TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities had not kept the record intact does not absolve the assessee to rebut the presumption attached to the fact that the FDRs are admittedly in the name of the assessee as per seized material. Assessee has also failed to prove if the remaining amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- has been transferred to her by her mother and fatherin- law by proving the fact that if they had shown the same in their return of income. Similar are the facts to the addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- as assessee has taken the defence that the amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- belonged to her sister residing in USA for purchasing FDRs to be spent by her as and when she visits India. So, for this amount also, except confirmation no document has been brought on record by the assessee to prove as to how this amount was transferred to the assessee or if the sister of the assessee was in possession of such an amount with her - addition of ₹ 6,00,000/- and ₹ 3,00,000/- for AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09 respectively as unexplained income of the assessee confirmed - decided against the assessee. Explained property {flat) purchased - Held that:- Assessee to rebut the information contained in the seized material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted order to avoid repetition of discussion. 2. The appellant, Smt. Sangeeta Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as the assessee ) by filing the present appeals, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 08.10.2014 09.10.2014 passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals)-III, New Delhi qua the assessment years 2007-08 2008-09 and 2009-10 2010-11 respectively on the grounds inter alia that:- ITA NO.6623/DEL/2014 (AY 2007-08) 1. That the Learned CIT (A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case in sustaining the addition of ₹ 6,27,000/- on account of unaccounted investment and interest income accrued on FDR of ₹ 6,00,000/- from Bansal Credits Limited on account of undisclosed income. The CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal of Appellant on the basis of relying that the FDR of ₹ 6,00,000/- belongs to Appellant and investment in it were made from her undisclosed sources as well as the interest on FDR amounting to ₹ 27,000/- belongs to Appellant. The addition made on this ground was purely on the basis of assumption, surmises and conjectures of the Assessing Officer without any iota of evidence, cogent material or corroborative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest accrued on FDR of ₹ 9,00,000/- from Bansal Credits Limited relying that the FDR of ₹ 9,00,000/- belongs to Appellant and investment in it were made from her undisclosed sources during the financial year 2006-07 2007-08 i.e. ₹ 6,00,000/- in F.Y. 2006-07 ₹ 3,00,000/- in F.Y. 2007-08. The addition made on this ground was purely on the basis of assumption, surmises and conjectures of the Assessing Officer without any iota of evidence, cogent material or corroborative evidence in the hands of Department. The addition made on this account is totally unjustified, arbitrary, flagrantly contrary to the principle of natural justice hence the addition on this account should be deleted as the same is bad in law. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of ₹ 17,00,000/- as income from undisclosed sources. The addition made on this ground is purely on the basis of assumptions, surmises and conjectures without any iota of evidence, cogent material or corroborative evidence in the hands of Department. The addition made on this account is totally unjustified, arbitrary, flagrantly contrary to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d.. On failure of the assessee to bring on record any evidence on the source of FDRs, AO made addition of ₹ 76,008/- and ₹ 44,253/- on account of interest accrued on the amount of FDR of ₹ 9,00,000/- for AY 2009-10 2010-11 respectively. 7. In AY 2010-11, AO also noticed from the entries made in laptop annexed as Annexure B with the assessment order that the assessee has purchased a plot at Vatika for ₹ 60,00,000/- (Rs.57,00,000/- + ₹ 3,00,000/- cost of registry). Out of which ₹ 17,00,000/- was paid in cash by the assessee and ₹ 3,00,000/- paid in cash for registry and ₹ 29,25,000/- was financed by Axis Bank and ₹ 10,75,000/- were paid by Ajay, husband of the assessee. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, AO treated the amount of ₹ 17,00,000/- paid by the assessee to her husband as unexplained investment and thereby made the addition thereof to the income of the assessee. AO also noticed form the seized material that during the year under consideration, marriage of daughter of the assessee was solemnized and three functions were organized viz. Mata ki Chowki at the residence at Faridabad, Ring Ceremony ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of contentions of the assessee that US authorities had not kept the record intact does not absolve the assessee to rebut the presumption attached to the fact that the FDRs are admittedly in the name of the assessee as per seized material. Assessee has also failed to prove if the remaining amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- has been transferred to her by her mother and fatherin- law by proving the fact that if they had shown the same in their return of income. 12. Similar are the facts to the addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by ld. CIT (A) for AY 2008-09. Again, assessee has taken the defence that the amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- belonged to her sister residing in USA for purchasing FDRs to be spent by her as and when she visits India. So, for this amount also, except confirmation no document has been brought on record by the assessee to prove as to how this amount was transferred to the assessee or if the sister of the assessee was in possession of such an amount with her. So, we are of the considered view that there is no scope of interference in the findings returned by ld. CIT (A) who confirmed the addition of ₹ 6,00,000/- and ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion given by Vatika Limited showing details of payment of ₹ 42,48,072/-. First of all, confirmation letter relied upon by the assessee does not disclose the name of the issuing authority. Secondly, un-rebutted seized document Annexure B categorically shows that the payment of ₹ 17,00,000/- in cash was made by the assessee to Vatika Limited on behalf of her husband. 17. Furthermore, the assessee has also not brought on record sale deed / allotment or transfer deed for purchasing 2BHK instead of 3BHK for which amount of ₹ 57,00,000/- is proved to have been paid. Furthermore, when the assessee has spent an amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- on the sale deed for 3BHK flat, she has failed to clarify on file if that sale deed has got cancelled for executing of the new sale deed of 2BHK by paying stamp duty of ₹ 2,28,481/-. 18. So, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT (A) after appreciating the facts in the light of the settled principles of law in CIT vs. Sonal Construction 2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT (Delhi) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the AO in view of the provisions contained u/s 132 (4) of the Act read with section 292C. So, the findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
