9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged unexplained investment u/s. 69B. 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. The appellant prays this Hon'ble Tribunal to delete the additions/disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld CIT(A)." 2. Briefly stated, search and seizure action under Sec.132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s Valecha Engineering Ltd. and its group companies as on 26.07.2011 and on subsequent dates. The residential premises of the directors of the said group companies were also covered in the said search proceedings. The assessee being a director of M/s Valecha Engineering Ltd., was covered under the aforesaid search proceedings conducted under Sec. 132 of the Act. In compliance to notice issued under Sec.153A the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y 2011-12 on 20.03.2012, declaring his total income at Rs. 1,18,73,046/-. 3. The A.O while framing the assessment observed, that the assessee had claimed bank charges of Rs. 1,206/- against his income shown under the head "other sources". However, as the assessee had failed to establish a nexus of the aforesaid expenditure as against earning of the int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'A.R') for the assessee submitted, that the lower authorities had without any basis made the aforesaid additions in the hands of the assessee. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the bank charges were directly related to the interest income received by the assessee from banks, therefore, the same was clearly allowable as a deduction under Sec. 57(iii) of the Act. Apart there from, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that similar claim for deduction of bank charges that was raised by the assessee in A.Y 2006-07 to A.Y 2008- 09 was allowed by the A.O while framing the respective assessments under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 153A, vide his orders dated 31.12.2009. Accordingly, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that the lower authorities were in error in declining to allow the claim of deduction of bank charges of Rs. 1,206/- that was rightly claimed by the assessee. As regards the addition of Rs. 23,00,000/- made by the A.O towards alleged unexplained investment under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the additions which could be made only on the basis of the incriminating material found in the course of the search proceedings. However, as the assessment for the year under consideration i.e A.Y 2011-12 was pending on the date of search. therefore, the A.O unlike the preceding years was also vested with the jurisdiction to make the disallowance of the aforesaid bank charges as per the normal assessment provisions envisaged under Sec.143(3). Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the observations of the lower authorities, we uphold the disallowance of the bank charges of Rs. 1,206/- made by the A.O. The Ground of appeal No .1 is dismissed. 8. We shall now advert to the addition of Rs. 23,00,000/- made by the A.O on account of an alleged unexplained investment under Sec. 69B. As is discernible from the orders of the lower authorities, during the course of the search proceedings carried out at the residential premises of the assessee on 26.07.2011, certain incriminating material in the form of loose papers were found and seized, which thereafter were marked as 'Annexure A1'. As per the A.O, a perusal of the aforesaid loose papers revealed that the same were the copy of the ledger ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of account, other documents, money, bullion or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person, then it may be presumed viz. (i) that, such books of account, other documents, money, bullion or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person from whose possession or control the same had been found ; (ii) that, the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and (iii) that, the signature and every part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of any particular person, are in that persons handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped or executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested. Accordingly, the presumption drawn by the A.O that the seized loose papers, which thereafter had been marked as Annexure A-1 belonged to the assessee, as the same were found and seized in the course of the search proceedings conducted under Sec.132 from his residential premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .O to have made necessary verification from the broker with whom trading of the aforesaid scrips was stated to have been carried out by the assessee. However, we find that no such effort was put in by the A.O. As is discernible from the records, we find, that despite the fact that the assessee taking support of the fact that his name was nowhere mentioned in the seized documents had declined the ownership of the same, however, the A.O discarded the aforesaid claim of the assessee, and without placing on record any material which could disprove the authenticity of the aforesaid claim of the assessee, had rather hushed through the matter and made an addition of Rs. 23,00,000/- towards unexplained investment under Sec. 69B in his hands. Apart there from, we also find some force in the claim of the assessee that as he was the promoter/director of M/s Valecha Engineering Ltd., therefore, he was not entitled to trade in shares of the said company. Be that as it may, we are of a strong conviction that neither the assessee had been able to substantially prove that the aforesaid seized papers found from his residential premises did not belong to him, nor the A.O had been able to dislodge th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
