TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income as income from other sources Held that:- In order to claim a particular amount under the head Salary, it is the first essential ingredient to declare the name of employer - This basic requirement is lacking the amount was shown by the assessee as her income and in the absence of any details of employer forthcoming, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against assessee. - ITA Nos. 127 to 133/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2014 - Shri R. S. Syal, AM And Shri Joginder Singh, JM,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Somil Agarwal, CA Shri Rohan Khare, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri R. S. Meena, CIT, DR ORDER Per Bench: This batch of seven appeals in relation to assessment years 2003-04 to 2009-10 involves some common issues. These are, therefore, disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. The first two grounds were not pressed by the ld. AR. The same are, therefore, dismissed. 3. The third ground is against the sustenance of addition of ₹ 26,83,589/-. Briefly stated, the facts apropos this ground are that the assessee was subjected to a search u/s 132 on 21.7.2008. On receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... figures should be deemed to be explained, does not stand in such a scenario. The figures of the opening assets and liabilities are deemed to be explained in next year onwards and not when the return is filed for the first time. In such a case, it is always for the assessee to substantiate the opening figures taken in the balance sheet. If such figures are not explained, the addition is rightly called for. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee s husband Shri Som Nath Sharma was also subjected to a search action under similar circumstances and the Tribunal has adjudicated the appeals filed by him. A copy of such order in ITA No.120 to 126/Del/2012 dated 2.11.2013 was placed on record. We find the relevant discussion made on page 5 onwards of this order in which it has been noticed that Shri Som Noth Sharma also did not furnish returns prior to the date of search who had also shown investment in assets amounting to ₹ 23,38,396/- consisting of jewellery investment, loans and advances, sundry deposits, cash and bank balance, etc. In that case also, the AO did not accept the genuineness of the investment and made addition u/s 69A of the Act. When the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on this score. This ground is dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Assessment year 2004-05 10. The first two grounds were not pressed by the ld. AR. The same are, therefore, dismissed. 11. The third ground is against the treatment of ₹ 54,000/- under the head Income from other sources instead of Salary income as declared by the assessee. 12. The facts of this ground are that the assessee declared salary income at ₹ 54,000/- for which no evidence was placed on record as to the particulars of employer. The AO treated this income under the head Income from other sources. The ld. CIT(A) was pleased to uphold the impugned order on this score. 13. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is clear that in order to claim a particular amount under the head Salary , it is the first essential ingredient to declare the name of employer. This basic requirement is lacking in the present case. Since this amount of ₹ 54,000/- was shown by the assessee as her income and in the absence of any details of employer forthcoming, we are of the considered opinion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed. 22. The only other surviving ground in this appeal is against the sustenance of addition of ₹ 34,360/- on account of low household expenses. Here again, we find that the AO estimated the household expenses at ₹ 1,80,000/- per annum. The ld.CIT(A) reduced such estimate of the assessee s household expenses to ₹ 5,000/- per month which resulted into sustenance of addition of ₹ 34,360/-. Following the view taken in earlier years, we uphold the impugned order on this issue. This ground fails. 23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Assessment year 2007-08 24. The first two grounds were not pressed by the ld. AR. The same are, therefore, dismissed. 25. Ground No.3 is against the sustenance of addition ₹ 1,35,000/- under the head Income from other sources instead of ₹ 90,000/- shown by the assessee under the head Income from salary and ₹ 45,000/- shown as Business income . 26. Briefly stated, the facts of this ground are that the assessee had shown salary of ₹ 90,000/- and business income of ₹ 45,000/-. Neither any salary certificate nor any Profit Loss Account of any business or profession was fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- under the head Income from other sources instead of ₹ 96,000/- shown by the assessee under the head Income from salary and ₹ 55,300/- shown as business income. 33. Briefly stated, the facts of this ground are that the assessee had shown salary income of ₹ 96,000/- and business income of ₹ 55,300/-. Neither any salary certificate nor any Profit Loss Account of any business or profession was filed. The AO, therefore, treated such amount as Income from other sources. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO s action. 34. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant record, we find that the assessee did not furnish any evidence in support of her salary income of ₹ 96,000/- and business income of ₹ 55,300/-. In that view of the matter and following the taken hereinabove, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in treating this amount as Income from other sources. 35. The last ground is against the sustenance of addition of ₹ 1,16,500/- on account of low household withdrawals. The assessee declared household expenses of ₹ 27,500/-. The AO estimated annual household expenses at ₹ 2,16,000/- and made a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
