TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -3-2018 - Shri A. D. Jain, Judicial Member, And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member Appellant by : Shri Navin Gargh, Advocate. Respondent by : Shri Rajarshi Dwivedy, CIT. DR. ORDER Per, A. D. Jain, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 275/Agra/2013 This is assessee s appeal for A.Y. 2003-04, raising the following grounds: 1. Because in any view, the addition made u/s 68 of ₹ 10,00,000/- of amount of gifts received (Rs.5,00,000/- + ₹ 5,00,000/-) in the Assessment u/s 153A without having any adverse material, and by not appreciating the evidences on record, the addition confirmed by ld. CIT(A) is grossly unjust, arbitrary, and against the facts and law of the case. 2. Because in any view, the interest charged u/s 234B as per notice of demand is wrong and illegal. 2. The following additional ground has also been taken: 3. Because in any view, the addition made by the AO without any incriminating material find during search survey is wrong illegal. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated that at the bar that the additional ground is not pressed. Rejected as not pressed. 4. Apropos Ground No. 1, from the assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.1 is accepted and the addition is deleted. 9. Ground No.2 is consequential. 10. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed. I.T.A No. 276/Agra/2013 11. This is assessee s appeal for A.Y. 2004-05, taking the following grounds: 1. Because in any view, the addition confirmed of ₹ 2,254/- out of addition of ₹ 18,033/- under the head Income from House Property u/s 23(4) is wrong, illegal and against the facts and law of the case. 2. Because in any view, the addition made u/s 68 of ₹ 5,00,000/- of amount of gift received in the Assessment u/s 153A without having any adverse material on record, and by not appreciating the evidences, the addition confirmed by ld. CIT(A) is grossly unjust, arbitrary, and against the facts and law of the case. 3. Because in any view, the addition confirmed of ₹ 45,000/- w.r.t. tea/sugar business by not properly appreciating that it relates to preceding A.Y. 2003-04 which it has already been shown as income in the relevant Return of Income filed, and even otherwise it will tantamount to double addition, thus the addition made is arbitrary, wrong, and illegal. 4. Because in any view, without prejudice and wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. 19. The issue in Ground No.2 is the same as that concerning Ground No.1 in ITA No. 275/Agra/2013 (supra). Therefore, our observations with regard to Ground No.1 in ITA No.275/Agra/2013 (supra) are squarely applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the year under consideration also. Therefore, Ground No.2 in the present appeal is accepted and the addition of ₹ 5 lacs is deleted. 20. So far as regards Ground No.3, the AO observed that from page 16 of Annexure -2 found during the seasrch, it was seen that the same contained details of sugar business as on 31.03.2005 and earlier years, i.e., A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005- 06 and that the profit of the tea business for A.Y. 2004-05 was ₹ 3,03,060/- and that for A.Y. 2005-06 was ₹ 2,67,502/-. The AO took the profit from the tea and sugar business of ₹ 3,03,060/- and deducted the profit shown by the assessee at ₹ 2,58,060/-. The resultant figure of ₹ 45,000/- was added. 21. The CIT(A) asked for a remand report from the AO, but none was submitted. The ld. CIT(A) observed from a perusal of the seized document that it had been drawn on 31.03.2005 and as such, it pertains to A.Y. 2005-06; that in this document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03 has been shown at ₹ 45,000/-. The figure of ₹ 2,58,060/- has been arrived at after reducing this amount of ₹ 45,000/- from the amount of ₹ 3,03,060/-. 25. In view of the above, we find the observation of the ld. CIT(A) to be correct. The amount of ₹ 45,000/- was declared for A.Y. 2003-04. The balance amount of ₹ 2,58,060/- was declared for A.Y. 2004-05. In the seized document, the profit for A.Y. 2004-05 stand shown at ₹ 2,76,502/-. As such, no set off of the amount of ₹ 45,000/- has been given to the assessee for the year under consideration. The amount of ₹ 45,000/- was declared for A.Y. 2003-04. Hence, the action of the ld. CIT(A) is correct. Accordingly, Ground No.3 is rejected. 26. Therefore, ITA No.276/Agra/2013 for A.Y. 2004-05 is partly allowed. I.T.A No. 277/Agra/2013 27. This is assessee s appeal for A.Y. 2005-06, raising the following grounds: 1. Because in any view, the addition confirmed by Id. C.I.T.(A) of ₹ 18,033/- under the head Income from House Property u/s 23(4) is wrong, illegal and against the facts and law of the case. 2. Because in any view, the addition confirmed of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 5 lacs, as made by the AO, was without any basis. He, therefore, restricted the amount of addition to this figure of ₹ 2,88,181/-. 34. As submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, at APB 32 is a copy of the particulars of the assessee s income, as per statement under section 132(4) of the IT Act. It shows an amount of ₹ 33 lacs as follows: Income shown as per statement u/s 132(4) read with explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) Particulars Income from seized papers/declared cash at residence ₹ 2,00,000/- investment in jewellery ₹ 4,00,000/- Expenditure in construction etc. in property at B-5, Shanti Kunj ₹ 16,00,000/-, Amount as per Annexure A-2 page 44 dt. 27.02.2006 for property ₹ 5,00,000/-, Expenditure in property at Kalwari, Agra Road, Hathras (including Pool/Tank) ₹ 4,00,000/- Others ₹ 2,00,000/- (including cash of ₹ 1lac found in Locker/ .and other expenditure as per seized papers. (including Tea Sugar business) 33,00,000/- Total 33,00,000/- Note: In the statement u/s 132(4) during sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
