9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has come up before the Tribunal for the second time. In the earlier order dated 7.8.2008 in paragraph Nos. 5 & 6, it was held that ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee before the CIT(A) had not been decided by him, therefore, this ground is restored to this file for deciding the same on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) passed his order consequent to this order on 23.6.2009. He deleted the addition made by the AO and, therefore, the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. The findings of the AO in this respect are that there is contradiction between the statement and the affidavit filed by the assesee's wife, Smt. Pallavi Sood, in respect of ownership of M/s Transworld International. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of Rs. 26,27,610/- has been deleted as it is to be considered in the hands of assessee's wife. The addition on account of house hold expenses has also been deleted by mentioning that estimated addition cannot be made in assessment of a block period for determining undisclosed income. 5. Before us, Ld. CIT DR submits that if there is any error in recording the finding in the case of assessee's wife, the same should not be perpetuated in this case. The real question is - whether, the income from M/s. Transworld International belongs to the assessee or his wife? In this connection, our attention has been drawn towards the statement of facts filed before the Ld. CIT(A), it is mentioned that the assessee is an individual and a senior citi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment of the assessee. It is also submitted that the income can be taxed only in one hand. However, the cases require integrated approach rather than piecemeal approach so as to decide the case in which the income is really taxable. It is also submitted that addition in respect of house hold expenses can be made even in assessment u/s 158BC for computation of undisclosed income if any incriminating document is found. 6) In reply the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the real question in this case is - whether, the assessee or his wife was the owner of the business in the relevant year, i.e. assessment year 1998-99? The CIT(A) had considered this matter in the case of the wife. His finding was that it would be fair and jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der has been accepted by the department and no appeal has been filed. Therefore, this finding has become final. Accordingly, it is agitated that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be upheld in this matter. 7. We have considered the facts of the case. We find that identical additions were made for three years in the case of the wife and the assessee. The appeal in the case of wife was disposed off by the Ld. CIT(A) on 27.10.2003. In this order the assessee is held to be the owner of M/s Transworld International upto assessment year 1996-97. Smt. Pallavi Sood has been held to be owner of this proprietary concern from assessment year 1997-98. The order in the case of wife has become final. It may be added that the addition has been deleted in he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
