TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act on 15-11-1996. As he expired, the assessment has been made on his legal heir Shri Shiv Narain Jaiswal. During the course of search, at the premises of late Shri Sukh Jaiswal, cash amounting to Rs. 1,04,150 was found. When the assessee was questioned about the sources of such cash, it was claimed by him that the sum of Rs. 75,000 belonged to his son Shri Jai Narain Jaiswal who was partner in a firm Ekta Agencies, Nagpur. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and added the same to the income of Shri Sada Sukh Jaiswal. 4. On appeal, the Tribunal vide its order dated 23-2-2002 set aside the assessment order and restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine whether Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also submitted. It was also stated that said cash book was also seized. The ld. Counsel further stated that on the date of search of M/s. Ekta Agencies, the statement of Shri Jai Narain Jaiswal was also recorded. In his statement, he was not denied of sending the money to his father Shri Sada Sukh Jaiswal. It was stated that confirmation from Jai Narain Jawiswal was also filed to this effect which confirmed the above facts. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified and deserves to be deleted. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR stated that on the date of search, the premises of Jai Narain Jaiswal were also searched. Admittedly, the cash found on the dates of search was much less than the cash which should have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jai Narain Jaiswal. The Assessing Officer was, therefore, not justified in making addition of the said amount as undisclosed income of Shri Sada Sukh Jaiswal. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. 7. Ground Nos. 7 8 relating to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in assessing the amount has not been pressed, hence the same are dismissed. 8. Ground No. 9 relates to the addition of Rs. 15,000 on protective basis, the Assessing Officer noted that a sum of Rs. 15,000 was invested in purchase of Moped. Shri Kamal Narain Jaiswal in his reply dated 15-3-2002 stated that Shri Sada Sukh Jaiswal had made investment of Rs. 15,000 for purchase of moped for his grand son, namely, Shri Navneet. The Assessing Officer observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... curred by Shri K.N. Jaiswal in the month of April 1991. At the time of original assessment, it was stated that the expenses were borne by the joint family. But subsequently vide letter dated 15-3-2002, Shri K.N. Jaiswal stated that the marriage expenses were incurred by Shri Sada Sukh Jaiswal. A sum of Rs. 1 lakh was treated as unexplained expenditure in the case of Shri K.N. Jaiswal. However, in view of his reply dated 15-3-2002, the Assessing Officer added the above sum as undis- closed income of Shri Sada Sukh Jaiswal on protective basis as the addition was already made in the hands of Shri K.N. Jaiswal on substantive basis. Such addition has been challenged before us. 10. It is argued by the ld. counsel that before coming to the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
