9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made on account of unexplained investment in silver articles without appreciating the facts that 50% relief had already been given by the AO on the total value of the silver articles found from the residence of the assessee." In his cross objection, the assessee has taken solitary ground of appeal as under:- "1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 69A on account of unexplained investment in silver articles." 3. Regarding ground No. 1, briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual having income from salary, House Property, Captial Gain, Business and other sources. A search and seizure/survey operation was carried out u/s 132/133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01-12-2011 on Upasana Group in which assessee is one of the member. Consequently the residential premises of the assessee were also searched. In course of search of residential premises, a paper at page 47 of Annexure AS-2 was found. Subsequently, the ADIT recorded the statement of the assessee u/s 131 on 21-12-2011 where the assessee in reply to question No. 6 with reference to this paper stated that he has inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at page 8-9 of the assessment order. The AO has accepted the explanation in respect of each of the amount noted on this paper except the amount of Rs. 35 lacs which is contributed by the assessee by cheque and not in cash as stated in the statement dated 21-12-2011. The fact that the amount of Rs. 35 lacs was given by the assessee to M/s Mega Realmart Pvt. Ltd. by cheque is evident from the copy of ledger account of the assessee in the books of M/s Mega Realmart Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has given Rs. 35 lacs to Mega Realmart Pvt Ltd. on 20-01-2011 by cheque out of which Rs. 25 lacs is transferred to his loan account and Rs. 10 lacs was adjusted against the share capital issued to the assessee. This fact is also appearing on the back page of this paper where against the name of 'VM' ( Vijay Mehta), Rs. 10 lacs is noted against share application ( 35- 25) and Rs. 25 lacs is noted against loan account. These noting clearly indicate that Rs. 35 lacs was contributed by the assessee by cheque and not in cash. 3.3 It was further submitted that on this paper itself, there is a noting for cash contribution to be made by the partners for Rs. 71.30 lacs in which assessee's share was Rs. 7.13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this connection reference can be made to the following decisions:- - Chetnaben J. Shah LR of Jagdishchandra K. Shah Vs. ITO (2016) 140 DTR 235 (Guj.) (HC) - Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. V. State of Kerala and another 91 ITR 0018 (SC) - Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Kerela 124 CTR 355 (Ker.) (HC) - CIT Vs. Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 ( Raj.) (HC) - Ashok Kumar Vs. ITO 201 CTR 178 (J&K) (HC) - Rejesh Jain Vs. DCIT 100 TTJ 929 (Del.) (Trib.) - Surendra Pal Verma Vs. ACIT 89 ITD 129 (Chd)(tm) 3.6 The ld DR is heard who has vehemently argued the matter and relied on the order of the AO. 3.7 We have heard the rival contentions, pursued the material available on record. The issue under consideration relates to figure of Rs. 35 lacs which found mention in the seized document found during the course of search and whether the same was paid in cash or in cheque. The ld CIT(A) has examined the matter at length and his following findings remain uncontroverted before us and the same are hereby confirmed: "On careful perusal of aforementioned seized documents, it is seen that against the figure of Rs. 35 lakhs, cheque amounts have been mentioned and so the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cles. 4.3 During the course of hearing, it was submitted that the assessee in his preliminary statement u/s 132(4) has categorically stated that family owns 10 Kg of silver articles. In search, 45 silver coin weighing 520 grams, silver glass and tray weighing 2.1 Kg. and silver utensils weighing 6 Kg totaling to 8.620 Kg was found. From the description of item itself it can be noted that these items are received in gift/on the occasion of marriage. The quantity of silver items is reasonable in the hands of three ladies members in the family. In search no evidence of purchase of these items was found. Considering the reasonability, even the search party has not seized any part of silver articles. Further when 1300 gm of gold jewellery is accepted as reasonable possession, 8.620 Kg of silver article cannot be considered as unreasonable possession by the assessee and his family. Therefore, AO is not justified in presuming that only 4.310 Kg can be reasonably attributed towards customary gifts. Further, there is no basis with the ld. CIT(A) to hold that silver articles of Rs. 1,50,000/- is unexplained. Hence, the lump sum addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without any basis deserves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
