9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making various additions on account of unexplained cash credit and unexplained expenditure. 3. The assessee filed an appeal to the CIT(A), who in turn upheld the order of the AO. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has now come up in appeal before us. 5. Ground Nos.1 and 2, it was pointed out, were interrelated . The same read as under: 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- made on the basis of certain figures mentioned on Page 2 of Annexure A-5 applying the provisions of Section 68 of the Act which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the invocation of the provisions of Section 68 in as much as the pocket diary in not a book of account which can be made the basis for making of an addition of cash credit and as such the addition upheld isarbitrary and unjustified. 6. In the above grounds the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in upholding the addition made of Rs. 20 lacs on account of an entry noted in a document, Annexure A-5 ,by applying the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 7. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments and that the figures were petty expenses. On a perusal of the scanned copy it is evident that against the figure 20.0 0 the narration is profit balance after marriage Chitra. The marriage of Chitra is not in dispute. On the same page there are some other figures viz. 2.50 'bua' 3.75 'maa' 1.85' jony' ......Hence it is very clear that the figure is relating to marriage. The contention that the figures are petty expenses cannot be given credence as 3.75 'maa' cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be Rs. 375/- only. The argument that the diary does not constitute books is also not tenable. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Sonal Constructions, 260 CTR 377 [2013] has held at para 16 that it is not necessary that the seized documents should be in the form of proper books of accounts so that they can be relied upon for the purpose of making additions. They could be in any form, including loose papers on which notings or scribblings have been made. Moreover, if assesses changes his explanatory statement at a later stage, then he has the extra burden of substantiating the same. Thus considering the aforesaid and in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us remaining from shagun and other collections during marriage of his brother-in-law's daughter Chitra. The fact of marriage of Chitra and that the figures related to the marriage of Chitra has, we find, been accepted by the CIT(A), which finds mention in his findings at para 5.3 of the order reproduced above wherein the Ld.CIT(A) has categorically stated that "it is very clear that the figure is relating to marriage". Having accepted that the amount represented surplus collections by way of shagun, etc. on the occasion of marriage of Chitra, we fail to understand how the same can be treated to be in the nature of income of the assessee. The amounts collected by way of gifts on the occasion of marriage do not partake the character of income. The contention of the Revenue before us that the addition was warranted on account of the inconsistent stand of the assessee claiming the amount to represent the receipts on the occasion of marriage and subsequently claiming it to be his commission income, does not in our view alter or make any difference to our findings above. The reason being that firstly ,before us, the assessee has accepted that the amount represented the collections from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold expenses time and again and he further contended that there was no basis for multiplying the figures by 100. 16. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, stated that the assessee in his own statement had admitted to the fact that the figure of 20 mentioned in document A-5 was in fact Rs. 20 lacs and by his own admission the figures were mentioned in document A-5 were written in small alphabets and numerals. Accordingly, the Ld. DR justified the action of the AO in multiplying the figures with 100. The Ld. DR further relied upon the orders of the authorities below pointing out therefrom that the addition was justified for the reason that the assessee had himself admitted in his statement recorded on 21.1.2009 that the contents of document A-4 were details of investment made by him and if he now wished to retract the same the onus to prove the retraction lay completely on the assessee which had not been done in the present case. 17. We have heard the rival contentions and have carefully gone through the documents and submissions referred to before us. It is not disputed that the addition has been made on account of notings in a document, Annexure A-4, as reproduced above. The Revenue, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee has stated that they also represents household expenses. Therefore, this interpretation of the Revenue is based on incorrect appreciation of the facts; Moreover even if the said figures are said to represent the investment made by the assessee, the statement itself clearly brings out the source of the investment as being made from the savings of Rs. 20 lacs after the marriage of Chitra. This sum of Rs. 20 lacs, we have held in ground No.1 & 2 above to be not in the nature of the income of the assessee. Further the source having stood explained, we see no reason for making the addition of the same on the ground of unexplained investment made by the assessee. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we hold that the addition made on account of notings in document A-4 deserves to be deleted. Ground of appeal No.3 raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 19. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee reads as under: 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the invocation of the provisions of Section 68 in as much as the pocket diary in not a book of account which can be made the basis for making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Aarti. However, the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence that these expenses were actually incurred by his daughters. As the assessee had failed to explain the sources of these expenses, it was held that the assessee had incurred these expenses from undisclosed sources. Therefore, the AO treated the expenses of Rs. 20,65,692/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 24. Before the Ld.CI T(A) the assessee requested for admission of additional evidence in the form of two affidavits of the daughter of the assessee and of the son-in-law of the assessee stating on oath that the bills found during the course of search and forming part of Annexure A-6, belonged to them and that they were regular income tax assessees. The assessee had also filed copies of income tax returns of the said two persons. The Ld. CIT(A) refused to admit the same stating that the assessee had given no reason as to why the same were not filed before the AO. Thereafter the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO in the absence of any evidence filed by the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source of the expenditure incurred on account of the said bills. 25. Before us the Ld.Counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was not afforded by the AO who passed the order within 15 days of filing of reply by the assessee explaining the contents of the impugned document. 28. We, therefore, admit the same for adjudication and restore the issue back to the AO to verify the evidences, now filed and decide the issue afresh after considering all the contentions raised by the assessee. Needless to add that due opportunity be given to the assessee of hearing. Ground of appeal Nos.5, 6 and 7 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 29. Ground No.8 raised by the assessee reads as under: 8. That all the aforementioned additions are based on dumb documents and only under the realm of suspicion, surmises and conjectures which merit deletion at the outset. The above ground was not pressed and the same is dismissed as not pressed. 30. Ground No.9 raised by the assessee reads as under: 9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the charging of the interest under sections 234-A, 234-B & 234C of the Act which is not chargeable in the instant case. The above ground relating to charging of interest u/s 234A 234B and 234C of the Act is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
