AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) with a request to admit additional evidence. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) had admitted the additional evidence and referred the same to Assessing officer for remand verification. In this background most of the enquiries were conducted during appeal / remand. 4. ITA No. 1177/Chd/2012 - A.Y 2003-04 - Late Shri Pritam Singh In this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds: "1. That authorities below has erred in law and facts in framing the assessment without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. That authorities below has erred in law and facts to appoint Special Auditor in an automatic manner without considering the facts of the case and consequently the appointment of the auditor is bad in law. 3. That the appointment of special auditor is bad in law and is not in accordance with the spirit of law under the provisions of section 142(2A) of the Act but only to gain time for completing the assessment which is barred by limitation. 4. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the additions of Rs. 15,000/- comprising Rs. 10,000/- on account of purchase of DD in cash and Rs. 5,000/- paid for purchase of DD for IELTS. 5. That Ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing officer the assessee had under reported the income to the tune of Rs. 6473615/- and therefore this sum was added to the income of the assessee. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was mainly submitted that addition is made on the basis of statement of accounts prepared by the special auditor. It was pointed out that some wrong entries were made in the profit and loss account and therefore entire addition was not justified. It was pointed out that certain receipts from Drainage Division, Amritsar in the proprietary concern known as Matchless Associates were there. Most of these receipts were on account of earlier securities etc. 8. In respect of other receipts amounting to Rs. 2053687/-in the hands of G.M. Construction etc it was stated that for including these works the assessee had incurred expenses also which was mainly consisting of cash. The Cash was withdrawn from the banks which was not taken by the Special auditor. Supplementary cash book was maintained which gave correct picture and had been verified by the Assessing officer during remand proceedings. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) after examining the submissions noted that Executive Engineer, Amritsar Drainage Division has certifie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithdrawals for recording expenses. That is why the profit has been reflected at 80 to 90% of the receipts by the special auditor. The assessee has further prepared a supplementary cash book which was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) as additional evidence which incorporated the receipts as well as withdrawals in the respective years. In respect of this additional evidence it has been observed at page 9 of the Ld. CIT(A) as under: "Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in all fairness, I hold that the request for admission of additional evidence filed u/Rule 46 A (1)(d) deserves to be acceded to being necessary for disposal of the appeals(s) on merits. However, the nature of the evidence in respect of each of the issues concerned is discussed respectively thereunder. As such, the additional evidence is allowed to be admitted at this juncture and the appeal of the assessee is disposed on merits of the case." After making above observation the remand report was sent to the Assessing officer. Copy of the remand report has been enclosed at page 16 to 30 of the paper book and at page 28 & 29 relevant portion reads as under: "With regards to receipts from PB....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was verified by the Assessing officer. Therefore this finding is not correct. 17. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 18. After considering the rival submissions and the material on record, we would like to point out that after verification of supplementary cash book Assessing officer should have given effect to consequential facts. However, in any case since we have already accepted the theory and this ground has become infructuous and we decline to adjudicate this ground in detail. 19. In the result, ITA No. 11 77/Chd/201 2 is partly allowed. 20. ITA No. 1173/Chd/2012 - A.Y 2004-05 - Late Shri Pritam Singh 21. In this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds: "1. That authorities below has erred in law and facts in framing the assessment without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. That authorities below has erred in law and facts to appoint Special Auditor in an automatic manner without considering the facts of the case and consequently the appointment of the auditor is bad in law. 3. That the appointment of special auditor is bad in law and is not in accordance with the spirit o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g allowed and assessment orders in case of S.P. Singh for various years and order of the Settlement Commission in case of K.D. Sharma is admitted. 26. Ground No. 4 - Since no evidence was filed during assessment proceedings therefore a sum of Rs. 2035832/- was added to the income of the assessee. 27. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was submitted that accounts of certain parties were running accounts and special auditor has simply taken the credit entries without giving any benefit of the debit account of same parties. It was further stated that a sum of Rs. 536500/- was received from M.S & Co. out of which Rs. 436500/- was directly paid by this party against property No. BMM 373 Ph 11, Mohali which was purchased along with assessee and this party had 30% share in the said property. The balance of Rs. 1 Lakh was given on 27.11.2003 by bank draft. The Assessing officer made enquiries in respect of receipts during remand report but observed that reply given by Manjit Singh do not prove ingredients of Sec 68 of the Act. In the counter comments before the Ld. CIT(A) it was stated on behalf of the assessee that the Assessing officer has simply brushed aside this evidence without pointing out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aper book. 31. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue strongly supported the order of the Assessing officer and the Ld. CIT(A). 32. After considering the rival submissions and the material on record, we find that the matter was remanded to the Assessing officer and the Assessing officer has made enquiries. In response to the query u/s 133(6) Matchless Associates had clearly mentioned the fact regarding purchase of property jointly with Pritam Singh i.e the assessee and the fact that M.S. & Co. kept 30% share. PAN number and acknowledgement of return etc. have been filed. Even the copy of agreement showing 30% share belonging to him has been filed at page 35 of the paper book. We fail to understand that after receiving this information no further enquiry has been made then such evidence cannot be ignored. Therefore we are of the opinion that this addition is not justified. 33. Similarly as far as addition on account of receipt of Rs. 5 lakh has been made this amount has been withdrawn by Hardeep Singh on various dates which becomes clear from the copy of the bank account placed at page 41 of the paper book. Hardeep Singh has clearly stated in his letter (copy of which is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2003 PBIL APEX CONSORTIUM LTD 100,000.00 25.06.2003 PBIL APEX CONSORTIUM LTD 300,000.00 25.06.2003 PBIL APEX CONSORTIUM LTD 550,000.00 TOTAL 13,65,000.00 Opening Work-in- Progress 2,14,700.00 15,79,700.00 The amount of Rs. 1600174/- were shown in the books of Matchless Associates and comprised of the following amounts: 30.04.2003 DRAINAGE DIVISION AMRITSAR 700,174.00 29.05.2003 PBIL APEX CONSORTIUM LTD 250,000.00 25.06.2003 PBIL APEX CONSORTIUM LTD 150,000.00 04.08.2003 PBIL APEX CONSORTIUM LTD 450,000.00 06.08.2003 PBIL APEX CONSORTIUM LTD 50,000.00 TOTAL 1,600,174.00 It was pointed out that as far as sum of Rs. 1365000/- received from PBIL Apex Consortium Ltd (in short PBIL), same consist of construction receipts Rs. 214700/- pertain to opening and closing work in progress which we have discussed above while adjudicating ground no. 5. Similarly sum of Rs. 9 lakhs shown in Matchless Associates comprised of construction receipts received from PBIL. The balance of Rs. 700174/- was the payment received on account of work which was executed in Assessment year 1999-2000. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee raised the same contentions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and the same has been accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) and addition amounting to Rs. 955223/- was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) against which the Revenue is in appeal. 45. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the explanation for Rs. 450000/- because according to her theory of supplementary cash book was in contravention of rule 46A. 46. Before us, the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) were reiterated. Reference was made to the remand report wherein supplementary entries are stated to be verified by the Assessing officer. 47. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 48. After considering the rival submissions and the material on record we find force in the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the assessee. As observed in Assessment year 2003-04 in ITA No. 1177/Chd/2012 the supplementary cash book was originally admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) and sent for remand report. In the remand report which has been placed at page 49 to 66 relevant comments in respect of this entry are incorporated at page 54 and reads as under: "With regard to payment of Rs. 450000/- claimed to have been paid out of funds available as recorded in supplementary cash book....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e dismissed as not pressed before us. 54. Ground no. 4 - After hearing both the parties we find that during assessment proceedings the Assessing Office noticed that special auditor has made observations that following amounts were found to have been received from various parties and are shown in the table below: Pritam Singh Credit Debit Balance Gurjit Singh 545,615 2997730 - Sharma Associates 200,000 Nil 200,000 M/s Matchless Associates (Prop. Pritam Singh) R.K. Associates 450,000 Nil 450,000 Executive Engineers 1,087,717 1,087,717 0 Amritsar Drainage R N Highways 425,000 1600000 - M/S GM Construction (Prop. Pritam Singh) M.S. Alagh 300,000 Nil 300,000 R.K. Associates 400,000 Nil 400,000 Total 3,408,333 1350000 Special auditor had asked the assessee to file confirmation along with balance sheet etc of the said parties which was not filed. During assessment proceedings no evidence was filed, therefore this sum of Rs. 1350000/- was added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. 55. Before the Ld. CIT(A) certain documents were filed which were sent for remand report. The Assessing officer during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved from R.K. Associates, in response to the enquiry by the Assessing officer a letter was written by R.K. Associates in which it was clearly stated that they were having 25% share in property No. BMM 373 Ph 11, Mohali which was purchased through auction. Other details of payment through DD were also furnished. Even copy of the agreement was filed. However, PAN of R.K. Associates was not mentioned in the confirmation. Thus the assessee had clearly failed to discharge the onus and therefore we direct the Assessing Officer to confirm this addition of Rs. 8.50 lakhs. 60. As far as a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs received from G.M. Construction is concerned, only document filed is a letter from M.S. Alagh stating that he has purchased a truck and a jeep. Even PAN No is not mentioned in such letter. We have asked the Counsel for the assessee during hearing whether evidence in the form of transfer of vehicles by way of endorsement in the registration certification is there, Counsel for the assessee showed inability to file such evidence. Therefore we are of the opinion that in respect of this transaction the assessee has not discharged his burden and this addition has been rightly made by the Ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for admission of following documents: (i) Order of Settlement Commission - Pg 1 to 10 of application (ii) Copy of reasons recorded in the case of S.P. Singh by the D.C.I.T Internal Taxation Pg 11-12 It was stated that these documents were obtained by the assessee after the order was received from Ld. CIT(A). It was further stated that the assessee has raised many loans from K.D. Sharma and who has surrendered these amounts before the Settlement Commission. Therefore this document is relevant. Similarly the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment in the case of S.P. Singh are relevant because S.P. Singh happens to be son of the assessee from whom various amounts were received as loan/gift. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee made a prayer that since these documents are relevant they may be admitted. 66. On the other hand, the D.R. for the Revenue opposed the submissions. 67. After considering the rival submissions and the material on record, we are satisfied with the reasons given by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. In any case these are orders of various income tax authorities and they cannot be fabricated documents, therefore same were admitted. 68. Ground No. 4 & 6 -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s paid vide DD No. 10548 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank on 20.01.2006 against a property purchased by Late Sh. Pritam Singh (Plot 374, Phase - XI, Mohali) and Balance of Rs. 8700000/- (comprising Rs. 22,00,000/- vide Ch no 48204 dated 24.01.2006 drawn on Punjab & Sindh Bank, Rs. 40,00,000/- vide Ch No 48205 dated 24.01.2006 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank & Rs. 2500000/-vide Ch No. 48209 dated 01.03.2006 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank) was directly paid by M/s TRN Land Developer P Ltd. to Ashok Kumar against a property purchased by Late Sh. Pritam Singh (#3060, Sector - 20, Chandigarh. The Assessing officer had further pointed out that balance sheet as on 31.3.2006 of the said company was also filed which clearly depicts that a sum of Rs. 10297500/- was paid to Apex Exports Proprietor Gurjit Singh. 72. The Ld. CIT(A) did not find force in the submissions and decided the issue against the assessee vide following paras: I have considered the report of the AO as well as the submissions of the assessee. The company TNR (supra), wherein the daughter-in-law of the assessee Smt. Ranjit Kaur is a Director, in its response to requisition under section 133(6) dated 11.06.2012 has explained as below....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence is held to be fallacious. The assessee is therefore held not to have discharged the burden cast upon him to substantiate the genuineness of the credit. In other words the action of the AO is upheld." In respect of addition amounting to Rs. 950000/- said to have been received from Sharma Associates by transfer of funds the Assessing officer in his remand report stated that a copy of return was filed by Mohinder Sharma Proprietor Sharma Associates but the same did not prove the ingredients of Sec 68. In his comments the assessee has stated that it is not clear that which ingredients were not complied and if the Assessing officer had any doubt he should have asked the assessee to file further documents. The Ld. CIT(A) did not find force in the submissions and observed that these submissions are being put forth for the first time and cannot be considered authentic and therefore this addition was confirmed. 73. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to pg 77 of paper book which was the information given by TRN during assessment proceedings where loan of Rs. 10297500/-was confirmed. In the meantime K.D. Sharma has filed an FIR (copy placed on record) in which it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. Counsel for the assessee that once additional evidence was admitted and same was sent for remand proceedings and during assessment proceedings Sharma Associates confirmed having paid a sum of Rs. 950000/- and even PAN was given then either the Assessing officer should have accepted the same or made further enquiries. Evidence can not be brushed aside simply because it is filed late therefore we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs. 950000/-. 76. As far as addition on account of TRN is concerned we find force in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. In response to the enquiry made during assessment proceedings TRN has stated vide letter dated 11.6.2012 as under: Dated: 11.06.2012 To, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - I CHANDIGARH Sir, Sub: Information u/s. 133(6) of the Income Tax Act in the case of Pritam Singh Please refer to your letter dated 1-6-2012 wherein you have stated that Pritam Singh has claimed transaction with our company. The following desired information is given for your purpose: 1. The transaction with Pritam Singh wherein a sum of Rs. 1,02,97,500/- was paid to Pritam Singh is confirmed an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and sources stand explained in the hands of the assessee. Therefore we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs. 10297500/-. 77. Ground No. 5 - After hearing both the parties we find that during assessment proceedings the Assessing Office noticed that special auditor has observed that from perusal of books of accounts it was found that there was some withdrawal from bank which was shown as cash withdrawal. Details are as under: Centurion Bank of Punjab 25945 Pritam Singh Date Particular Amount 27.07.2005 Sarabjit Singh 4,00,000 Total 4,00,000 Special auditor has further observed that this bank transaction was cheque payment but wrongly shown as cash in hand. Since the assessee failed to file any explanation during assessment proceedings this amount was added to the income of the assessee. 78. On appeal it was contended that this amount was withdrawn by Sarabjit Singh vide bearer cheque No. 252583 on behalf of the assessee and after withdrawal cash was handed over the assessee. Certificate from bank was also filed. When the matter was sent for remand verification the Assessing officer simply stated that these details were not filed duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only a domestic help. If the Revenue had any doubt the Assessing officer should have made further enquiry during assessment proceedings therefore we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs. 4 lakhs. 83. Ground No. 7 - After considering the rival submissions and the material on record, we find that during assessment proceedings the Assessing officer noticed that there were certain credits in the books of accounts of the assessee which are shown as under: Name of the Concern Gross Turnover Net Profit Indirect Income credited to P&L account Net profit from business Matchless Associates 42,21,515/- 36,81,683/- 21,309/-(interest on FDR) 36,60,374/- G.M. Construction Co. 68,48,595/- 66,35,947/- 66,35,947/- Pritam Singh 9,88,421/- 8,35,107 8,35,107 - Total 1,02,96,321/- (The above gross turnover includes figures of work done from Rajat Miniers Pvt Ltd at Rs. 4221515/- and Rs. 3369565/- from K.D. Sharma which were not considered in para above). Here again the issues remain same that the receipts were on account of construction turnover. From above table it becomes clear that there cannot be a net profit of Rs. 3681683/- against t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... both the parties we find that during assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that special auditor had examined the books of accounts and found that there were some withdrawal from bank which was shown as cash withdrawal as per following detail: Centurion Bank of Punjab 18735 Pritam Singh Date Particular Amount 05.05.2008 Dalip Singh 8,54,000 08.05.2008 Dalip Singh 7,00,000 21.05.2008 Dalip Singh 9,00,000 Total 24,54,000 Special auditor had further observed that these payments are cheque payments. In response to the query raised by the Assessing officer the assessee failed to file any plausible explanation. Therefore the Assessing officer added a sum of Rs. 2454000/- to the income of the assessee. 91. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was submitted that Dilip Singh was one of the employee of the assessee and had withdrawn various amounts on various dates on behalf of the assessee and in this regard a certificate from HDFC Bank (since Centurion Bank has merged with HDFC) was filed. The Assessing officer rejected these evidences in the remand proceedings by observing that these details were not filed during the course of assessment proceedings. The assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Kaur, Locker No. 387, Punjab & Sind Bank, Phase 5, Mohali 1040.790 Rs.12,52,726/- 2. Do Shri Pritam Singh & Amrit Kaur, Locker No. 64, Canara Bank, Phase 7, Mohali 142.250 Rs.1,70,680/- Total 1183.04 Rs.14,23,406/- In response to a query it was mainly stated that jewellery was negligible and was received by the assessee at the time of marriage and birth of his children from his parents and from his in-laws. Further reliance was placed on the instructions issued by CBDT vide Instruction No. F.286/63/93-IT(Inv)-11 dated 11.5.1994. The Assessing officer accepted jewellery of 750 gms in view of the instructions of the CBDT and added the balance jewellery of 433 gms as unexplained income. 97. On appeal, it was mainly submitted that family of the assessee consist of (1) Pritam Singh (assessee), (2) Mrs. Amrit kaur (wife), (3) Gurjit Singh (son), Mrs. Ranjit Kaur (daughter-in-law) and (5) Ravnit Kaur (grand daughter). It was submitted that jewellery relate to these five persons and Surinderpal Singh Oberoi and Smt. Maninder Kaur wife of S.P. Singh Oberoi. It was pointed out that Surinderpal Singh was residing in Dubai and 731.50 gms of jewellery directly re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nit Kaur (grand daughter of Pritam Singh and daughter of Gurjit Singh 250 gm Pritam Singh and Gurjit Singh @ 100 gm 200 gm 1450 gm Therefore net jewellery which is required to be added because no explanation is available is 598.48 gms. This jewellery is required to be added in the hands of Pritam Singh and Gurjit Singh. Since this issue has been considered jointly no details have been furnished before us for individual jewellery and therefore we hold that out of this jewellery weighing 298.48 gms should be added in the hands of the assessee and balance 300 gms should be added in the hands of Gurjit Singh (since those appeals are also being adjudicated through this order). This proposal was accepted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Accordingly we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing officer to make addition on account of jewellery weighing 298.48 gms in case of the assessee. 102. In the result, ITA No. 11 76/Chd/201 2 is partly allowed. 103. ITA No. 1193 Chd 2012 - A.Y 2004-05 - Revenue appeal 104. In this appeal the Revenue has raised the following grounds: "(i) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in law and on facts in deleting the ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... verification during remand proceedings. In the remand report Assessing officer again reiterated that in the absence of FIR's these credits have not been established by the assessee. The assessee also gave certain comments. The Ld. CIT(A) after examining this issue decided the same in favour of the assessee. 107. Before us, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue strongly supported the order of Assessing officer. 108. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Shri Surinderpal Singh son of the assessee was living in Dubai and is an NRI. Pursuant to a search on the assessee, even the cases of Surinderpal Singh were reopened specifically to verify the gifts made by Surinderpal Singh. In this regard he referred to an application for admission of additional evidence filed in Assessment year 2005-06 in ITA No. 1174/Chd/2012 wherein copy of reasons recorded for reopening as well as assessment order of Surinderpal Singh by Dy Director (International Taxation) has been submitted. He pointed out that assessment for Assessment year 2005-06 was reopened particularly to verify the gifts made by Surinderpal Singh to the assessee. Assessment for Assessment year 2006-07 and 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the fact of giving gifts by Shri Surinderpal Singh. We have already admitted the application for additional evidence in ITA No. 1174/Chd/2012 in case of assessee. Relevant portion of reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment reads as under: "The assessee S.P. Singh has given gifts of Rs. 4216458/- to his father Shri Pritam Singh and Rs. 1490000/- to his brother, Gurjit Singh during the year. The assessee has not field income tax return for Assessment year 2005-06. Entire amount has been remitted by him from UAE. Thus the source of gift of Rs. 5706458/- (Rs. 4216458 + Rs. 1490000) made by the assessee needs to be verified with respect to the capacity to make such huge gifts and this expenditure remains unexplained. As a result I have reason to that this income of Rs. 5706458/- has escaped taxation and the case needs to be opened u/s 147." 110. After issuing notice u/s 148 on the basis of above noted reasons the assessment was ultimately completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148 in case of Shri Surinderpal Singh vide order dated 28.2.2013 for Assessment year 2005-06 in which it is clearly mentioned that the gifts given by Surinderpal Singh to Pritam Singh and Gurjit Singh were verifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur (daughter-in-law): Sr.No. Date Particulars Amount 1. 02.07.2004 Payment made by Ranjit Kaur to AK Sahney for const. 23,297 2. 10.01.2005 By Canara Bank - 495 being maturity of FDR made in Ranjit Kaur 5,45,616 5,68,913 Initially special auditor asked for various details of the gifts which were not given to the auditor. Assessing officer further observed that perusal of the assessment recorded by Smt. Ranjit Kaur showed that she was asked to furnish the details of the gifts made during the year but she had replied that no gifts were made by her. In this background a sum of Rs. 560913/-was added to the income of the assessee. 116. On appeal various documents were filed and the same was sent for verification in the remand proceedings. The details were found to be correct during remand proceedings by the Assessing officer but he insisted that in view of her reply the gifts could not be accepted. 117. The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept this position and allowed relief. 118. Before us. the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue supported the order of the Assessing officer. 119. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the impugned or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same and the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly accepted the pleadings of the assessee. Therefore we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 121. Ground No. 5 - In case of gifts from Smt. Amrit Kaur, addition was made on the same footing and similar contentions were raised before the Ld. CIT(A) as in case of Smt. Ranjit Kaur. This addition was also deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) on similar reasoning as in case of Smt. Ranjit Kaur. Even before us both the parties made similar contentions as in case of Smt. Ranjit Kaur. 122. After considering the above submissions the LD. CIT(A) has noted the comments of the Assessing officer and the counter comments of the assessee as under: "Assessee has contested that assessee has received a sum of Rs. 776410/- from Smt Amrit Kaur (Wife of Assessee) having PAN-AAMPO-7291-D, Out of which Rs. 17000/- was given by Smt Amrit Kaur on 15.05.2004 vide ch no. 191242 drawn on Canara Bank to Charanjit Singh on behalf of Late Sh. Pritam Singh, a sum of Rs. 100000/- was given by Amrit Kaur on 26.08.2004 vide ch no. 191243 drawn on Canara Bank and balance amounting Rs. 6,59,410/- was given by Amrit Kaur by way of direct transfer of FDR maturity in A/c No. 495 with Canara B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I) brother of the assessee, in total disregard to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.R. Ganapathy, (2012-TIOL-76-SC- IT) that the assessee has to show adequacy of funds in the hands of foreign donor for aforesaid gift donation? 3. Whether on facts of the case adverse and rebuttable presumption should have been drawn about genuineness of the gift when the assessee over a period of seven Assessment year s has received a total sum of Rs. 667,05,848/- crores as gift." 126. After hearing both the parties we find that the issues raised through these grounds are identical to the issues raised in ITA No. 1193/Chd/201 2. Since the facts of the case and the contentions of both the parties are identical to the issues raised in ITA No. 1193/Chd/2012 for Assessment year 2004-05, following that order vide para 109 to 111 we have decided these issues against the Revenue. 127. Ground No. 4 - After hearing both the parties we find that from the books of accounts and statement of affairs it was noted that the assessee has received following amounts from his wife, Smt. Amrit Kaur: S. No Date Particulars Amount 1 22.8.2005 Punjab National Bank 14513....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition is therefore deleted." 133. We find nothing wrong with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) because the Assessing officer has himself accepted that the contention of the assessee was correct. Accordingly we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 134. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 1195/Chd/2012 is dismissed. ITA No. 1196/Chd/2012 - AY 2007-08 - Revenue 135. In this appeal the Revenue has raised the following grounds: "(i) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 28,73,798/- on account of gift received from Sh. S.P. Singh when assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the gift ? (ii) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case CIT(A) was justified in accepting the genuineness of a gift from Non Resident Indian (NRI) brother of the assessee, in total disregard to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P R Ganapathy - (2012-TIOL-76-SC- IT) that the assessee has to show adequacy of funds in the hands of foreign donor for aforesaid gift donation ? (iii) Whether on facts of the case adverse and rebuttable presumption should have been drawn about genuineness of the gift when the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led to prove the genuineness of the gift?" 140. Grounds No. 1 to 3 - After hearing both the parties we find that the issues raised through these grounds are identical to the issues raised in ITA No. 11 93/Chd/2012. Since the facts of the case and the contentions of both the parties are identical to the issues raised in ITA No. 1193/Chd/2012 for Assessment year 2004-05, following that we have decide these issues against the Revenue. 141. Through ground No. 4 the Revenue has raised the issue of gifts received from Smt. Amrit Kaur which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of remand report which is identical as in Assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No. 1195/Chd/2012, therefore following that order in respect of ground no. 4 we decide this issue against the Revenue. 142. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 1197/Chd/2012 is dismissed. ITA No. 1198/Chd/2012 - A.Y 2009-10 - Revenue 143. In this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds: "(i) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 278,79,676/- on account of gift received from Sh. S.P. Singh when assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the gift ? (ii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) on the basis of remand report which is identical as in Assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No. 11 95/Chd/2012, therefore following that order in respect of ground no. 4 we decide this issue against the Revenue. 147. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 1198/Chd/2012 is dismissed. ITA No. ITA No. 1166/Chd/2012 - A.Y 2003-04 - Gurjit Singh 148. In this appeal the Revenue has raised the following grounds: "1. That authorities below has erred in law and facts in framing the assessment without affording proper opportunity of being hear to the appellant. 2. That the authorities below has erred in law and facts to appoint special auditor in an automatic manner without considering the facts of the case and consequently the appointment of he auditor is bad in law. 3. That the appointment of special auditor is bad in law and is not in accordance with the spirit of law under the provisions of section 142(2A) of the Act but only to gain time for completing the assessment which is barred by limitation. 4. That LD. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the additions of Rs. 19,39,238/- u/s 68 on account of alleged unexplained cash credits comprising Rs. 13,95,000/- from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... company. Since the Assessing officer did not make any further enquiry, therefore addition was not justified. 153. In respect of other sum of Rs. 544238/- stated to have been received from G.M. Hirer it was claimed before the Ld. CIT(A) that these amounts were received in the following concerns: i GM Hirer Rs. 4,00,000/- received in the hands of Gurjit Singh ii GM Hirer Rs. 1,34,238/- received in the hands of M/s Suridnerpal Singh iii GM Hirer Rs. 10,000/- received in the hands of M/s Pritam Singh & Sons Rs. 5,44,238/- 154. The Assessing officer during remand proceedings issued a notice u/s 133(6) to G.M. Hirer to file confirmation for these transactions as well as to file PAN and return of income. In response confirmation of Mohinder Sharma proprietor G.M. Hirer was filed but the Assessing officer observed that this does not prove any thing. 155. The Ld. CIT(A) after examining the submissions confirmed the addition of Rs. 13,95,000/- on account of amount received from PBIL Apex Consoritum Ltd. because complete address, PAN and other remand details as well as confirmations were not filed. In respect of addition of Rs. 544238/- the Ld. CIT(A) obs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not been proved. The assessee has failed to prove the credit. It is wrong to say that the Assessing officer has applied peak theory because the Assessing officer has basically made addition of balance outstanding in the firm. Merely existence of high amount of share capital does not prove anything. No details of PBIL were filed. 159. We have gone through the rival submissions carefully. As far as various amounts received from G.M. Hirer are concerned, no doubt the confirmation from one Mohinder Singh has been filed but at the same time there is no evidence to show that the assessee has sold the truck for Rs. 4 lakh. There is no evidence to show that the assessee has purchased the truck (which could have been sold) and same was reflected in the balance sheet of the assessee and in the absence of this evidence, this entry cannot be accepted. Similarly for other two entries the contentions regarding security cannot be accepted in the absence of evidence that such security was really outstanding and for what purpose the security was given. All these aspects have not been explained before the Assessing officer or the Ld. CIT(A) or even before us. As far as the contention that once the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A/C No. 50384 Receipt 14 300000 To closing balance 3890418 1270000 5160418 5160418 5160418 1.4.2003 By opening balance Journal 3 1270000 1.4.2003 To S.P. Singh Prop Gurjit singh Being PBIL balance THEREFORE to M/s SP Singh Journal 3 1270000 1270000 1270000 The above clearly show that the amounts have been taken for some purpose because the assessee was also director there. Further admittedly the amounts have been finally paid and ultimately there is a debit balance of Rs. 15205/- therefore in our opinion, this seems only a current account and this addition is not justified. Accordingly we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs. 1395000/- out of total addition of Rs. 1939238/- made in respect of credits. 161. Ground No. 5 - After hearing both the parties we find that during assessment proceedings the Assessing Office noticed that a lump sum expenses of Rs. 1489957/- claimed by the assessee in the books of accounts included lump sum cash payment of Rs. 1365722. No reply was filed, therefore the Assessing officer invoked provisions of section 40A(3)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has filed the following grounds: "1. That authorities below has erred in law and facts in framing the assessment without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. That authorities below has erred in law and facts to appoint Special Auditor in an automatic manner without considering the facts of the case and consequently the appointment of the auditor is bad in law. 3. That the appointment of special auditor is bad in law and is not in accordance with the spirit of law under the provision of section 142(2A) of the Act but only to gain time for completing the assessment which is barred by limitation. 4. That CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the additions of Rs. 5,00,000/- under section 68 on account of alleged unexplained cash credits comprising Rs. 2,00,000/- from M.S. & Company and Rs. 3,00,000/- from G.M. Hirer. (para 23 page 9-10 of Assessment order) (para 9 page 13-17 of CIT(A) order) 5. That learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not taking reliance of entries recorded in Supplementary Cash Book produced before the CIT(A) after admitting the same u/s 46A(1)(d) and despite the fact that AO has confirmed the verification ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts filed by Shri Majit Singh do not prove the ingredients of s. 68. Therefore, the claim of assessee can not be accepted." Assessee in his counter comments has stated that "The documents were filed by one Manjit Singh Prop M.S. & Co. do not prove the ingredients of s. 68". It is very difficult to understand as to which ingredient is not proved as explanations put forth by M.S. & Co. is self explanatory. That in case AO needs further clarification he was free to ask from Manjit Singh which he chooses not to do. As such there is no justification in confirming any addition on this account. iii. G M HIRER Rs. 300000/- DCIT in has comments has stated that Assessee has contended that M/s. Surinder Pal Singh has received a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- during the year from M/s. G.M. Hirer Prop. Mahender Sharma son of Nitya Nand Sharma PAN ALNPF0611P A reply to notice u/s 133(6) was filed alongwith copy of account & a copy of return has been filed by one Shri Mohinder Sharma, Porp. M/s G.M. Hirer. The documents filed by Sh. Mohinder Sharma do not prove the ingredients of s.68. Therefore, the claim of assessee can not be accepted. Assessee in his counter comments has stated that "Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was purchased in consideration of Rs. 29,10,000/- auction price to be paid in installment. The interest is to be paid to PUDA along with installments. That I was having 30% share in the property under consideration and a part of money amounting Rs. 436,500/- was directly deposited with PUDA on 27/11/2003 and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to Pritam Singh Oberoi. That subsequent payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid on 28.01.2004 drawn on my ICICI Bank A/c No. 005805000292, similarly Rs. 2,90,000/- was paid on 19.11.2004 to Bikas Deb on the directions of Pritam Singh and as such total amount of Rs. 10,26,500/- was paid on account of 30% share in the property under consideration." Copy of confirmation has also been filed. No doubt the conformation is only initialed but it cannot be said that it is not signed. Copy of agreement for purchase of property jointly with Pritam Singh has also been filed and copy of return has also been filed. In our opinion, when these documents are considered together then it seems that M.S. & Co. has filed proper confirmation. In case the Assessing officer had any doubt he should have made further enquiry and in the absence of such further enquiry this e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rounds No. 1 to 3 and 5 were not pressed therefore same are dismissed as not pressed. 179. In this year the assessee has moved an application for admission of additional evidence. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the application and pointed out that copy of reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment of S.P. Singh Oberoi as well as his assessment order for Assessment year 2005-06 is being filed as additional evidence because same was on 28.2.2013 i.e. after passing the impugned order. This order is relevant because gifts and loans received from S.P. Singh were verified in his own case by the Revenue and found to be correct. This being a assessment order only, therefore in the interest of justice this evidence can be admitted. 180. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue opposed the submissions. 181. After considering the rival submissions and the material on record, we find that this is very relevant evidence and is only an assessment order passed by the department. The order came into existence only after passing of impugned order and therefore same is being admitted in the interest of justice. 182. Ground No. 4 - After hearing both the parties we find....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n it is stated as under: ""1. That I have jointly purchased one property in Bulk Material Market popularly known as BMM 373, Phase-11, Mohali through PUDA auction in the name of Pritam Singh Oberoi. The property was purchased in consideration of Rs. 29,10,000/- auction price to be paid in installment. The interest is to be paid to PUDA along with installments. That I was having 30% share in the property under consideration and a part of money amounting Rs. 436,500/- was directly deposited with PUDA on 27/11/2003 and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to Pritam Singh Oberoi. That subsequent payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid on 28.01.2004 drawn on my ICICI Bank A/c No. 005805000292, similarly Rs. 2,90,000/- was paid on 19.11.2004 to Bikas Deb on the directions of Pritam Singh and as such total amount of Rs. 10,26,500/- was paid on account of 30% share in the property under consideration." Copy of the confirmation of the account as well as agreement for making investment jointly has also been filed before the Assessing officer. However, we find that in the confirmation PAN is not there, therefore in our opinion, the source cannot be accepted and accordingly we confirm the order of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in ITA No. 1193/Chd/2012 for Assessment year 2004-05, following that order we have decide these issues against the Revenue. 193. Ground No. 5 - After hearing both the parties we find that during assessment proceedings the Assessing Office noticed that the assessee has claimed interest expenses amounting to Rs. 196011/- against the income from interest on FDR. He has observed that interest was not paid for earning interest and accordingly query was raised in this regard. No reply was given and therefore a sum of Rs. 196011/- was added to the income of the assessee. 194. On appeal before the LD. CIT(A) it was mainly submitted that interest on FDR relates to Pritam Singh and Sons proprietary concern which was doing business of civil construction. The FDRs were purchased from business funds for obtaining bank guarantee for execution of contract. No FDR was purchased during the year. The interest on FDR was declared as income of business which has been accepted by the Assessing officer. Therefore interest paid against loan is required to be netted out and in this regard reliance was palced on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt Ltd. Vs. CI....