Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

ACIT-1, Kanpur Versus Shri. Ghanshyam Das Verma

2015 (8) TMI 131 - ITAT LUCKNOW

Addition on account of excess stock of gold jewellery found during the course of search - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) has taken note of all the relevant entries found in the seized documents and since no remand report was furnished by the Assessing Officer to the explanations of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that this amount of ₹ 22,91,212/-was available with the assessee in the shape of jewellery and balance as cash in hand. We accordingly find no infi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r of the ld. CIT(A) whereby addition made by the Assessing Officer has been deleted. Accordingly this ground is not maintainable and we reject the same.

Addition on account of peak cash credit entries found in the diary during the course of search - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) has noted totaling error in Annexure A-4 to the extent of ₹ 1.35 lakhs and while making addition onaccount of aggregate credits, relief of ₹ 1.35 lakhs was given to theassessee. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the valuation cell. The ld. CIT(A) has noted that thedifference between the investment as declared by the assessee andestimated by the valuation cell is on account of variation in PWD and CPWDrates. The valuation between the two is around 10 to 15% and if thebenefit is given to the assessee the cost estimated by the valuation celltowards renovation of showroom would stand reduced by 15% and in sucha circumstances it would come to ₹ 2,90,700/- as against ₹ 2,82,989/- bythe assesse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on account of variation in CPWD and PWD rates. The ld. CIT(A) accordingly allowed a rebate of 15% and total investment in property comes to ₹ 10,97,350/- as against declared investment at ₹ 11,29,500/-. The ld. CIT(A) accordingly correctly deleted the addition in this regard.- Decided in favour of assessee.

Addition on account of Moti Nagine found during the course of search - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Since nothing has been pointed out by the Revenue on th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpurhas erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition ofRs.18,40,470/- made by the assessing officer on account of excessstock of gold jewellery found during the course of search proceedingwithout appreciating the facts brought on the record by the assessingofficer that the assessee had not been able to explain about thealleged excess stock. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpurhas erred in law and on facts of the ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

officer on account of unaccountedof gold stock found during the course of search proceeding withoutappreciating the fact brought on the record by the assessing officerthat the assessee had surrendered the same in his return of incomefor the block period. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpurhas erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition ofRs.1,35,000/- made by the assessing officer on account of peak cashcredit entries found in the diary during the co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

out appreciating the facts brought on therecord by the assessing officer that on reference, the DistrictValuation Officer given his report by determining the investmentamount in the said property which was not properly shown by theassessee and no objection was filed by the assessee during theassessment proceeding whereas he was given the opportunity tooffer his explanation with regard to the difference in the DVO reportand his disclosed amount. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssee during the assessmentproceeding whereas he was given the opportunity to offer hisexplanation with regard to the difference in the DVO report and hasdisclosed amount. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpurhas erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition ofRs.10,000/- made by the assessing officer on account of Moti Naginefound during the course of search proceeding without appreciatingthe facts brought on the record by the Assessing Officer that thea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted for in his regular books of accounts. 9. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-II, Kanpur dated 25.03.2013needs to be quashed and the order passed by the Assessing Officerdated 29.09.2000 be restored. 2. Apropos ground No.1, it is noticed that during the course of search adiary was found, in which certain debit and credit entries were noticed bythe Assessing Officer. This seized document was marked as Annexure A-4and the Assessing Officer has made an addition of ₹ 25,52,214/- onaccount of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

9000.00 15000.00 16.05.98 Received 9530.00 0.00 19.05.98 Received 15000.00 -10000.00 20.05.98 Received 10000.00 -10000.00 21.05.98 Payment 28770.00 8000.00 22.05.98 Received 10770.00 0.00 26.05.98 Received 8000.00 0.00 27.05.98 Payment 26670.00 16670.00 Received 10000.00 0.00 29.05.98 Received 16670.00 0.00 05.06.98 Payment 29457.00 15000.00 06.06.98 Received 14457.00 5000.00 07.06.98 Received 10000.00 5000.00 08.06.98 Payment 27468.00 25000.00 Received 7468.00 15000.00 09.06.98 Received 10000. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent 31443.00 21443.00 11.07.98 Received 10000.00 6443.00 13.07.98 Received 15000.00 6443.00 15.07.98 Payment 30772.00 20000.00 17.07.98 Received 17215.00 10000.00 18.07.98 Received 10000.00 1000.00 22.07.98 Received 9000.00 0.00 23.07.98 Received 1000.00 0.00 28.07.98 Payment 32253.00 32253.00 Received 10000.00 22253.00 Total 380281 .00 358028.00 22253.00 Rajesh Dulare Jwellers Jewel Palace Paswani Jewellers Difference Chart between A - 4 working chart & Submitted A - 4 Balance Sheet on the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f analyzed ledger and was of the viewthat there is a totaling error in Annexure A-4 to the extent of 1.35 lakhs.The exact unexplained credit as per Annexure A-4 when ledgerized comesto ₹ 24,16,214/- and not ₹ 25,16,214/-. He accordingly granted relief ofRs.1.35 lakhs on account of totaling error. 5. But so far as the aggregate credit of ₹ 24,16,214/- is concerned, nosatisfactory explanation/confirmation was furnished and accordinglyunexplained income in the shape of deposits in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cash was found at the time of search in thepremises of Jewel Palace whereas as per Annexure A-4 a sum ofRs.23,99,214/- should have been available at the time of search. The ld.CIT(A) has also taken note that the assessee was in possession of articlesof pawning, therefore, an amount of ₹ 23,99,214/- should either be incash or jewellery or gold ornaments. However, during the course of searchonly jewellery consisting of gold ornaments, silver utensils, nagina anddiamond jewellery aggregating .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e accordingly allowed it on telescopic basis and deleted theaddition. 6. Aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal,but has simply placed reliance upon the order of the Assessing Officerwhereas the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A)has taken note of detailed explanations and entries found in differentdocuments before deleting the addition. 7. Having carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities in thelight of the rival submissions, we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d that there is no finding ofthe ld. CIT(A) on this issue in his order whereas the Assessing Officer hasmade addition of ₹ 3,14,122/- for the difference worked out relating tosilver jewellery weighing 40.462 Kg and the same was treated to beunaccounted and added to the total undisclosed income of the assessee.Since there is no specific finding in this regard in the order of the ld.CIT(A), this ground does not arise from the order of the ld. CIT(A).Moreover, there is nothing in the order of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pos ground No.5, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer hasmade addition of ₹ 59,011/- on account of undisclosed investment inelevation of showroom at Birhana Road, Kanpur. The issue was examinedby the ld. CIT(A) in his order at page 18 and he has taken note that theassessee has already declared investment of ₹ 2,82,989/- towardsrenovation of shop at Birhana Road, Kanpur as against ₹ 3.42 lakhsestimated by the valuation cell. The ld. CIT(A) has noted that thedifference betwee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version