TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n protective basis. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of estimated household expenses - Held that:- a similar addition has been made in the hands of the HUF of the assessee. The fate of that appeal is not known. However, it is an undisputed fact that the assessee was staying in USA for almost 5 years and during the impugned assessment year the assessee was in India only for 7 months, considering that the assessee has come from USA, possession of some money cannot be ruled out. We therefore do not find any logic in making the impugned addition. Order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the AO is directed to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained bank deposit on the basis of bank statement - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that additional evidences were furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) but it is also an admitted fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has transmitted all the additional evidences to the AO calling for a remand report. Instead of verifying the additional evidences, the AO left the matter at the discretion of the First Appellate authority. We find that after satisfying himself the Ld. CIT(A) deleted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Premises of M/s. Sanjay Agencies Annexure-A, A-2 4. Residence of Shri Shanker Jhunjunwala Annexure A-2 5. Annexure A-1(Party No. 4A), Annexure A-1/1/1 6. Residence of Shri Prakash Kasari at Arun Smruti, Kacheri Road, Jalna. Annexure A-1, Annexure 17 (Party No. 4) 3. Statutory notices were accordingly issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was issued a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act which contains notings in Annexure A/1 which read as under: Page No. 36 1.1.62 crores Transfer arrangement is made Account No will be submitted to you within half an hour. Confirm amount. 1) Transfer arrangement is made. Issue one cheque equal amounting to ₹ 2 crores. Confirm. 1-2 million equity. Outstanding 3 million. 28 lakh dollars. 4.5 lakhs. 17 million value-capital gain. 1.2 million. Dr 9738002209. Page No. 37. Received 3 SMS as under: Ketan- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounting to 28 lac dollars. This amount works out to ₹ 14 crores estimating the dollar rate around ₹ 50/- per dollar. The other transactions appear to be investments in equity, capital gain etc. The total of such notings amounts to ₹ 16,36,50,000/- 5. The Officer finally concluded as under: Since the assessee left for the USA IN November 2004, as per the statement given by Sh Sanjay Shah brother of the assessee, during the course search, it is very likely that these noting pertain to this period i.e. F.Y 2004-05 relevant to A.Y. 2005-06. Since the assessee has not come forward with any explanation. The same is taxed in the hands of the assessee as undisclosed income which has been transferred out of the system. The addition on this score works out to ₹ 199850000/- pertaining to A.Y 2005-06. This addition is made on protective basis since this document was found from the premises of M/s. Sanjay Agencies. Since the documents were found and seized during the search on 21.2.2007. The transactions fall during the F.Y 2006-07 i.e. A.Y 2007-08. Hence this addition is also made A.Y 2007-08 on protective basis to protect the interest of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8, S.P. Goyal Vs DCIT 82 ITD 85, SMT. K.V. Lakshmi Savitri Devi Vs ACIT, DCIT Vs C. Krishna Yadav 46 SOT 250. The Ld. Counsel further strongly submitted that the Revenue authorities have grossly erred in drawing support from the presumption as envisaged in Sec. 132(4A) inasmuch as the loose paper was not found from the premises of the assessee nor it is the case of the Revenue that the assessee was in possession of the said loose paper therefore presumption drawn is not according to the law. The Ld. Counsel continued to argue that though the AO can pass a protective assessment order but the Appellate authority have to confirm addition on substantive basis only. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Durgawati Singh 234 ITR 249, Smt. Hemlata Agarwal Vs CIT 64 ITR 428. The Ld. Counsel finally concluded by asserting that the entire assessment order is bad in law and the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the impugned addition. 9. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supporting the orders of the authorities below drew our attention to the various observations in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngh (supra) has held that It is settled that when there is a doubt as to which person amongst the two was liable to be assessed, parallel proceedings may be taken against both and alternative assessments may also be framed. It is also equally true that while a protective assessment is permissible, it is not open to the income-tax appellate authorities constituted under the Act to make a protective order. 11.3. Considering all these facts in totality, we do not find any reason of addition in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. We, accordingly set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. Ground No. 1 to 11 are allowed. 12. Ground No. 12 relates to the addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- on account of estimated household expenses. 13. While scrutinizing the return, the AO noticed that the assessee has not furnished any details of household expenses or sources of meeting the same. No cash withdrawal was seen from the bank account. Considering the status of the assessee, the AO estimated the household expenses @ ₹ 25,000/- per month and made an addition of ₹ 3,00,000/-. 13. The assessee carried the matter befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee reiterated what has been submitted before the lower authorities. It is an undisputed fact that additional evidences were furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) but it is also an admitted fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has transmitted all the additional evidences to the AO calling for a remand report. Instead of verifying the additional evidences, the AO left the matter at the discretion of the First Appellate authority. We find that after satisfying himself the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. We, therefore, decline to interfere. Ground No. 1 is dismissed. 21. Ground No. 2 of Revenue s appeal does not survive because the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the impugned addition against which the assessee is in appeal. The Revenue should not have any grievance for the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 2322/M/13 A.Y. 2007-08 Assessee s appeal 23. Grievance raised vide ground No. 1 to 11 of this appeal are identical to the grievance raised for assessment year 2005-06 vide ground No. 1 to 11, which we have considered in detail in ITA No. 2321/M/2013. For our detailed discussion/reason given therein, ground No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound indicating investment as well as sales of immoveable properties. Taking a leaf out of such documents, the AO found that in financial year 2006-07 relevant to assessment year 2007-08, documents relating to property situated at Survey No. 46, Panchayat Samati at Jalna which was in the name of Shri Kedar Mundra and Shri Prakash Kasari. Referring to the statement of Shri Prakash Kasari, the AO observed that he has admitted of having paid ₹ 12.50 lakhs which was deposited by Shri Khetan Shah (present assessee). The AO therefore made the addition of ₹ 25,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee. 33. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). It was strongly contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that the said property was not owned by the assessee. It was explained that the said property was acquired by Shri Kedar Mundra and Shri Prakash Kasari. The documents were found at the time of search itself. Admitting the additional evidences, the Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO. The AO in his remand report stated that the said land was purchased by Shri Kedar Mundra and Shri Prakash Kasari. The details of payments made by them were reflected in the paper b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
