9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 11.07.2016 and hence, the matter has come up for hearing before us. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a search was conducted on 17.09.2008 on Kamdhenu Group. The assessee is a firm of Chartered accountants engaged in providing professional services and is part of Singhal sub-group. During the course of search from E-127, Industrial Area, Biwadi, residence of Shri Surendra Kumar Singhal, one of the partners of the assessee firm, two bills issued by Ganpati Electronics towards purchase of electronic items were seized and during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee firm was asked to explain the source of investment for purchase of the electronics items as so mentioned in the said bills. The submissions so filed by the assessee firm were considered but not found acceptable to the Assessing officer and addition of Rs. 2,20,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee firm and the findings of the AO reads as under: "1. Submission of the assessee that the name of M/s. S. Singhal & Co. was mentioned in the bill no.1198 for Rs. 45,000/- just for the purpose of transportation is not acceptable for the reason that for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) who has affirmed the action of the AO and his findings read as under: "4.3 I have gone through the assessment order as well as the submissions made by the AR and find that the AO has made the addition on account of unexplained investments for purchase of electronic items on the ground that the assessee failed to offer any satisfactory explanation. During the course of search at the premises of the appellant, two papers - page 29 & 30 of Annexure A/2 were seized from E-127, Industrial Area, Bhiwandi. These papers were the bills of Ganpati Electronics, Sahara Mall, Gurgaon - (i) Bill No.1198 dated 10-11-2003 for the purchase of 60 inch LCD Projection TV for Rs. 45,000 in the name of S. Singhal & Co., E-127, Industrial Area, Bhiwandi and (ii) Bill No.1199 dated 11-11-2003 for Cash, Projection TV 60 inch for Rs. 1,75,000. It was submitted before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings that the purchase of TV against Invoice No.1198 of Rs. 45,000 was made by Sh. Kunal Singhal and the payment was made by Sh. W. R. Singhal, the grandfather of Sh. Kunal Singhal. It was further submitted that no purchase has been made against the Inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot - 340 ITR 0497. Further, in the case of Smt. Jyoti Kumari Vs. ACIT - 344 ITR 060, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that unexplained investment or asset discovered during search can be treated as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee on his failure to prove that the amount has been already disclosed. In this case, the appellant has failed to do so both at the assessment as well as at the appellate stage. 4.6 In view of the above discussion, I hold that the AO was justified in making the addition of Rs. 2,20,000 on account of unexplained investments." 5. Against the said findings of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the bills were seized from the residence of one of the partners of the assessee's firm and nowhere it was established that the assessee firm had made the investments towards purchase of the electronics items. The ld AR has drawn our reference to the photocopies of the impugned bills bearing No.1198 and 1199 and submitted that one of the bills is dated 10-11-2009 and the other is dated 11-11-2009. According to him, the bill bearing No.1199 dated 11-11-2009 of Rs. 1,75,000/- w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n record. From perusal of the assessment order, we note that two bills issued by Ganapati Electronics no. 1198 dated 10.11.2003 for Rs. 45,000/- and another bill no. 1199 dated 11.11.2003 for Rs. 175,000/- was seized during the course of search u/s 132 which was conducted on 17.09.2008 from the residence of one of the partners of the assessee firm, Shri S.K Singhal. It is an admitted position of the Revenue as apparent from the assessment order that the documents were seized from the residential premises of Shri S.K Singhal and not from the official premises of the assessee firm. Therefore, the presumption that such documents belong to Shri S.K Singhal and/or his family members will arise u/s 132(4A) and it needs to be seen whether any question were raised to Shri S.K Singhal during the course of search and whether any action has been taken in his individual hands or not. However, there is nothing on record to rebut such presumption except the fact that bill no. 1198 is issued in the name of the assessee firm and therefore, to that extent, it can be held that bill no. 1198 doesn't belong to Shri S.K Singhal in his individual capacity but belong to the assessee firm. During the cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
