TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the assessee on 20/09/2000 calling for return of income for the block period. In response to the said notice assessee filed his return of income for the block period on 17/01/2001 declaring 'Nil' undisclosed income. During the assessment proceeding, the AO noticed that page no. 34 of the seized material A/SK/6 contained recordings of expenses incurred for civil construction work for a flat purchased. Further, AO noted that at the time of search, while explaining notings in the seized material assessee had stated that he had spent Rs. 2,50,000/- for interior works for his premises at Topaz Building but no reference was given to what these figures relate. In response to query raised by the AO proposing to treat the amount of Rs. 5,20,000/- mentioned in the seized material as investment made in flat, the assessee explained that the notings in the seized material is only an estimate in his wife's handwriting but actually amounts were not spent. However, the AO was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and was of the view that assessee has incurred these expenditures over and above the cost of acquisition mentioned in the sale deed. As the flat was jointly o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oted in February 1998. For this reason alone the addition made by the AO cannot be sustained. That apart, it is a fact on record that besides the seized material i.e. page no. 34, there are no other evidence or material on record to show that the assessee has actually incurred the expenditures noted in the seized material. Further, a reference to the seized material will show that though there are twenty seven items of expenditure, however, all of them are in round figures only. This, in our view gives credence to the fact that the seized material is only an estimate. If at all it is to be believed that assessee has actually incurred all these expenditures, it is not at all possible that the department did not come across any bill, voucher or any other material to show incurring of expenditure even in case of a single item mentioned in the seized material. On a perusal of the assessment order and order of CIT(A) it becomes clear that addition is more on presumption than on evidence. In aforesaid view of the matter, we hold that addition made of Rs. 2,60,000/- is not sustainable, hence, we delete the same. 9. The second issue is in respect of addition of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vance payments made by patients for procurement of materials. Again in response to query made by the AO, assessee in his letter dated 31/01/2005 stated that DDs were purchased out of cash available with himself, his wife and the company wherein both he and his wife are Directors. From the above, it is clear that assessee is not consistent with his explanation in respect of the source of DDs purchased. It is a fact on record that the purchase of DD has not been reflected in the books of account of the company either on the date of purchase or subsequent thereto. Similarly cash flow statement of the assessee, as found by the learned CIT(A), does not show out flow of cash towards purchase of DDs. In these circumstances, assessee's explanation that it was out of cash available with him and the company is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. It is clear from the facts on record that assessee has not been able to explain the source of purchase of DDs with cogent evidence. In the aforesaid circumstances, the addition made, in our view, is justified and needs to be upheld. According this ground of the assessee is dismissed. 15. The next issue relates to addition of the following am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A). The CIT(A) also upheld the additions made by the AO except granting partial relief by reducing the addition for the AY 1996-97 by an amount of Rs. 5,849/-. 18. The learned AR, at the outset, submitted before us since the AO admits that the seized material i.e. register was found from the possession of company, any addition in reference to the seized material if at all in any assessment has to be made in case of the company and not in case of assessee. Further, the learned AR submitted that the assessee had explained from the very beginning that the receipts from implant devices for the FY 1994-95 were by the partnership firm Virility Systems and for FY 1995-96, the receipts were shown by the assessee in his individual hands and income was offered to tax. In FY 1996-97, the business was taken over by the company and the receipts reflected in the books of account and P&L account. In support of such contention, learned AR referred to the P&L A/c of Virility Systems as on 31/03/1995 showing under loss of Rs. 22,430/- as against total sale of implants of Rs. 1,81,535/-. Similarly, referring to the return filed by the assessee for the AY 1996-97, a copy of which is placed at pag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eipts as income of the assessee in stead of considering the profit element. In view of the aforesaid fact, we hold that the implant receipts as found in the register seized from the possession of the company cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the same. 21. In the result, assessee's appeal is partly allowed. IT(SS)A No. 5/Hyd/2012 - revenue appeal 22. The only issue in the aforesaid appeal of the department is in respect of CIT(A) deleting addition of Rs. 21,00,125/-. 23. Briefly the facts are, during the search and seizure operation in the residential premises of the assessee, a register was found and seized wherein certain credits, deposits in the bank account of the assessee in FY 1993-94 to 1999-2000 in respect of two savings bank accounts were found. Account No 4061 being joint account with wife Dr. Kiran Krishnamurthy and account No. 6383 is a single account in the name of the assessee. The total year-wise deposit which allegedly was not disclosed by the assessee were found to be Rs. 21,00,125/-. Accordingly, AO treated the same as undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period. Being aggrieved of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... below:- The chart given by the AO shows bank deposits in two bank accounts, viz., A/c No. 4061 and A/c No. 56230. But, from the records, it seen that the bank account No. 56230 belongs to his wife, Dr. Kiran Krishnamurthy and her deposits and the income thereon has been considered in her assessment proceedings by the same AO. When the deposits in Dr. Kiran's account, i.e. A.c No. 56230 belongs to her, it cannot be again considered in the assessee's hands. That leaves the bank deposits appearing in A/c No. 4061 which stands at Rs. 14,74,130/-. The AO, while computing the difference between the deposits and the income admitted, has arrived at Rs. 6,38,354/- (Rs. 14,74,130- 8,35,776). This amount has been explained as borrowals taken from friends and relatives which reflected in the loans and advances taken and given details submitted for assessment years 1992-93 to 1999-2000 which appears at page No. 50 to 57 of the paper book and the loan confirmations with their PAN were filed vide letter dated 03/03/2005 which appear at pages 84 to 87 which is as below: S.No. Name of the creditor Amount FY 1 R. Nagarajan 3,00,000 1999-2000 46,000 1995-96 2 Suchitra Krishnamurthy 1,....