Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 376 - ITAT AHMEDABADUnexplained investment in purchases of silver, job charges and undisclosed profit earned deleted – Held that:- All the papers were considered in the case of M/s.Mahashakti Jewellers and addition was made - The papers are not pertaining to the assessee - the papers relate to the business of M/s. Mahashakti Jewellers – assesse is an employee of M/s.Mahashakti Jewellers and the finding of certain papers relating to M/s. Mahshakti Jewellers cannot be said unusual - Moreover absolute inference cannot be drawn u/s.132(4A) particularly when appellant had admitted in clear terms that certain papers in Annexure A-1 relate to the business of M/s.Maheshakti Jewellers - the AO was unjustified in making addition on account of investment in purchase of silver, payment of job charges for making silver ornaments and on profit earned – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue. Unexplained deposit in bank account – Held that:- CIT(A) was of the view that the deposit made by the assessee on 04/10/1994 in SB A/c. was duly disclosed while furnishing return in the AY 1995-96 much prior to the date of search – Decided against revenue. Undisclosed income from job work – Held that:- CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee was a partner in firm known as M/s. Mahashakti Jewellers upto AY 1993-94, therefore he thought it appropriate to restrict the addition to the extent of ₹ 1,28,392/- out of addition of ₹ 3,46,392 – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue. Determination of undisclosed income on account of household expenses – Held that:- The estimation in block assessment is to be made on the basis of the material found during the course of search and any estimation is beyond the purview of the block assessment – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue. Unexplained cash found at the time of search – Held that:- CIT(A) has given a finding on fact that Smt. Savitridevi, w/o assessee admitted in her primary statement i.e. in the statement before the start of the search that there may be about ₹ 2000 to ₹ 3000 of cash at her residence and there was also cash belonging to her father which was kept at her residence for the treatment who was hospitalized at Ahmedabad after he met with an accident – Decided against revenue. Unexplained investment in gold ornaments – Held that:- The gold ornaments were found during the course of search weighing 263gms. from a locker in the joint names of the assessee and his wife – the gold ornaments belonged to him and his wife - The CIT(A) has rightly accepted the explanation given by the assessee since this kind of practice is prevalent in the society that the bride and bridegroom at the time of marriage are given certain gifts in the form of gold ornaments – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue. Low withdrawals for household expenses – Held that:- CIT(A) was rightly of the view that the AO was not justified in making this addition because no evidence whatsoever was found during the course of search on the basis of which it could be said that appellant had spent more on house hold expenses than disclosed by him while filing returns for the block period prior to the date of search - No information was also brought on record by the AO on the basis of which it could be said appellant's withdrawals for house hold expenses made by the assessee and his wife were insufficient for meeting the family expenses of the assessee which comprised of two adult members and one small child – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue.
|