TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (11) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yan Jaiswal whose premises were searched on 15-11-1996. During the course of search, certain cash was found and the assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 1,70,000. Substantive addition of this amount was made in the hands of Shri Kamal Narayan Jaiswal and only protective addition has been made in the hands of the assessee. 5. We have considered this issue in the case of Shri Kamal Narayan Jaiswal and in view of our findings therein, the addition made by the assessing officer is deleted. 6. Ground No. 9 related to the addition of Rs. 27,04,539 representing unexplained investments in the FDRs along with accrued interest thereon. 7. As mentioned earlier, the assessee is wife of Shri Kamal Narayan Jaiswal. During the course of search and seizure operation, certain FDRs were found which were in different names. Few FDRs were also in the name of the assessee. In his original order, the assessing officer made certain additions on account of undisclosed investment in these FDRs. 8. On appeal, it was claimed before the Tribunal that there have been double additions on account of FDRs. Certain additions have been made on account of maturity value of the FDRs wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erned CIT. It was stated that other FDRs were only the renewal of the FDRs and no fresh investment was made by the assessee. The addition made by the assessing officer was, therefore, unwarranted and deserves to be deleted. 12. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the assessing officer. 13. We have considered the rival submissions. During the course of search and seizure operation, certain FDRs were found and seized. A note book which allegedly mentioned certain other FDRs was also found and seized. The value of all these FDRs even which was noted in the note book was also brought to tax by the assessing officer. We have verified all these FDRs and notings in the note book. As mentioned earlier, a trust was created in the name of Indrani Devi Benefit Trust. The beneficiary of the trust as well as managing trustee was the assessee. As per will of deceased, Shri Shiv Prasad Jaiswal, father of the assessee, the investment in various FDRs aggregating Rs. 3,50,000 became the property of the trust. In order to prove the genuineness of the trust, the assessee has produced the witnesses before whom the trust deed was executed. Even the no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also confirmed that there was no FDR of this amount, The figures only indicate the accrued interest of any FDR on 25-11-1991. Such statement of the assessee has not been rebutted by any contrary evidence. We, therefore, hold that the addition to the total income as undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B can not be made merely on the ground of surmises and doubts. The addition made by the assessing officer in respect of FDR at Sr. No. 3 is, therefore, deleted. 18. FDR at Sr. No. 4 is of Rs. 1,24,727. Similar is the position of this FDR as has been observed in the case of FDR at Sr. No. 3. The addition of this amount is also unwarranted and the same is deleted. 19. The FDR at Sr. No. 5 is of Rs. 1,01,225. This FDR was not found during the course of search. But the noting in the diary seized at the time of search indicated some details of this FDR. It gives the FDR No. 9/152/627820 - 24-3-1991 - 101225 under the head "Central Bank of India, Nagpur". Though the asses see claimed that no such FDR stood in the name of the assessee, we find that specific details about such FDR have been noted in the diary. The assessee could have rebutted the conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s FDR finds place at Sr. No, 18 of Annex. A which has been offered for taxation under VDIS. The Commissioner has accepted the same and, therefore, the question of making any addition on account of FDR at Sr. No. 9 does not arise and the same is deleted. 24. FDR at Sr. No. 10 is of Rs. 1,04,173. This FDR was not found during the course of search. However, the details of this FDR were noted in the note book found during the course of search. As proper investigation in respect of this FDR has not been made, we set aside this issue and restore back to the file of the assessing officer to make investigation of this FDR through the bank. The assessee is also free to file any evidence in support of her claim that no addition of the value of the FDR, if any, to her income was warranted. The assessing officer will take a view on the basis of his investigation. 25. The FDR at Sr. No. 11 is of Rs. 2,960. After verification, we found that the FDR was of Rs. 29,607. This FDR which finds place at Sr. No. 9 has already been considered for taxation. Accordingly, the addition of the same does not arise and the same is deleted. 26. The FDR at Sr. No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt of undisclosed investment in gold jewellery and addition of Rs. 77,138 on account of undisclosed investment in silver ornaments weighing 11,545 gms. During search and seizure operation, gold jewellery weighing gross weight 470.400 gms. (net weight 441.200 gms.) valued at Rs. 1,85,805 was found from the residence as well as locker of the assessee. When the assessee was asked to explain the sources of investment, it was stated that out of 441 gms., jewellery weighing 266 gms. belonged to the assessee and 175.200 gms. belonged to Smt. Alpana Jaiswal daughter of the assessee. It was stated that 266 gms. of jewellery was received by her at the time of marriage and since the same is declared in her wealth-tax records right from assessment year 1982-83, the question of making any addition on account of undisclosed investment in jewellery does not arise. The copies of computation of wealth were also submitted. The balance jewellery belonged to her married daughter, Smt. Alpana Jaiswal. Looking to the status and customs in Hindu society, the jewellery to this extent could be possessed by any ordinary family. This issue travelled upto the Tribunal who vide its order dated 22-2-....