TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 903
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion under section 153A in the appeal on the ground that the appellant could not have been treated to be the person in whose case search under section 132(1) had been initiated and the said ground going to the very root of the assessment order dated 28.17.2010 itself was maintainable and on a due consideration of material and information already on record, the said assessment order itself was liable to be declared as null and void." 3. At the very outset, Learned A.R. of the assessee fairly conceded that the issue involved in these grounds is covered against the assessee by a judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Dr A. K. Bansal (Individual) [2013] 355 ITR 513 (All). 4. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per this judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, the issue involved in these grounds is squarely covered against the assessee. In this case, it was held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court that neither the Assessing Officer nor the appellate authority, can look into the validity of the search by calling for the warrant o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appeal, the appellant has not satisfactorily explained the source of the capital introduced during the financial year. It is merely stated that a cheque no. 54377 dated 12.01.2007 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was given to the assessee by his father Shri Chandra Bhal Tiwari and a copy of the confirmation claimed to be filed before the Assessing Officer was also filed however neither the creditworthiness of the creditor was established nor was it apparent whether the cheque was even encashed in the A.Y. 2007-08 as the copy of bank account was not filed. The father was also not assessed to tax. Hence, the grounds of appeal are rejected and the addition of Rs. 1,770,10/- made is hereby confirmed. 8.3.1 I have considered the ground of appeal, the order of the Assessing Officer and the submissions made. During the A.Y. 2007-08 withdrawals for household expenses were shown at Rs. 96,000/- making the average withdrawal @Rs.8000/- per month. In the initial six months, the appellant has not shown any withdrawal. Even in the course of the appeal, no explanation has been filed as to how the appellant could incur the household expenses for six months without any drawings. Hence, the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsence of details regarding this debit entry, it cannot be accepted that this amount of Rs. 1.50 lac was existing with the assessee for investment in the partnership business of Shri Ram Agencies. Moreover, no evidence has been furnished regarding creditworthiness of the assessee's father. During the year, the assessee has shown cash deposit in his capital account of Rs. 20,000/- on 01/10/2007. No explanation has been given regarding the source of this cash deposit. Considering the facts, as discussed above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) because the assessee could not establish the source of this credit appearing in the capital account of the assessee. 11. Regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of low house hold withdrawals, we find that it is noted by the Assessing Officer on page No. 8 of the assessment order that the assessee has shown total withdrawal of Rs. 1.72 lac out of which Rs. 1 lac was invested and deduction u/s 80C was claimed. He has further noted that therefore, the net withdrawal for house hold expenses was Rs. 0.72 lac but out of this also, it is seen that no drawing from the capital account has been made by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the validity of assessment order dated 28.12.2010 captioned as "order under section 153A read with section 143(3)". 3. BECAUSE the issue went to the very root of the assessment order dated 28.12.2010 as had been impugned in the appeal before the Id. First Appellate Authority and on a due consideration of the same as also the material and information as was available on record, the "CIT(A)" should have held that assessment order dated 28.12.2010 was void-ab-initio." 17. Both the sides agreed that the issues involved in these grounds are identical to the issue involved in ground Nos. 1 & 2 in assessment year 2008-09 and same can be decided on similar line. In that year, this issue was decided against the assessee by following the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr A. K. Bansal (Individual) [2013] 355 ITR 513 (All). On the same line, in the present year also, this issue is decided against the assessee and these grounds are rejected. 18. Ground Nos. 4 to 6 are inter-connected, which read as under: "4. BECAUSE "CIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,99,570/- as had been made in the assessment on account of waste ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Shri K. N. Singh Patel is not related to the assessee and as per the provision of section 292C, the assessee was liable to explain the source of the stock found in his premises as he was the owner of the business. He has also given a finding that Shri K. N. Singh Patel has nowhere owned up the assets found in the premises of the assessee and no benefit of set off can be allowed against the amount surrendered by him as no such specific bifurcation appears to have been given by Shri K. N. Singh Patel. These findings of CIT(A) could not be controverted by Learned A.R. of the assessee and therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A). Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. 21. Ground Nos. 7 and 8 are also inter-connected, which read as under: "7. BECAUSE "CIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in estimating the household expenses of the appellant at Rs. 2,34,000/- and in sustaining an addition of Rs. 96,000/- on that score. 8. BECAUSE there being no material available on record, so as to lead to the determination of household expenses at Rs. 2,34,000/- no such addition could have been made/sustained by the Authorities Below." 22. Both the sides agreed ....