2013 (8) TMI 111 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Undisclosed income - Difference in opening and closing stock - CIT upheld addition - Tribunal deleted addition following previous decisions - Held that:- assessee had filed his return of income for the AY 99-00 earlier and the Revenue had not initiated any proceedings u/s 147 of the act for that year - Therefore, the capital of the assessee as n individual together with the capital of Nanak Cutlery Mart as reflected in that return of income should be taken into consideration by the AO while determining the difference between closing balance for the AY 1999-00 and the opening balance for AY 2000-01 and the difference between the same would be upheld as addition - However, this had not arisen from the seizure of the assets/records during search; therefore, such addition cannot be made - Following decision of N.R. Paper & Board Limited & Ors. vs. DCIT[1998 (3) TMI 102 - GUJARAT High Court] and CIT vs. Shambhulala C. Backkaniwala[1999 (9) TMI 25 - GUJARAT High Court] - Decided against Revenue.

Undisclosed income - Gift from mother - Tribunal deleted addition - Held that:- identity of donor had been proved and the cash book of donor was found to be having sufficient cash balance to gift - There was a declaration of gift executed and all the accounts of the donor had been maintained by computerized books - no error in the reasonings of the Tribunal to interfere as the assessee succeeded in proving identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the donor. The assessee had discharged the burden - Decided against Revenue.

Unaccounted investment - Investment in Co-op. Housing Society - Held that:- there was no conclusive documentary evidence to hold that the assessee-respondent had invested a sum in Ninad Co-op. Housing Society by using his four employees as conduits for booking of flats - No opportunity of cross objection was given to person in whose books of account, the said transaction of Co-op. Housing Society had emerged - when the Tribunal found that there was violation of principles of natural justice by not allowing cross examination despite such request coupled with absence of any evidence, no error much less any substantial error is committed by the Tribunal in deleting the said amount - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Unaccounted investment - Investment made in house property - Held that:- The statement of person with whom transaction was done was recorded by the Assessing Officer, however, no permission was granted to cross examine him. Although it can be noticed that the legal suit was initiated against the builder & necessary documents were also produced. The agreement concerned was of March, 1995 whereas the block period was from 01.04.1996 to 06.09.2001. The Tribunal rightly held that the transaction would not fall within the block period under consideration - Decided against Revenue.

Unaccounted investment in shares - Held that:- Assessing Officer did not consider the genuineness of the entries appearing in computerized cash book - Majority of the investments made through cheques and the paper books presented had contained all the details - Tribunal has reduced the disallowance made by A.O. - Decided against Revenue.