9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 2,27,000/- but seized only Rs. 2,20,000/- Rs. 2,20,000/- ii) From Bank locker No.9 with State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, NOIDA, UP, held jointly in the name of Shri Tribhuvan Singh and his wife, Smt. Vineeta Singh Rs. 3,00,000/- iii) From locker No.294 with Syndicate Bank, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi held in the name of Smt. Vineeta Singh, jointly with her domestic servant, Smt. Kalindi. Rs. 16,33,000/- Total Rs. 21,53,000/- 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted from the information received from SP,CBI, New Delhi, vide letter No.2887/3/AC- 2/2003/A-005 dated 6th October, 2004 that Shri Tribhuvan Singh has assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs. 32,75,200/- which are mainly as under:- i) Cash recovered from house of Shri Tribhuvan Singh, 10, Satya Niketan, Chankyapuri, New Delhi. Rs. 2,27,000/- ii) Cash recovered from locker No.9 SBBJ, NOIDA, in the joint name of Shri Tribhuvan Singh & Smt. Vineeta Singh Rs. 3,00,000/- iii) Cash recovered from locker No.294, Syndicate Bank, Mayur Vihar, Delhi in the name of Smt. Vineeta Singh & her maid servant, Kalindi. Rs. 16,33,000/- iv) Difference in cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Tribhuvan Singh is taken as Rs. 4,60,000/- in place of nil by the AO. He accordingly directed the AO to reallocate the income in the hands of the assessee and her husband. The relevant observations of the CIT(A) from para 5 onwards read as under:- "5. After having carefully considered, submission of the appellant and facts brought out by the AO in assessment order, my conclusions/observations on grounds taken in appeal are as under: (1) Grounds of appeal no. 1 & 7 are general in nature; ground of appeal no. 6 is consequential in nature. (2) Regarding grounds of appeal no. 2 & 3: After carefully weighing the rival submissions and all relevant documents/material on record, I agree with all the findings and conclusions made by the AO, and, hence, all the findings available in the order can be taken as my conclusions as well. For the sake of brevity, these findings are not being repeated. However, I would add/modify these findings to following extent: (a) All the submissions and documentary evidences, especially affidavits are correctly held as 'after-thought' explanations, merely to riggle out of the charge of unaccounted money found. All these affidavits cannot be given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t source of unaccounted cash income, is not known, either in the hands of assesee or her husband; how much cash can be ascribed to whom? In absence of any first-hand questioning by CBI during search, or any clinching evidence brought on record so far; the possession can be ascribed according to the place where cash was found. Locker no. 294, Syndicate Bank is in the name of Smt Vineeta Singh jointly with her domestic servant. As sh. Tribhuwan Singh is not a party there; this cash of Rs. 16,33,000/- can be treated as belonging to Smt. Vineeta Singh. Addition to this extent can be made in name of assessee on substantive basis. Rest of the cash i.e. Rs. 5,20,000/- found-from residence and from locker no. 9, SBBJ, can be treated as belonging to/pertaining to Sh. Tribhuwan Singh. Giving a credit for cash balance-in-hand of Rs. 60,000/-; addition of Rs. 4,60,000/- should be made substantively in the hands of husband, Sri Tribhuvan Singh. Therefore, on fair estimate basis; the posseson of unaccounted cash by Sri Tribhuvan Singh is taken at Rs. 4,60,000/-, in place of 'Nil' by the AO. There would be reallocation of income in the hands of assesee and her husband, to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Daughter & Sons- in-law) Rs. 1,00,000/= Cash given by Mr B.P.S. Chauhan (For Construction) Rs. 50,000/= Cash given by Sister Mrs Chitra Sood & her husband Mr N.K. Bhatia(Gift) Rs. 75,000/= Cash received as gift on the Silver Wedding Anniversary Rs. 5,00,000/= Cash received as "Shagun" on son's wedding Rs. 1,25,000/= Cash received as "Bhent" etc on son's engagement 2050000 (The disputed amount would be Rs. 20,50,000/- as noted above as against wrongly taken at Rs. 20,93,000/- by the Ld. C.I.T (A)). 3. That on facts brought on record with evidences the Learned C.I.T(A) ought to have considered the merits of the case afresh and in right perspective but on the contrary he simply relied upon the findings of A.O. under the circumstances of the case. 4. That the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in maintaining and sustaining following addition of Rs. 16,33,000/- to the income of the deceased appellant as "Income from undisclosed sources "on facts and under the circumstances of the case:- Cash found from Locker No.-294 with Syndicate Bank, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi 1633000 5. That learned C.I.T(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,33,000/- as made by A.O. in the han ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rary. Referring to the order of the Tribunal in case of husband of the assessee, he submitted that in so far as the assessee's husband is concerned, no sum had been found from him as belonging to him since the Tribunal has already held that the assessee's husband Shri Tribhuvan Singh had no unaccounted money. 12. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the observation of the AO that there is a general tendency of near and dear ones to sympathise and come forward in times of crises, is hypothetical and is a general statement. He submitted that there is no such presumption in law and in fact the assessee had produced all such persons before the CBI in as much as the AO had not required the assessee to produce any of the witness from whom the sums were received in cash. He submitted that the AO in the order had stated that he had required the assessee to produce (i) Smt. Shakuntla Devi, mother in law of the assessee and (b) Smt. Sushila Sood, mother of the assessee. 13. He submitted that both the aforesaid persons had been examined by the CBI and the copy of their statements have been placed on record at pages 131 - 132 and Pg. 135 - 136 of the Paper Book. He submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,00,000/- 4. Mrs. Surbhi Singh & her Husband Mr. Akash Chauhan Daughter and son-in law Rs. 2,00,000/- 5. Mr. B.P.S. Chauhan Father-in-law of daughter Rs. 1,00,000/- 6. Mrs. Chitra Bhatia and Mr. N.K. Bhatia Sister & brother-in-law Rs. 50,000/- 7. Cash gifts shown to have been received on silver wedding anniversary Rs. 75,000/- 8. Bhent on son's engagement & shagun received on his marriage of Rs. 125000/- + 500000/- Rs. 6,25,000/- 9. Cash available with the assessee and her husband Rs. 60,000/- 16. He submitted that various evidences submitted by the assessee were completely brushed aside by the AO in an arbitrary manner and that too without bringing any material on record. He submitted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee was suffering from cancer and other co-related diseases and the sum had been given for her treatment by her mother who had duly been confirmed, by her mother-in-law and also certain amount provided by her son who had recently got married. However, the AO in complete disregard to the evidences filed before him, rejected the submission of the assessee. 17. So far as the funds available at home is concerned, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accordingly submitted that the balance amount of Rs. 15,90,000/- should also be deleted. 21. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the AO and the CIT(A). He submitted that the AO, after due examination of each and every explanation given by the assessee regarding each source has come to the conclusion that all these evidences are nothing, but, afterthought. Further, the various affidavits as well as confirmations filed by the assessee have no credence because they are all very close relatives and friends and are self serving documents. So far as the argument of the ld. Counsel that the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- is concerned, the ld. DR, referring to the order of the Tribunal in the case of the husband, namely, Shri Tribhuvan Singh vs. ACIT, vide ITA No.1790/Del/2011, order dated 17th August, 2015, drew the attention of the Bench to para 8 of the order and submitted that the Tribunal has held that the amount of Rs. 4,60,000/- should be added in the hands of Smt. Vineeta Singh, who had owned up this money as belonging to her. Therefore, the ld. Counsel cannot say that the CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 5,20,000/- and, therefore, to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blished. 3 Rs. 2,00,000 Mr. Anant Singh He withdrawn money from various bank accounts through ATM and kept it for his cash needs. Very small amounts were withdrawn by him. If a son has to give money to his parents, he would withdraw a lump sum amount. Moreover, a person who keeps on taking loan from his parents from year to year would be contributing anything for household expenses, is beyond human probabilities. 4 Rs, 2,00,000 Mrs, Surbhi Singh and her husband Mr. Akash Chauhan On their visits to India, they brought foreign exchange and traveller cheques. They encashed it in India and after spending they left the balance money with the assessee. It was not possible to get converted lesser amount on various visits in Indian currency and thereafter leave a bigger amount with the assessee.] 5 Rs. 1,00,000 Sh. BPS Chauhan He gave money to the assessee for construction of house on his plot in Indirapuram, Ghaziabad and handed over Rs. 1 lakh in cash for the purpose. The assessee did not mention this in her earlier statement before CBl and in written replies before AO. She mentioned this only in the subsequent statement before CBl. It is not possible that a person would g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng anniversary and amount received at the time of engagement and marriage of her son. The assessee neither at the level of the AO nor before the CIT(A) was able to produce the so-called jewelers to whom the mother-in-law and mother of the assessee has sold jewellery. Further, we find some force in the argument of the ld. DR that if some cash portions were real gift, at least some document like gift deed or gift letter or some scribbling to that effect would have been found in the house or in possession of the assessee or her husband. However, nothing of that sort was found. The so-called long list containing names of different persons who had given gifts at the time of engagement or marriage of the son or at the time of silver wedding anniversary cannot be believed in absence of any iota of evidence found at the time of search and, therefore, we concur with the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue that this is nothing, but, an afterthought. The various decisions relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. The various affidavits and confirmations filed from various close relatives, in our opinion, are nothing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
