TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 216
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 4.75,671 regarding alleged unexplained expenditure pertaining to jotting of letter of M/s Mulberry Silk Affairs (the paper found and seized during the search and seizure operation). It has further been pleaded that addition of Rs. 4,09,267 regarding jewellery was wrongly made, despite the fact that the family of the assessees was an affluent family. 2. The facts are that a search and seizure operation was conducted on Deepsons Group, on26th Feb., 2002. The assessee is connected with the said group. In response to notice under s. 158BC of the IT Act, the assessee declared undisclosed income at nil, in the return filed. Assessment order dt.27th Feb., 2007was passed under s. 158BC of the Act, making the impugned order. In the search ope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions silk, in which, the assessee has never dealt. Mohinder Lal has no independent business. He was only a partner. It has further been argued that the assessee cannot prove a negative. The addition was made under s. 69C/69D of the IT Act. It was the burden of the Department to prove application thereof. This burden was not discharged. There was no enquiry. The assessee was associated with "Mulberry" distributors of Suchitra Silk, which has remained closed down for 5 to 10 years. The assessee filed an affidavit before the learned CIT(A) (copy filed). In this affidavit, the assessee submitted that the assessee's husband filed an affidavit. In this affidavit Shri Mohinder Lal stated that the vouchers showing purchase of silk garments alleged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Devi, the assessee was adopted. So, she got gifts both from her natural family as well as her adopted family. Mohinder La1' s father was a partner in the well known firm J.B. Mangha Ram. This renowned firm had its business inConnaught Place. In the year 1993, the assessees completed 25 years of their marriage. Their friends inBangkokinvited them for celebrating the occasion. The passports and photographs of both the assessees inBangkokare on record. Affidavits from 4 parties have also been filed, regarding the jewellery received as gift, amounting to Rs. 3,55,616. The learned counsel submits that this voluminous cogent evidence was wrongly rejected by the taxing authorities. It is further submitted that if from the addition, the gifts are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the assessees as to the date mentioned in the seized paper, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that where no year has been mentioned against the date, the presumption is that the year is the current year. As such, the learned Departmental Representative has sought the addition to be maintained by dismissing both the appeals. 7. In his counter, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that w.e.f. asst. yr. 1993-94, the limit regarding wealth-tax is Rs. 50 lakhs. Further, it has been submitted that the presumption of custodian being owner, is a rebuttable presumption, which stands amply rebutted in the present case. Apropos the issue regarding the date, the learned counsel for the assessee has reiterated t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ages an expenditure already incurred. This is not the case here. No expenditure has been proved by the Department to have been incurred by the assessees. Further, s. 69D talks of amount borrowed on a hundi, which is also not the case here. 8.2. 'Raj Pal Singh Ram Autar', has also held that the initial presumption of possessor being owner: was a rebuttable presumption which could be dislodged by the person in possession of the paper found. Where there was a denial coupled with the surrounding circumstances that the seized paper was not in the handwriting of the partners or employees, and it did not contain the name of the assessee, this factum clearly supported the view that the initial onus lying on the assessee was successfully dislodge....