TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.75,98,568/- in the hands of the assessee without appreciating facts and circumstances of the case and also provision of law. 4. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.75,98,568/- in the hands of the assessee, as the addition is made only on the basis of statement of Ravi Bhatia and the diary seized from residential premises of Piyush Patel who has not rebutted his burden under section 132(4A) of the IT Act and not shifted burden on the assessee." 3. The learned counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the addition agitated in these grounds of CO of the assessee are liable to be deleted in view of the fact that it relates to the addition made on the ground that Shri K.K. Patel ("KKP" for short), the late husband of the assessee has received huge amount of monies from the firm on different dates during his life time as per Annexure A-30 (page nos.16-66) seized from the residence of one of the partners, Shri Piyush Patel and that the assessee who is wife of late "KKP" who expired on 8.3.1999 and after the demise of "KKP", the assessee became 40% partner in the firm. He submitted that on merit he c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clearly separate legal entities, assessable to tax separately. If any action was called for, the department should have initiated the same in the hands of the late "KKP" through his legal heirs and not in the personal assessment case of the widow of the deceased, which is the appellant in the present case before us. In these facts of the case, we hold that the addition of Rs.70,00,000/- made by the department on account of monies received by the husband of the assessee during his life time could not be made in the hands of the assessee, which is accordingly deleted. The balance addition of Rs.5,98,568/- is also not maintainable since there is no material brought on record by the Revenue to suggest that the amount relates to the assessee and was in the nature of the income in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground Nos.1 to 4 of the assessee's CO are allowed. 5. The Ground Nos.5 and 6 of the assessee's CO read as under: "5. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.65,000/- made only on the basis of two receipts in the name of the assessee found from the premises of the third party namely Vaikunth office. 6. The ld.CIT(A) has erred while confirming th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unched by the assessee and therefore, the addition made should not be sustained. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the date of receipts as recorded by the AO in para-5 of the assessment order relates to the period prior to the death of the late husband of the assessee, and therefore, if at all addition is called for, it should be made in the hands of "KKP" and not the assessee. The learned DR referred to the relevant portions of the assessment order in support of the case of the Revenue. He submitted that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus under Section 132(4A) of the Act and referred to some decisions of the High Courts as recorded by the AO in para 5.4 of the assessment order. 10. We have considered rival submissions and perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). We find that from a perusal of the details of the amounts alleged to have been received from "kana" scheme launched by late husband of the assessee, "KKP", all the payments totaling to Rs.3,31,215/- related to the period prior to 8.3.1999, the date of death of husband of the assessee, "KKP". For the reasons recorded while disposing of the ground nos.1 to 4 of the CO of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00/- is not called for. Regarding the balance addition, the assessee has tried to explain the source thereof by giving a general explanation that it is out of agricultural income earned by the assessee. The assessee has not shown any evidence of having agricultural income and nexus between the income and the deposits made in the bank account, and accordingly, we sustain the addition of Rs.3,54,500/- on account of entries in the bank accounts with the SBI out of total addition of Rs.4,76,000/- and the ground no.8 of the CO of the assessee is partly allowed. 14. The ground no.9 of the CO of the assessee reads as under: "9. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,24,000/- deposited in various accounts namely 8,500 in the name of Gunjan K. Patel in Saraspur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Rs.31,500, in the name of Gunjan K. Patel PPF account Rs.12,500, in the name of Rekhaben K. Patel, PPF account Rs.12,5000 in the name of Rekhaben in Saraspur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Rs.8,000 in the name of Rekhaben in Bapunagar Mahila Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rs.6,500 in the name of Priyanka in Saraspur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Rs.30,500 in the name of Priyanka in PPF account without....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in view of non-disclosure of the particulars of the parties and in the absence of the same, the contention of the assessee is not acceptable. The pre-dominance of probability was in favour of the assessee as there is no corroborative evidence placed on record to suggest that the figures mentioned in the column found was in fact the income of the assessee. To treat the noting found with the assessee as income in her hand, some evidence to corroborate that the same represents the undisclosed income of the assessee has to be bought on record. In these facts, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee and ground no.10 of the assessee's CO is allowed. 20. Ground nos.11 and 12 of the assessee's CO are general in nature and requires no adjudication. IT(SS)A.No.60/Ahd/2005 (Revenue's appeal) 21. The ground no.1 of the Revenue's appeal reads as under: "1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to delete the addition of Rs.50,000/- made on account of unaccounted receipts by way of cheque received from aboard." 22. The learned DR submitted that the issue is similar, as the issue was in Ground No.1 to 4 of the assessee's CO. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e issue raised in this appeal of the Revenue is covered with the ground nos.1 to 4 of the assessee's CO in this case. 29. We have considered the rival submissions. In view of our decision while disposing of the ground nos.1 to 4 of the CO of the assessee and for the reasons recorded therein, in the foregoing paras of this order, we hold that there is no merit in the ground no.3 of the Revenue's appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 30. The ground no.4 of the Revenue's appeal reads as under: "4. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to delete the addition of Rs.91,400/- made on account of undisclosed rental income." 31. The learned CIT-DR submitted that these entries pertain to the period after the death of husband of the assessee. He submitted that the addition was made of Rs.91,400/- on protective basis, as the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shreeji Corporation. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the amount in question has already taxed in the case of the firm and the order has become final and therefore the same addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee. 32. We have heard both the parties and perused the ord....