9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of facts, these were clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 70/CHD/2021 for the A.Y. 2014-15 Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under section132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted by the department at the residential premises of Sh. Surinder Singh Bindra on 01.11.2017. During the course of search some documents relating to the property belonging to his brother's wife Smt. Jitender Kaur (assessee in the present case) w/o Sh. Harvinder Singh, were seized. On the basis of the said seizure, the AO issued notice u/s 153C of the Act. In response thereof, the assessee filed her return of income on 18.11.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 2,18,960/-. Accordingly, AO passed the assessment order u/s 153C/153A/143(3) of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 5,41,710/- after making addition of Rs. 3,22,750/- as unexplained investment made in connection with renovation of her House. In the first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 1,73,202/-. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The assessee has challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereas the assessee and her mother-in-law are the joint owners of House in question. The Ld. counsel accordingly submitted that since the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the settled principles of law, the same is liable to be set aside on this point. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. departmental representative (DR) supporting the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that since the actual amount of expenditure for renovation of house in question was higher than the amount claimed by the assessee, the AO had no option but to refer the matter to the valuation cell for ascertaining the actual expenditure. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has since restricted the addition to Rs. 1,73,202/- as against the addition of Rs. 3,22,750/- made by the AO, no further action is required in this matter. 5. We have carefully gone through the material available on record including the cases referred and relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the assessee in the light of the rival submissions of the parties. The undisputed facts of the present case are that the assessee and her mother-in-law, Smt. Harbhajan Kaur jointly purchased the house in question in the year 2012. The assessee share in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in the search and seizure operations, which would justify the Assessing Officer's action in referring the matter to the DVO for his opinion on valuation of the said properties. If that be the case, then the valuation arrived at by the DVO would be of no consequence. In any event, the Tribunal has also, on facts, held that the DVO's valuation was based on incomparable sales, which is not permissible in law." 7. In our considered view, the assessee's case is fully covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High court in the said case. Further, in the present case, the authorities below have not pointed out any corroborative evidence to show that the assessee had made investment in question more than the amount declared by the her during assessment proceedings. Hence respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhinav Kumar Mittal (supra), we allow the appeal of the assessee and set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). ITA No. 71/CHD/2021 for the A.Y. 2015-16 In the assessment year 2015-16 also, the AO issued notice u/s 153C of the Act to the assessee on the basis of search and seizure operation, discussed in assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents relating to exchange of house situated at 99-B, South Model Gram Ludhiana, owned by four co-owners including the assessee in this case, were seized. During post-search investigation Sh. Surinder Singh Bindra stated that the said house was exchanged with a residential plot owned by Sh. Iqbaljit Singh and that the sale consideration of the said house was approximately Rs. 83 lacs whereas plot was purchased for Rs. 48 lacs. Hence, the difference amounting to Rs. 35 lacs was received in cash. Accordingly, assessee was asked to explain the nature of transaction and show cause as to why addition to the extent of her share should not be made. The assessee submitted that no amount was received in cash as there was no difference in value between the two properties. However, rejecting the submissions made by the assessee the AO made addition of Rs. 3,75,000/-, holding that the difference in the value of two properties thus comes to 20 lacs as the co-owners of the house had actually received an amount of Rs. 35 lacs. 5. Before us the Ld. counsel submitted that the AO has mentioned in para 4.4 of the order that as per the sale deed, the house was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 68 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,68,250/- i.e., 75% of the total expenditure incurred for renovation of the said house during the assessment year 2014-15 on the basis of valuation report obtained from DVO during the assessment proceedings. The AO further made addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of low household expenses/withdrawal. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and restricted the addition made by the AO on account of undisclosed investment to Rs. 5,19,608/- and addition made on account of undisclosed household expenses to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds: - 1. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in giving part relief to the appellant. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition on account of alleged "undisclosed investment" in the residential buildup house amounting Rs. 5,19,608/- without any basis. 3. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition on account of the undisclosed household expenses amounting Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 & 23 of the paper book. We further notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any cogent and convincing reason for sustaining the addition of 1,50,000/- on account of the household expenses. In our considered view the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is not based on any evidence on record. We accordingly, allow this ground of appeal and set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground in ITA No. 76/CHD/2021 for the A.Y. 2015-16 The facts of this case are identical to the facts of the assessee's case for the assessment year 2014-15 discussed above. In this year the AO made addition of Rs. 59,09,625/- on account of undisclosed investment i.e., on renovation of house and addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of undisclosed household expenses. In the first appeal the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the additions to 31,71,381/- and 1,50,000/- respectively. 2. The assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds: - 1. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in giving part relief to the appellant. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition on account of the undisclosed investment in the residential buildup house amounting Rs. 31,71,381/- without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
