9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assets belonging to the assessee were found and inventorised and seized. A notice u/s 153A dated 14.10.2010 was issued which was served on the assessee on 18.10.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee filed a return on 15.3.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 15,11,135/- An order u/s 153B r.w.s 153A/143(3) was passed on 30.12.2011 determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,06,99,770/-. Various additions were made against which the assessee preferred appeal and the ld. CIT(A) has given part rel ief to the assessee. But still the assessee is not satisfied and has come in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused the entire material on record. Ground No. 1 was not pressed by the ld. A.R. at the time of hearing. Therefore, this ground stands dismissed. Ground No. 6 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. Ground No. 5 pertains to charging of interest. Ground No. 4 does not raise any specific issue but simply is an argumentative ground, which does not require any separate decision. 4. Ground No 2 relates to the addition of Rs. 1,20,38,693/- on account of Ram Nagar Scheme. 4.1 Briefly stated, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As regards to this submission that investments were separate from net profits, the investment in this land was made prior to the profits earned, while a set off of rotation of the net profit earned from this scheme in A.Y. 2006-07 can be given for investment made in land subsequent to that A.Y., the A.O. observed that it was not understood how the benefit of set off can be given against investment which was made before the net profit was realized on the sale of this land. Following the same reasoning, the ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,20,38,693/-. The assessee is further aggrieved. 4.2 Before us, similar arguments were reiterated from both the sides. We have carefully gone through the material place at page 68 of the assessee's paper book which was found from the possession of third party during search conducted in his case. As per this paper, the assessee has already surrendered for taxation a sum of Rs. 13 lakhs, which fell to his portion as profit from this transaction. It is a fact that this document was not found from the possession of this assessee. No evidence of any investment in land worth the name was found in search from the possession of third pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3,00,024/- represents purchase of land on which house was constructed. The assessee had submitted copy of registered sale deed in support of the investment. The said land was purchased in the joint name of the assessee and his brother Shri Gautam Sharma. The investment is verifiable from the sale deed also. Copies of ledger from books of account where this investment has been shown, and copy of cash book were also duly submitted. Source of investment is not at all in dispute and in such a situation, the addition so made is wholly uncalled for and deserves to be deleted. Accordingly, we order the deletion of addition and allow Ground No 3 of this appeal. 6. Ground Nos. 4 and 6 are general in nature. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA Nos. 214 and 259/Jodh/2013. 8. These are cross appeals filed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 22.2.2013 pertaining to A.Y. 2006-07. 9. In assessee's appeal ground No. 1 was not pressed and hence it is dismissed as not pressed. Ground Nos. 5, 6 & 8 are formal grounds which do not require any specific adjudication. Ground No. 7 is regarding charging of interest. 10. Ground No. 2 of this appeal relates to suste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ooks of account where this investment has been shown, and copy of cash book were also duly submitted. Source of investment is not at all in dispute and in such a situation, the addition so made is wholly uncalled for and deserves to be deleted. The A.O. has not given any reason for not accepting this investment shown in the regular records. Accordingly, we order the deletion of addition and allow Ground No 4 of this appeal. 12.3 Department's Ground No. 1 is not related to this A.Y. Therefore, this ground is dismissed in limine as this ground does not arise from the appellate order. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 215/JU/2013 & 260/JU/2013 [A.Y. 2010-11] 14. These are cross appeals filed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 22.2.2013 pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11. 15. In assessee's appeal ground No. 1 was not pressed and hence it is dismissed as not pressed. Ground Nos. 5, 6 & 8 are formal grounds which do not require any specific adjudication. Ground No. 7 is regarding charging of interest. 16. Ground No. 2 of this appeal relates to confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,65,400/- on account of alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to offer any specific explanation substantiated by evidence regarding the undisclosed income reflected in these documents. Since he did not surrender the investment/income as per these documents while filing the return the A.O. made addition of Rs. 1,29,00,000/-. As against the above, the assessee went in appeal and the ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the same. 17.2 After hearing both the sides in the light of available material on record, we have found that the details of addition made by the A.O. totaling to Rs. 1,29,00,000/- is as under: Particulars Amount Purchase of building material for construction of residential house jointly owned with brother 35,00,000/- Purchase of building material for commercial complex 35,00,000/- Construction of farm house 25,00,000/- Sale of shops in kuldeep vihar 4,00,000/- Advance given for purchase of 15 bigha land 30,00,000/- Total 1,29,00,000/- Thus from the perusal of the above details, it becomes evidently clear that the assessee has not retracted the surrender. However, contention of the assessee is that the calculation of surrendered amount has not been properly made because surrender has been taken in relation to income earn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee has already surrendered Rs. 2,31,22,799/- as undisclosed income against the above income which truly and correctly covers the maximum possible income which the assessee had earned in the various years under consideration related to search assessment. There is no reason for the income declared by the assessee in various years should not be accepted. The impugned addition has been made simply on the ground that there was separate surrender in relation to different items at the time of search proceedings. The assessee would not dispute these investments. Various judicial pronouncements support the case of the assessee. Accordingly, we allow this ground of appeal. 18. Ground No. 4 relating to addition of Rs. 1,75,429 sustained out of addition for household expenses made by the A.O. at Rs. 3,90,634/- is allowed in the same manner as we allowed in the earlier year of this assessee and order to delete the impugned addition. 19. Ground No. 5 stands decided alongwith Ground No. 3 of this appeal and is partly allowed. 20. In Revenue's appeal Ground No. 1 relates to part deletion of addition of Rs. 2,08,853/- being the total value of silver articles found out of total jewellery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
