TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (8) TMI 337
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of Rs. 50,000 for the asst. yr. 1990-91 on account of unexplained FDR of Rs. 50,000, dt. 27th May, 1989. 4. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,31,900 as undisclosed income under s. 69 of the Act for the asst. yr. 1993-94. 5. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,19,948, i.e., Rs. 44,648 for the asst. yr. 1992-93 and Rs. 75,300 for the asst. yr. 1993-94 as undisclosed income in the absence of any evidence for filing IT returns for these years. 6. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,37,643 as undisclosed income for the following assessment years being difference in income-tax returns of block period and regular returns. Asst. yr. Disclosed income as shown in block period returns Disclosed income as shown in regular returns Difference Rs. Rs. Rs. 1991-92 47,441 40,880 6,561 1994-95 86,700 54,183 32,517 1995-96 1,86,250 57,945 1,28,305 1996-97 3,43,5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operating bank locker on 15th Sept., 1999, the AO could not have computed the limitation period for the purpose of completion of the block assessment with reference to the drilling open of the locker on 15th Sept., 1999 as the last authorisation stood executed on 28th Aug., 1999. The assessment so made, therefore, is vitiated and needs to be quashed. 4. We have heard the parties with reference to material on record. Sec. 158BE of the Act mandates limitation for completion of block assessment within two years from the end of the month in which the last authorisation for search under s. 132 was executed. In the case of the assessee a Panchnama has been drawn on 15th Sept., 1999 with reference to pending proceedings dt. 28th Aug., 1999. The sealing of the locker No. 85/5 held with United Bank of India, Swaminagar, New Delhi, in the name of Puppy and Kamal was a consequence of authorisation for search under s. 132 on the assessee. It is in continuance of these proceedings the locker has been drilled open on 15th Sept., 1999 where the warrant is stated to be in the case of Puppy and Kamal and Shri N.K. Malhan. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to agree with the assessee t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m. Correctness of the entries has not been doubted by the authorities below and the explanation with respect to receipt of the amount for sale of properties also stands admitted. As regards interest, from mere jottings or calculations it cannot be said that there was any liability incurred by the assessee as he is also not found to have paid the amount from his resources nor utilised the amount for his individual benefits. The Revenue did not examine these parties though the complete identity and particulars thereof were available before them. Proof of payment has also not been found. In case the calculations were made for interest, they were merely the cost estimates but cannot be said as a payment in reality or a liability incurred by the assessee. In any event the burden was on the Revenue to show that the documents represented undisclosed income of the assessee. Without bringing any corroboratory evidence by the Revenue, this burden cannot be held to have been discharged. Under such peculiar circumstances and the facts as emerging from record, the entries of Rs. 1,65,000 could not have been treated as undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period. The addition so made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been misconstrued and it has wrongly been assumed that the assessee has made any investment in the chits. It was stated that these papers contain only some calculations. This does not indicate that the assessee has made any investments. Any particular day, month of year has not been mentioned on the paper. There is also no material on record to prove that the assessee is contributing the amounts in shares or in any chit fund company. There is also no material on record that assessee has received any amount on maturity of any chit contribution as alleged to be belonging to the assessee. It is, therefore, stated that adverse inferences from such documents could not be drawn as they do not speak of any reality of the transaction. Reliance was made to the decision of Jagdamba Rice Mills vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 67 TTJ (Chd) 838. 14. We have perused the aforesaid explanation and the seized document placed at assessee's paper book-I pp. 48 and 50. The document does not state of any date or the year against the entries written therein. It does not show whether the assessee has made or received any payment. It also cannot be deciphered from the said documents that the entries therein perta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to conclusion in accordance with the law. 17. Ground No. 6 has not been pressed, the same has been dismissed as 'not pressed'. 18. In ground No. 7 the assessee has challenged charging of interest under s. 158BFA(1) of the Act without making any specific order thereof. 19. We have heard the parties with reference to material on record. The AO did not pass any specific order for charge of interest under s. 158BFA of the Act. Perusal of the order reveals that only the penalty proceedings under s. 158BFA have been initiated. We have perused mandatory provisions in this respect contained in s. 158BFA(1) which deals with charging of interest on undisclosed income determined under cl. (c) of s. 158BC of the Act where the return is furnished after the expiry of period specified in the notice or is not furnished in compliance to the notice. Sub-s. (2) of s. 158BFA mandates levy of penalty on undisclosed income determined under cl. (c) of s. 158BC if it is more than the returned income. Since s. 158BFA deals with levy of interest and levy of penalty under two different sub-sections and the AO initiated only the penalty proceedings under s. 158BFA, it is therefore evident that no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed material also was available with the AO for about 2 years. Even after such enquiry and enquiries made during the assessment proceedings, the Revenue did not come in possession of any contrary material to hold that the amount of gifts represented undisclosed income of the assessee. He, therefore, supported the decision taken by the learned CIT(A) who had co-terminus powers and held that the gifts were genuine. It was therefore contended that there is no merit in the ground raised by Revenue. 22. We have heard the parties with reference to material on record. This is an admitted fact that the gifts aggregating to Rs. 40,50,000 by assessee or his dependents stood duly disclosed prior to the date of search in the regular returns filed by them. As a result of search, no incriminating document was found to show that the amount of gift represented undisclosed income for the block period of the assessee. The identity and capacity of the donors had also been proved as the assessee has filed evidence and explanation by way of gift deeds from the donors who paid the amount of gifts by way of cheques and the amounts were actually received as gifts by these persons. Under such facts mere....