the entries at his instance. It was accordingly pleaded that the appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed. 6. We have giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... band. Q. Do you admit any income or investment appears in the documents seized from your residence? Ans. No, all income and investments, as I stated pertain, to my husband. Though, some of the entries regarding family kitties are in my handwriting since I used to assist my husband." Relevant portion of the statement of Shri Manjit Singh, husband of the assessee, is also reproduced as under: "As regards statement of my wife, Smt. Prabhjot Kaur, I am in total agreement and explain that her handwriting is appearing in some of the documents as she was assisting me in my business. Therefore, whatever income or investment has been recorded by her reflected in my income or investment." In the affidavit filed before the AO, the assessee's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere cited wherein 'ghata' has been clearly written. It was stated that certain contributions were made by Manjit Singh, his wife or family members towards kitties and the funds of such contributions had been found during the course of search. Certain payments were also claimed to have been received during the start or during the course of running of kitties depending upon the requirements and there was rotation of funds. CIT(A)'s order dt. 30th March, 2001 - p. 11 of IInd APB - where factual position had been detailed was cited in support of the claim that Shri Manjit Singh's wife, Parbhjot Kaur, used to keep the accounts of various members of kitties. It was further stated that there were certain members who used to invest their funds by w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Settlement Commission that document being Annex. 8 seized in the course of search has been owned by the respondent's husband and the same has also been considered by the Settlement Commission in the case of her husband. In the light of these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition from the assessment of the respondent. Finding no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), we decline to interfere. 7. The cross-objection of the assessee is merely supportive of the order of the CIT(A) and no relief has been sought. The same is accordingly dismissed having become infructuous. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross-objection of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
