TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in sustaining the addition of: (1) Rs.3,46,189/- being the difference between the opening and closing capital of AY 2000-01 as undisclosed income for the block period; (2) Rs.72,956/- being a difference in capital account of Nanak Cutlery Mart without affording an opportunity of being heard; (3) Rs.2.01 lakhs being gift received from the mother of the assessee as undisclosed income; (4) Rs.20 lakhs being an investment in Ninad Co-op. Housing Society; (5) Rs.5 lakhs as unaccounted investment with Shri Yogesh J Rawal; (6) Rs.1.5 lakhs as unaccounted sum given to Shri Sanjeev Shukla; (7) Rs.5 lakhs as unaccounted investment by way of cash loan to Shri Dinish Dhabalia; (8) Rs.7.43 lakhs as unaccounted investment in Flat Nos. 901 & 902 in Jay Shiva Apartment; (9) Rs. 2 lakhs allegedly made a deposit with A.D. Patel & Co., for Jay Shiva Apartment; (10) Rs.10 lakhs as alleged unaccounted investment in a land purchased from Bhavya Ghantakaran Cottage Association; (11) Rs.5.51 lakhs being unaccounted investment made at 3, Dhwirup Bungalow; (12) Rs.3.07 lakhs being rent from Dhwirup Bungalow property; (13) Rs.1.8 lakhs being unaccounted investm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utlery trading. There was an action u/s 132(1) of the Act on 6.9.2001 in the case of the assessee. In pursuance of issuance of a Notice u/s 158BC of the Act, the assessee had furnished a return of income, admitting 'Nil' undisclosed income for the block period. After duly considering the assessee's submissions, the learned AO had computed the assessee's undisclosed income for the block period at Rs.90,01,686/- 7. Aggrieved, the assessee took up the issues with the learned CIT (A) who had sustained most of the additions under various heads and granted partial relief. 8. Agitated with the partial relief, the assessee has come up with the present appeal. 9. The issues raised by the assessee under various heads are dealt with chronologically after taking into account the reasoning of the authorities below and also elaborate submissions made by the learned AR which were effectively countered by the learned DR. We have also perused the documentary evidences advanced by the learned AR at the time of hearing in the shape of voluminous paper books. 10. Ground Nos. 1 & 2: Additions of Rs.3.46 lakhs and Rs.72,956/- of Nank Cutlery Mart - difference between opening & clos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al books the account of Nanak Cutlery Mart shows balance of Rs.2,03,591/- whereas in the books of Nanak Cutlery Mart, the capital shown was Rs.1,30,635/- and such difference being not reconcilable, the addition may be sustained. However, this was not arising from the seizure of assets or records during search and, thus, it was advocated, on that ground, the addition cannot be made in view of the rulings of the jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court in the cases of (i) N.R. Paper And Board Limited And Others v. DICT reported in 234 ITR 733 (Guj) and (II) CIT v. Shambhulala C. Bachkaniwala [245 ITR 488 (Guj)]. 10.4 We have duly considered the submission of the learned A R and also the reasoning of the CIT (A) cited supra. 10.5 We are in agreement with the findings of the CIT (A) that the assessee had filed his return of income for the AY 99-00 earlier and the Revenue had not initiated any proceedings u/s 147 of the act for that year. Therefore, the capital of the assessee as an individual together with the capital of Nanak Cutlery Mart as reflected in that return of income should be taken into consideration by the AO while determining the difference between closing balance fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the nature referred to therein. The addition made by the assessing officer is, therefore, found to be justified and the same is sustained." 11.2 It was contended by the learned AR that the AO had held that the donor was not having sufficient balance and the amount received from Bharat Textile was not proved and, thus, rejected the genuineness of the gift and cash available on hand. A gift deed was executed on a stamp paper authenticating the gift of Rs.2.01 lakhs which has been duly reflected in the capital account of the assessee. The donor's books of account has not been rejected by the AO and, thus, it was argued, the donor as well as donee having confirmed and duly reflected in their respective books the gift as well as the receipt, the genuineness of the gift cannot be put under the scanner. 11.3 The learned D R present was heard. 11.4 We have duly considered the rival submissions and gone through the documentary evidence produced by the learned AR. 11.5 At the outset, we would like to point out that the learned CIT (A) had fairly conceded that the books of account of the donor were not written in the regular course of business from day-to-day basis and, therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... given as loan or financed, instead Shri Gajjar was helped by filing these cases in the name of the assessee's employees to prevent the Gajjar's professional opponent - M/s. Sheth Finance - from taking over the subject property. The assessee's specific request to procure the counter entries in the books of Gajjar and the personal attendance of Gajjar for cross-examination by the assessee was also summarily rejected by the AO. 12.2 It was contended before the CIT (A) that at the behest of Gajjar, bogus case had been filed against Sheth Finance to safe guard the interest of Gajjar in the property. It was, further, contended that even then the cash receipts were signed by some person other than Shri Gajjar and no entry pertaining to the alleged advances of Rs.20 lakhs was reflected in the assessee's books of account nor were such entries in the books of Gajjar. It was submitted that Shri Gajjar had filed an affidavit in the City Civil Court that no amounts had been paid for these four flats by the four persons concerned and that the case was filed only to prove unauthorized possession of flats by Sheth Finance. 12.3 The CIT (A) had in her findings recorded that there was no doub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rials like hundi, chit, loose paper, jottings, diaries or receipts were unearthed during the search operation. In their affidavits, the four employees have clearly confirmed that they have signed the papers just to facilitate Shri Gajjar to file suits, however, not a single penny was invested either by the employees or by the assessee. Moreover, the statement of Gajjar was recorded at the back of the assessee by the ADI and that the assessee's legitimate request to afford an opportunity to cross examine Shri Gajjar was virtually turned down by the AO. In conclusion, it was submitted that in view of the above facts, the addition requires to be deleted. 12.6 The learned D R present had supported the stand of the authorities below and pleaded that the addition of Rs.20 lakhs requires to be sustained. 12.7 We have duly considered the rival submissions and attentively perused the relevant case records and documentary evidences produced by the assessee. 12.8 The AO had held that the assessee made an investment of Rs.20 lakhs in Flat Nos.202, 203, 302 & 402 in Ninand Co-op Hsg. Society in the name of his four employees as conduits. The backdrop of the issue was that during the se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed or impounded during the course of search to point a finger at assessee that he had indulged in unaccounted transactions; (iv) no trace of any entry that such transaction with the assessee has been surfaced in the books of account of Shri Gajjar so as to pin down the assessee; (v) the AO had solely banged on the purported statement of Shri Gajjar before the ADI; (vi) no opportunity was extended to the assessee to cross examine Shri Gajjar when a specific request was put before the AO and, thus, the principles of natural justice and fairness has been given a goby; & (vii) the addition has been made at the back of the assessee without extending an elementary courtesy and legitimate claim of the assessee to subject to Shri Gajjar for cross examination; 12.11 When the learned CIT (A) was magnanimous in pointing out that, "5.5 (On page 13)...There is no evidence, however, of the interpretation by the AO that the sum of Rs.20 lakhs represented a finance loan because the statement given by Jitubhai Gajjar is not good evidence as he was not made available for cross examination to the appellant. In the absence of any evidence relating to the amount being a finance lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority that even factually and legally the addition is stated to be incorrect because the transaction was stated as being admitted by the AO to be made on 23.2.95 which was beyond the period of block assessment. The statement of Raval was not permitted to be cross examined. It was also claimed that in fact the advance shown in the books for purchase had been received back after the date of search and at the marriage of daughter of the assessee. 13.3 After considering the assessee's contentions, the CIT (A) had observed thus: "6.2. (On Page 16).........I find that it is an admitted fact that an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was given by the appellant in the name of his wife to Yogesh Raval which is witnessed by documents for purchase of property. The receipts for payments which are in cash are clearly back dated and no proof of receipt back of money is given now even the alleged copy of understanding is not filed though claimed to be so filed. It would in any case have been in-admissible as additional evidence. It is also found that the return of income filed by the appellant did not show any such investment. 6.3. All this therefore, rightly led the AO to conclude that the amount of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck period under consideration. Therefore, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee. In essence, the assessee gets relief of Rs.5 lakhs. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Ground No.6: Addition of Rs.1.5 lakhs being unaccounted sum given to Shri Sanjeev Shukla: 14.1 On the basis of information that the assessee's mother filed a civil suit against Neelkant Corporation involving Rs.1.5 lakhs against which documents showed that Plot No.7 and 2 shops were allotted to the assessee's mother and also relied on the statement of Sanjeev Shukla, the AO made an addition of Rs.1.5 lakhs. The AO had rejected the assessee's theory that no amount was given and the documents were got prepared to assist his friend Rajeev Shukla's brother Sanjeev Shukla just to prevent illegal possession of the property by the owner of the plot without affecting any financial transaction. The document to this effect produced by the assessee was also virtually rejected by the AO. 14.2 Considering the assessee's submission as well as the facts of the issue, the CIT (A) took a view that the claim of the assessee as well as the counter claim of Rajeev Shukla being contradictory based on the documentar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of a loan of Rs.5 lakhs led to part with the document of his flat to the assessee who lent a loan and despite of the same being returned to the assessee, the documents were not returned. 15.2 Brushing aside the assessee's contention that Dhasbalia was his employee who had taken his shop of Nanak Cutlery Mart for running and in return he had pledged the documents of the property along with power of attorney to the assessee as security and that no loan of Rs.5 lakhs was lent as alleged and the suit came to be filed by Dhabalia when the assessee had refused to give back the flat and the documents to Dhabalia who had run up huge loss in the assessee's shop, the AO took a view that the assessee was unable to prove that the reality was otherwise than stated by Dhabalia. 15.3 The learned CIT (A) had recorded her findings as under: "8.2. (On page 19)..........In the light of the fact that statement of Dinesh Dhabalia is not good evidence since he had not been cross examined, the documentary evidences themselves present a picture which show that Nanak Cutlery Mart continued to be a proprietorship concern of the appellant and there is no evidence that it was given to Shri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore liable to be dismissed...."[Source: Page 105 of PB] 15.8 It can, therefore, be safely inferred that there was no cash transaction as solemnized in his petition before the Court by Dhabalia and also conceded by the learned CIT (A) that the assessee has not been extended an opportunity to cross examine Dhabalia for his statement purported to have been recorded which was solely relied on by the AO. We are also in disagreement with the perception of the CIT (A) that [at the cost of repetition] "8.2..... Such investment could reasonably be expected to be of the sum of Rs.5 lakhs ass referred to by the AO and addition to this extent is therefore held to be justified..." The presumption of the AO as well as CIT (A) does not stand the testimony of law. 15.9 In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the Revenue has failed in its endeavour to bring on record any unambiguous documentary proof to nail the assessee on this score. Accordingly, we delete the addition of Rs.5 lakhs. 16. Ground Nos.8 & 9: Additions of Rs.7,43,000 + Rs.2 lakhs as unaccounted investments in Jay Shiva Apartments: 16.1 Based on the statement of one of the partners of the Scheme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Flats. 16.4 We have duly considered the contentions of the assessee and also perused the documentary evidences produced by the assessee. On perusing the facts it is apparent that the addition is made based on the general practice of cash payments made outside the books of accounts in the case of immovable property transactions. Revenue was of the opinion that there are ample instances that cash payments are made almost about 50% outside the books of accounts in effecting real estate transactions and therefore, the statement made by one of the partners can be relied and the addition sustainable. However, we do not subscribe to this view of the revenue. In order to establish that the assessee had paid amount outside the books of accounts for effecting real estate transactions substantial evidence has to be placed on record which is absent in this case. It would be unjust if an addition is made on the appellant based on a statement made by one of the partners of the firm without further making enquiries and collecting evidence. Therefore, we hereby delete the addition of Rs.7,43,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- made by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 17. Ground No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uture or give the possession of plot, the assessee will be entitled to receive double money from the Association after the expiry of five years. It was submitted that the assessee had never paid to BGCOA Rs.1.5 lakhs in cash as was appeared on page 4 of Agreement dated 7.5.1999 that the agreement was executed between the President/Secretary of BGCOA and the assessee to safeguard the interest of the assessee. Suppose after expiry of five years, if BGCOA will not refund double the amount as agreement upon, then the assessee may have to file case in the Court. Therefore, it was claimed, the assessee had deposited initial deposit of Rs.1 5 lakhs and not paid in cash, that I was entitled to receive Rs.3 lakhs from BGCOA after the expiry of five years. This fact was further corroborated from the Panchnama wherein ten cheques of BGCOA were seized. It was submitted that the assessee had made an investment of Rs.1.5 lakhs in BGCOA by cheque on 7.5.1999 and the same was reflected in the balance sheet of FY 1999-2000. It was, further, submitted that the assessee and his family members have made investment of Rs.5 lakhs in BGCOA for booking of plots and that the assessee had never advanced any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of attractive offers including one that of doubling the money scheme etc. To substantiate his claim, the assessee had produced Xerox copy of a Brochure floated by BGCOA (Refer: Page 141 of PB). There was also a likelihood that the agreement could have been entered into between the assessee and BGCOA to safeguard the interest of the assessee. This arrangement, in our considered view, cannot be faulted with unless a discreet documentary evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to scuttle the assessee's assertion. No documentary proof worth the name has been adduced to the alleged advancement of Rs.5 lakhs either to Shri Kishorebhai Shah or BGCOA that the intention of the assessee was only for earning interest. The AO's presumption that the assessee financed Shri Shash by giving him Rs.10 lakhs and in lieu of which he obtained post-dated cheques as security was without any basis or with no corroborate evidence. Admitting the AO's logic for argument sake, no prudent lender would have parted with such a huge sum without any substantial proof in the shape of a promissory note as proof. If so, where are they? Without any documentary proof which subjects to testimony of law, we a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of legal suit filed has also been produced as proof. With regard to payment of Rs.5 lakhs, it was claimed that it has been properly accounted for and supported by a Sale Deed executed by Jaisheel Patel in favour of the assessee dated 15.10.1999. The registration charges of Rs.51,000/- has also been reflected in the assessee's books of account. It was, further, submitted that the assessee was having sufficient cash balance with him and family members as per the books of accounts. However, the AO had rejected such books of account and held that the investments though mentioned in the books of accounts they were from unaccounted income. It was submitted that though the AO had not accepted the cash credit, but, no addition of unexplained cash credit was made. In conclusion, it was pleaded that the assessee had debited the amount in the books of accounts, the cash balance available was fully proved and, thus, there was no justification in making the addition of Rs.5.51 lakhs which requires to be deleted. 18.4 On a perusal of the evidences produced by the assessee, it has been observed that the payment of Rs.3 lakhs made through cheques have been duly reflected in the books of account....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat he had originally decided to buy a flat and, accordingly, booked for a Flat bearing No.401 and, accordingly made an initial payment of Rs.75,000/- from the account of Smt. Mahendrakaur Suri and an equal amount from the account of Smt Manjeetkaur Suri through account payee cheques and, subsequently, decided to cancel the booking due to financial crunch. Accordingly, the Association was requested to cancel the booking made earlier in their names. Thereafter, the assessee's sister Mrs. Manvirkaur Suri who was married and staying with her husband purchased the flat by paying a sum of Rs.2.35 lakhs. However, on the basis of alleged affirmation of Shri Kamlesh Patel in a statement, the AO assumed that the assessee had purchased the said flat clandestinely through his unknown source and, accordingly made an addition of Rs.2.35 lakhs. Besides, Rs.72,000/- being alleged rent for the said flat was also added in his hands. It was pleaded that the flat has since been purchased by his sister who was married and also an assessee; there was no justification on the part of the Revenue to penalize the assessee for his of no fault. The entire addition of Rs.3.07 lakhs, requires to be deleted. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n their official communication, acknowledged their request in an identical but separate letters as under: "With reference to the above, it is hereby inform you that your resignation is allowed according your demand in reference to the above. From to-day, for the Flat No.401 you are not remained as member w.e.f. 22.6.2000. Your said resignation is accepted by us which please note." 19.10 Moreover, the flat stood in the name of Smt. Manvirkumar Suri who, according to the assessee, an assessee, was staying with her husband separately. Such being a scenario, the intriguing question is, as to why Smt. Manvirkumar Suri was not examined to bring out the truth. When the Association itself in its official communication (through its letter heads) had unambiguously acknowledged that Mahendrakaur Suri and Manjitkaur I Suri have withdrew their bookings way back in June 2000, how could have the Secretary of the same Association given a contradictory statement that the assessee owns the flat in Shailabhadra Flat. Why this glaring contradictory statement has not been further probed into by the Revenue? Instead, the Revenue had conveniently come to a conclusion, perhaps, on assumption that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....since he could not arrange for the balance amount of Rs.80,000/- as promised, he had subsequently returned the car to its owner etc., 20.6 Taking into account the totality of the issue that he had produced the receipt for alleged to have paid cash of Rs.1 lakh and subsequent return of the vehicle which appeared to have been a used car and also found at the time of search operation, the addition of Rs.1,80,000/- cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we hereby delete the addition of Rs.1,80,000/- made by the AO on account of purchase of Santro Car. 21. Ground No.14: Addition of Rs.3 lakhs being fictitious entries in the name of Bharat Textile: 21.1 Rs.3 lakhs were made deposits in cash in the bank accounts of the assessee's wife and mother of Rs.1.5 lakhs each and according to the AO, the monies were allegedly received from Bharat Textiles which were then used to purchase bank drafts in its favour. The source of money was held by the AO to be the unexplained after rejecting the assessee's explanation that entries in the name of this party were reflected in the accounts of the family members etc. 21.2 It was contended before the CIT (A) that there were adequate and sufficie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same time, the cash balances entered in books of accounts written later than actual events cannot be treated as reliable being not a day-to-day record of transactions. In fact, the burden of giving explanation with evidence is on the appellant in proceedings u/s 158BC. In the absence of proved evidence, the source of investment being not established, the addition made by the AO is sustained. 22.3 It was submitted before us that this was a case where the AO was making addition by not accepting the genuineness of entries appearing in the computerized cash book. Though he had verified the entries, but took a stand to reject the assessee's claim. It was, further, contended that merely because books were written or returns of income filed subsequently, does not change the character of genuineness of purchase of shares. It was, therefore, pleaded that the addition was made in a flimsy manner which requires to be deleted. 22.4 We have considered the assessee's submissions and also perused the details of investments made in shares as exhibited at pages 229 - 231 of Paper Book. Most of the investments have been through cheques, the details of which were available at page 230 of P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O for verification. It was, further, submitted that none of the articles were purchased from the unaccounted income and, therefore, the addition requires to be deleted. 23.4 We have considered the assessee's contentions as well as the AO's stand in adding a sum of Rs.1.01 lakhs being investments in household articles. A salient feature was noticed in the pricing of the articles such as TVs, Fridge, camera, miscellaneous household articles and the period of purchases. How did the AO come to a conclusion for example that Akai TV 20" and Camera (JVG) were acquired in the years 1996 and 1997 and priced them at Rs.9500/- and Rs.17000/ - respectively? On the basis of such guess work adopted by the AO in pricing such articles, the assessee had also followed the AO in suit to pricing such identical figures in his balance sheets [Refer: P 232 PB], apparently to strike a balance. 23.5 It is a common phenomenon for a person of appellant's stature to accumulate household appliances, entertainment equipments and other electronic items during a period of time either by way of purchase, gifts etc. Further, there is no evidence to establish that these goods are purchased out of unexplained s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mt. Manjeetkaur I Suri: 28.1 Ground No.1: Addition of Rs.8,98,847/- being opening capital balance as on 1.4.1995: 28.2 The AO had pointed out that the closing capital for the FY 1997-98 does not tally with the opening capital of AY 1998-99 while closing capital for FY 1999-00 does not tally with the opening capital for FY 2000-01. Similarly, there were discrepancies in the cash balances reflected in FY 1997-98 and FY 2000-01 and in the intervening periods. The AO also found that the assessee's alleged earnings from cooking and stitching income was very low being only Rs.5600 in AY 2000-01 and the alleged income from tuitions was also very low at Rs.5,000/- only in FY 1999-2000. The AO therefore was of the view that the returns of income filed were only a make believe story and the alleged capital balance of Rs.8,98,847/- at beginning of block period was not proved and the details filed and returns filed were only to explain investment made in properties and in fact they did not reveal the actual position. 28.3 Rejecting the assessee's contention that the capital account has been worked out each year by showing the receipts and payments made during the year which are who....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advocated that the assessee is a lady of 43 years old from Punjab region and as per their family tradition and custom she had involved in the activities of stitching, cooking as well as giving tuition to young children. The income being below taxable, no return of income was filed. Our attention was also drawn to the fact that during the course of recording the statement on oath, she had categorically stated that she has been giving tuitions to children from 1 - 12 standards and from such activity alone she was getting a minimum of Rs.2500/-. It was, further, contended that as the entire financial transactions shown in the cash book were true and genuine and the AO was not in a position to prove the same being bogus or non-genuine. In conclusion, it was submitted that the amount shown was opening capital balance of Rs.8.98 lakhs was fully explained. 28.6 We have attentively considered the submission of the learned AR and also heard the version of the learned D R present at the time of hearing. 28.7 On a decisive perusal of the reasoning of the AO in rejecting the assessee's claim, it has been observed that the computerized books of account of the assessee were not reje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there was no justification in adding a sum of Rs.899847/- . It is accordingly deleted. 29. Ground No.2: Addition of Rs.5,23,221/- being difference between opening and closing capital of AY 2000-01 as undisclosed income for the block period: 29.1 The AO had added Rs.5,23,221/- being difference between opening and closing capital as on 31.3.2000 at Rs.5,96,949/- and the opening capital as on 1.4.2000 at Rs.11,20,168/- after rejecting the assessee's claim that there was no mala-fide intention to give any incorrect or misleading information and details. 29.2 After due consideration of the assessee's submission, the CIT (A) was of the view that: "3.3..................Since the books of accounts were not actually written during the period preceding the block assessment, the computerized version of the same as is given now, is not automatically acceptable merely because it has certain recording of transactions reflected in bank accounts, since the other entries made regarding receipts in cash and withdrawals of cash are not supported by evidences. Only because the AO has not specifically rejected the books of accounts does not mean that the same have been accepted or that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned AR, during the course of hearing, drew the attention of this Bench to the effect that the reconciliation of balance sheet difference as on 31.3.2000 has not been duly considered by the Revenue. 29.7 Taking into account the direction of the CIT (A) to the AO as contained in Para 3.4. of her findings (supra) and also the learned A R pleaded that reconciliation statement of the assessee has not been considered while deciding the issue, we are of the firm view that this issue should be looked into by the AO afresh and to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Act after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee of being heard. To facilitate the AO to do the above exercise as directed, this issue is remitted back to the file of the AO. It is ordered accordingly. 30. Ground No.3: Addition of Rs.3,35,000/- as unexplained cash credits: Rs.1,00,000: 30.1 Before the CIT (A), it was contended that - "4.1(On Page 7)..........the additions made were totally unjustified because there was no deposit from Sagar Consultants where the assessee had paid earlier Rs.2,25,000/- to Sagar Consultants. Copy of the Ledger Account is on page 158. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no apparent explanation for the source of the alleged payment, the addition made is sustained as representing undisclosed income invested in the flat. As regards, Princy I Suri, I have already held that the subsequently written books of account are not open to verification and they are not good evidences being not a regular record of the transactions referred to therein. Therefore, addition of Rs.40,000/- is confirmed being an unproved deposit from a minor daughter. As regards loan from Kamlaben Somani, there is no evidence in the form of confirmation from the concerned party regarding the date of deposit to establish that it was received beyond the block period. In the absence of any confirmation, the addition made of this amount of unsecured loan is sustained. As regards Anku Traders, the explanation given is not found to be satisfactory. This deposit had apparently admitted to have been shown in the earlier accounts and obviously in the earlier filed returns and, therefore, representation made and based on the subsequently written computerized books of account will not override the details given in the earlier returns filed. The unverifiable computerized books of accounts canno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 & 160 of PB]. Thus, in our considered view, this addition doesn't have legs to stand. 30.9 Rs.1,00,000 - Kamlaben Somani: 30.10 This addition was made by the AO on the premise that there was neither any confirmation nor details in connection with this alleged loan. 30.11 In spite of the assessee's assertion that the deposit has been received back prior to block period as it pertained to the AY 1995-96, the addition has been resorted to and, subsequently, sustained. 30.12 It was submitted before us that the transaction took place prior to the block period and to authenticate it, a copy of ledger account in respect of Kamlaben Somani was produced [Refer: P 161 of PB]. Accordingly, this addition also fails. 30.13 Rs.95,000 - Anku Traders: 30.14 The AO had resorted to make this addition on the ground that there being no confirmation letter. 30.15 During the course of hearing, it was pleaded that no such deposit exists on the revised computerized books of account and, therefore, pleaded that this addition deserves deletion. 30.16 However, we are declined to agree with the assessee's contentions. The assessee had, in fact, conceded before the CIT (A) that....