TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 1,68,504/- made by the AO on account of commission on sale of painting. 5. The appellant craves to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." 3. Apropos addition of Rs.75,000/-. During the search cash of Rs. 2,92,000/- was found from the residential premises of the assessee. The assessee surrendered an amount of Rs. 1,88,000/- out of the above amount in the return of income for the A.Y. 2007-08. Rs. 14,000/- was stated to be assessee's own cash from savings out of amount withdrawn from time to time out of family funds. Rs. 15,000/- belonged to her husband who is an IT payee having income over Rs. 20,00,000/- per annum for the last many years. Remaining cash of Rs. 75,000/- was said to belong to assessee's father-in-law who kept the same with the assessee to meet the expenses of treatment if needed for any medical aid specially for him and his wife who are very old and do not keep very good health. IN support of the above assessee filed an affidavit from her father in law wherein he stated to have given an amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the assessee for safe keeping. AO observed that the source of the above imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. We find that assessee had submitted that Rs. 75,000/- belonged to her father in law Sh. SN Puri, who handed over the cash to the assessee and left Kolkata and came to live nearby Faridabad. It has been stated that in his declaration that the money was given to keep in safe custody for medical treatment in case of need and till date the amount was kept with the assessee unutilized. AO has not believed this statement and he made the impugned addition. Ld. CIT(A) on the other hand has found cogency in the assessee's submissions that the amount was pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09 and it cannot be added in assessment year 2007-08. Further, considering the circumstances and background of the assessee and employment of her husband and father in law, Ld. CIT(A) opined that the family had very handsome income and he was of the opinion that assessee's father-in-law could have saved Rs. 75,000/-. We find considerable merits in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. Since the amount was found at the time of search on 17-18/4/2007 the addition could rightly have been made in assessment year 2008-09. Fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ote 4 22 Satish Gujral 8,000/- 22,50,000/- Note 1 23 Sunil Das 5,000/- 1,22,840/- Note 1 24 Sunil Das 3,500/- 1,22,840/- Note 1 25 Yogesh Rawat 50,000/- 50,000/- Note 2 26 HImmat Saha 2,00,000/- 65,00,000/- Note 5 3,02,88,556/- Note 1 : The price of each painting has been arrived by calculating the average price of per painting of the said artist as shown in the closing stock as on 31.3.2007 of M/s Delhi Art Gallery Pvt. Ltd. which is one of the leading concerns in the filed of purchase and sale of art work. The value of the painting is taken at the cost price of M/s Delhi Art Gallery Pvt. Ltd. Hence it is a case of comparable assesses. Note 2 : As no comparable case was found in the case of the above artist the value offered by the assessee has been considered as the market value of the painting. Note 3: During the course of search, two art works of Harsha Vardhan were found and their value, as given by the assessee, were Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/-. If the average of the two is taken then the value of each of the paintings shall be Rs. 4,50,000/-. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Father, Mr. SN Puri, Father in law and Mr. S. Harsha Vardhan. In regard to item no. 1,2, 9, 22, 23, 24 the same were said to have been received from Mr. S. Das Gupta, father of the assessee as gift. Ld. CIT(A) further observed that during the appellate proceedings assessee has produced a gift declaration of Shri S. Das Gupta dated 20.5.2007 duly attested by notary at Calcutta. 8.1 In regard to item no. 3, 4, 5 & 7 the assessee has submitted a copy of gift declaration of Mr. SN Puri, father-in-law of the assessee. For this purpose, gift declaration was duly given. Regarding the item no. 10 to 21 the assessee submitted that the copy of declaration made by Sh. Manjeet Bawa wherein he had stated that the items were given to the assessee from time to time out of affection for her and family. Ld. CIT(A) further observed that in regard to item no. 6 the assessee filed a confirmation of gift from Mr. S. Harsha Vardhan. Ld. CIT(A) further observed that assessee had submitted that these documents could not be submitted by the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings as the issue regarding painting or their value was not raised by the AO. However, the same were produced as addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i S.Das Gupta, the father and Shri SN Puri, father in law respectively. 9.2 In regard to paintings received from Manjeet Bawa appearing in item no. 10 to 21, the assessee has duly submitted the declaration of the donor during the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). These were duly forwarded by the Ld. CIT(A) to the AO for his comments. In the remand report AO has stated that he did not differ from the stand taken at the time of assessment proceedings. However, no adverse comments were made about the authenticity of the declaration. Assessee during the course of search also stated that the paintings were received as gifts during the course of search, no documents have been found to indicate that the painting were received otherwise. In this view of the matter, we agree with the Ld. CIT(A) that these items were received from Sh. Manjeet Bawa and the question of making addition in the hands of the assessee as undisclosed purchases is factually not correct and legally not tenable. Furthermore, ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has produced a copy of August, 2002 issue of magazine "The Society Interior" which shows the house of the assessee and those ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mation from Sh. Himmat Shah regarding sale of the same to the assessee for Rs. 2 lacs. Furthermore, during the course of search no incriminating document was found to indicate that the same was purchased by the assessee at a higher price than the amount disclosed in the books of accounts. Therefore, no adverse inference can be made regarding the transaction. 9.6 In the background of the aforesaid discussion, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasonable order in this regard and no interference is needed as such. Hence, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard in deleting the addition. 10. Apropos addition of Rs. 1,68,504/-. In this regard it is noted that the addition of Rs. 1,68,504/- was made by the AO on account of commission stated to have been earned by the assessee. The AO in the assessment order stated that the seized documents is a handwritten page on the letter head of Mr. Himmat Shah (Artist) wherein it was mentioned that 4% of the value of the art would be commission to the assessee for any of the paintings sold through the assessee. On the basis of the said letter he assumed that the assessee is engaged in sale/purchase of paintings on commission ....