9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) has erred both in law and on facts of the case in deleting additions of Rs.30 lacs and Rs.33,050/- (totaling Rs.30,33,050/-) made on account of unexplained investment and undisclosed income respectively. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal on or before the appeal is heard and disposed off. 5. It is prayed that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the A.O be restored." 2. In the ground no.1, the addition deleted by the CIT (A) is related to the addition made of Rs.2,24,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the wrist watches. 3. We have heard both the sides on the issue. The Assessing Officer made the addition in respect of the wrist watches of Rs.2,24,000/- which was deleted by the CIT (A) by holding as under :- "5.4 In view of the above, it is contended that the withdrawals shown by the family of the appellant over the last so many years were more than enough to purchase watches in question. It is, therefore, submitted that the addition made by the A.O. u/s 69 of the Act is not justified and addition should be deleted. 5.5 I have carefully considered the submission of the ld. Counsel and perus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y members being Satya Bhalla, Prashant Bhalla and Pashant Bhalla HUF. From these details, it is quite clear that contention of the appellant that these watches were purchased from the drawings made by the appellant and his family members over the period appears to be justified. Even otherwise, the A.O. has himself accepted the sources of valuables other than these watches to be duly explained. The source of investment in these watches were considered to be not explained apparently on the ground that these were high price designer watches wherein substantial investments were made. However, these inferences of the A.O. are without any valid basis and rather considering cost of these watches as shown in the details down loaded from the web sites of these companies these could very well have been purchased out of the above mentioned withdrawals shown by the appellant and his family members during the preceding years. Keeping in view the above discussed position, there is no justification for making addition of Rs.2.24.000/- under the provisions of section 69 of the Act in this case and thus, addition is, therefore, deleted. We find that there was sufficient withdrawals shown by the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of search to prove his contention, it is seen that these cash books were duly produced before the A.O. Copies of the relevant pages of cash books were also filed by the appellant during the appeal proceedings as part of the paper book. Therefore, the appellant has not changed his stand. If the A.O was not satisfied with the authenticity of the entries made in the cash books, some enquiries could have been made to prove so. However, in the absence of such enquiries or evidence, the A.O. cannot be said to be justified at all to make addition considering this cash to be unexplained observing just as under:- "Although he has attempted to explain cash by producing cash book of society during the assessment proceedings, the possibility of manipulating entries in cash book to explain cash at residence cannot be negated." In our considered view, assessee has consistently contending that cash was belonging to M.R. Education Society and Techplast India Pvt. Ltd. Assessee had also produced the cash books of these Trust/Company before the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer had not pinpointed any manipulations or defects in these cash book entries. Thus, except a bald allegation, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be explained by the assessee. The assessee has categorically stated that it is not in his handwriting. It does not bear any signature of the assessee rather it does not bear any signature of any person. There are other persons also living in the house and the paper is not connected to the assessee in any manner. The assessee has never done any business of giving loan. The document is not clear whether it is a loan taken or given. The assessee has no link with any Mr. Bansal. Further, there is no other corroborative evidence at all that any loan was given by the assessee to any person. The Ld. AR placed the reliance on the following case laws :- (i) ACIT vs. Prasant Ahluwalia: 92 TTJ 464 (Ctk) (ii) N. K. Malhan vs. DCIT: 91 TTJ 938 (Del) (iii) Monga Metals (P) Ltd vs. ACIT: 67 TTJ 247 (All) (iv) Chander Mohan Mehta vs. ACIT: 71 ITD 245 (Pune) (v) Jaya S. Shetty Vs. ACIT: 69 ITD 336 (Mum) (vi) Atul Kumar Jain vs. DCIT: 64 TTJ 786 (Del) (vii) Jagdamba Rice Mills vs. ACIT: 67 TTJ 838 (Chd) (viii) CIT VS. D K Gupta: 308 ITR 230 (Del) (ix) CIT VS. Girish Chaudhary: 296 ITR 619 (Del) (x) CIT Vs. Ravi Kumar: 294 ITR 78 (P & H) (xi) ACIT vs. D.K. Gupta ITSS(A) NO.133/D/05 (ITAT D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
