TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustries (P) Ltd., Jodhpur. 3. Office-cum-factory premises of M/s Chemicals Minerals Industries (P) Ltd., 29(1), Light Industrial Area, Jodhpur. 3. The assessee has been residing in a joint family house situated in Moti Chowk, Jodhpur, along with his wife Smt. Asha Singhvi, Shri Rahul Singhvi and his wife Smt. Payal Singhvi, Shri Vishant Singhvi and his wife Smt. Rohini Singhvi. During this search various incriminating evidences were found and seized from the searched place(s). The assessee derives income from salary, share of profit from firms and income from other sources. 4. During search a loose paper marked No. 1 of Annex. A-1, of the Panchnama, found at the residence of the assessee on 20th Dec., 2002, was seized by the search party. As per this seized paper it was revealed that some sale transactions are recorded on it. This is a paper of 'Kalpa-Taru Theatres, Shastri Nagar, 'E' Sector, Jodhpur. Some of the writings are in indirect manner, i.e., in coded language. Three plots were agreed to be purchased by the assessee-one in his own name, one in his wife Smt. Asha Singhvi and one in the name of assessee's HUF; from Shri Parag Munot and the HUF of Mafatraj P. Munot, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by Shri Vimal Raj (individual) and M/s Vimal Raj Singhvi (HUF) were to be returned back and replaced by fresh cheques of Indusind Bank. Shri Shyam Ji Agarwal, the power of attorney holder on behalf of the seller has acknowledged receipt of cheques of Indusind Bank on 11th Nov., 2002. Cash amount of Rs. 1,25,000 was given to him on the date of agreement, mentioned in paper as on 10th Nov., 2002 (duly received by him) and balance of first instalment of cash i.e., Rs. 9,50,000 was to be given on 11th Nov., 2002. From the above facts, the AO inferred that when the assessee has complied with all the terms of this agreement, the cheques of Rs. 25 lakhs each issued by Shri Vimal Raj Singhvi (individual) and M/s Vimal Raj Singhvi (HUF) were duly issued on the dates mentioned therein and were duly replaced by cheques of Indusind Bank letter as per the terms mentioned in the said letter and the cash payment of Rs. 1.25 lakhs was duly made by Shri Vimal Raj Singhvi (individual) to Shri Shyam Agarwal which has been accepted by both, therefore, when all the terms as appearing in Exhibit-1 of Annex. A-1 were complied with both in letters and spirits, it gives rise to preponderance of prob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presents registration charges and not cash payments as has been observed by the learned CIT(A) and the learned AO. 10. On the other hand, the learned senior Departmental Representative, Shri Meena, has clamoured that the writings on Annex. A-1/1 are self-explanatory and speak volumes in favour of the findings of the Department that the payments below (-) sign depict cash payments. 11. We have carefully treaded through the orders of the learned AO and the learned CIT(A). We have macroscopically as well as microscopically circumspected Annex. A-1/1, which is a part of the assessment order. There is no dispute with regard to total consideration of sale amount of Rs. 2.05 crores (two crores and five lakhs). As per this seized paper this fact is quite obvious. Under (-) sign total amount of Rs. 30 lakhs and 75 thousands has been written. In case we accept the version of the assessee, Rs. 30,75,000 was carved out for registration charges. Now let us see what is the position after the registration of the sale deeds, which took place on 13th June, 2003. As per sworn affidavit of Shri Shyam Aggarwal, power of attorney (POA) of the seller Shri Mafat Raj Munot and family, the sellers agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in the block assessment can be made, only and only on the basis of seized material/evidences. 13. In the given case, except guesswork or presumption of fact there is no evidence on record, which could be stated to have been found during search, with regard to the payment of Rs. 9,50,000 in cash as has been alleged. Not a single question was put to the assessee in this regard by the search party, while recording the statement under s. 132(4) of the Act. The statement of Shri Shyam Aggarwal, the power of attorney, recorded by the Department is entirely in conformity with the claim of the assessee. Rather, a duly sworn-in affidavit has also been filed by Shri Shyam Aggarwal, which remained uncontroverted by the Department. 14. The version of the Revenue is solely based (on) presumptions raised on the seized paper, and that too on account of probabilities. The Department even failed to ask from the assessee on this important aspect. It seems that the raiding party was satisfied about the veracity of the claim of the assessee. The contention of the assessee that the deal was finalised with a stipulation that the 'registry-expenses' shall be borne by the seller himself, stands cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to delete this amount from addition in the total undisclosed income of the assessee. 15. The other effective ground of this appeal is contained in ground No. 4 (4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4), which relates to sustained addition of Rs. 5,96,280 made on account of undisclosed household expenses. 16. The assessee while replying question No. 12 in his statement recorded on 20th Dec., 2002, said that monthly household expenditure of his family was about Rs. 30,000, which do not include salary given to servants because salary to servants is paid by his company. The family of the assessee consists of nine members, including two children. The learned AO recorded statement of Smt. Rohini Singhvi, daughter-in-law of the assessee, in which she accepted to have undertaken a foreign trip to Seychelles along with her husband for honeymoon. The AO has observed that all the modern amenities were found in the house of the assessee. The expenditure incurred on foreign trip was not found reflected in the books of account, therefore, he estimated the household expenses, for the block period as under: ---------------------------------------------------------- S. Asst. yr. Household Househo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t assessment years of the block period. From the statement of Smt. Rohini Singhvi recorded under s. 132(4) on 20th Dec., 2002, the clear fact emerges that it is the wife of the assessee Smt. Asha Singhvi who was the person in control of household expenses. Smt. Asha Singhvi, in turn, stated that the expenses are contributed by various members of the joint family. In these facts, when we take the cumulative effect of these evidences, we can safely state that the addition in question is not based on the seized material. The household expenses cannot be rested on the gadgets or furnitures, etc., found in the house of the assessee during search. This is the consistent view of this Bench. As far the expenditure on the foreign trip is concerned it is found recorded in the books. Hence, we are of the considered opinion, that no addition on account of undisclosed household expenses is warranted in the block assessment on the basis of estimations. Therefore, we delete the entire addition, so made. This ground of appeals stands allowed. 19. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 were not really pressed and ground No. 5, has become infructuous in view of our findings given on merits of the case and ground Nos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
