Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 131 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of excess stock of gold jewellery found during the course of search - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) has taken note of all the relevant entries found in the seized documents and since no remand report was furnished by the Assessing Officer to the explanations of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that this amount of ₹ 22,91,212/-was available with the assessee in the shape of jewellery and balance as cash in hand. We accordingly find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A)on this issue and we confirm the same. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition for the difference worked out relating to silver jewellery weighing 40.462 Kg and the same was treated to be unaccounted and added to the total undisclosed income of the assessee - Held that:- Since there is no specific finding in this regard in the order of the ld.CIT(A), this ground does not arise from the order of the ld. CIT(A).Moreover, there is nothing in the order of the ld. CIT(A) whereby addition made by the Assessing Officer has been deleted. Accordingly this ground is not maintainable and we reject the same. Addition on account of peak cash credit entries found in the diary during the course of search - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) has noted totaling error in Annexure A-4 to the extent of ₹ 1.35 lakhs and while making addition onaccount of aggregate credits, relief of ₹ 1.35 lakhs was given to theassessee. Since it was a totaling error, there is no infirmity in the order ofthe ld. CIT(A). Accordingly we confirm the same.- Decided in favour of assessee. Undisclosed investment in elevation of showroom at Birhana Road, Kanpur - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The issue was examined by the ld. CIT(A) and he has taken note that the assessee has already declared investment of ₹ 2,82,989/- towards renovation of shop at Birhana Road, Kanpur as against ₹ 3.42 lakhsestimated by the valuation cell. The ld. CIT(A) has noted that thedifference between the investment as declared by the assessee andestimated by the valuation cell is on account of variation in PWD and CPWDrates. The valuation between the two is around 10 to 15% and if thebenefit is given to the assessee the cost estimated by the valuation celltowards renovation of showroom would stand reduced by 15% and in sucha circumstances it would come to ₹ 2,90,700/- as against ₹ 2,82,989/- bythe assessee. Therefore, no addition is called for. The ld. CIT(A)accordingly deleted the addition in this regard. No infirmity has beenpointed out in the order of the ld. CIT(A). We accordingly confirm theorder of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue.- Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained investment in house property - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) has correctly observed that the difference between the figures as declared by the assessee and estimated by the valuation cell was on account of variation in CPWD and PWD rates. The ld. CIT(A) accordingly allowed a rebate of 15% and total investment in property comes to ₹ 10,97,350/- as against declared investment at ₹ 11,29,500/-. The ld. CIT(A) accordingly correctly deleted the addition in this regard.- Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of Moti Nagine found during the course of search - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Since nothing has been pointed out by the Revenue on this issue, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly we confirm the same.- Decided in favour of assessee.
|