TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore many details were filed before the Ld. CIT(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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn of income the assessee has shown income from business & profession at Rs. 605195/-whereas as per books of accounts the receipts are Rs. 7078810/-. Therefore according to the Assessing 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 The Cash was withdrawn from the banks which was not taken by the Special auditor.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 bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en made on the basis of books prepared by special auditor. On the other hand, the case of the assessee is that special auditor had punched only the credit entries and has not considered the self withdrawals 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 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee submitted that initially at page 9 of the impugned order the Ld. CIT(A) has clearly admitted additional evidence but while giving relief the supplementary cash book was not accepted despite the fact that same 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... officer and Settlement Commission. The orders have been passed after passing the assessment order and since the same have bearing on the issues required to be adjudicated before us, therefore in the interest of justice this application is being 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Hardeep Singh is clearly mentioned. This cash was handed over to the assessee firm. Hardeep Singh in response to the query has confirmed this fact vide letter dated 11.6.2012 to the Assessing officer and copy of the letter is placed at page 66 of the paper 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was pointed out that Rs. 1579700/- was credited in the books of G.M. Construction which comprised following items: GM Construction Co. 29.05.2003 PBIL APEX CONSORTIUM LTD 295,000.00 25.06.2003 PBIL APEX CONSORTIUM LTD 120,000.00 25.06.2003 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh. Against this demand draft was got made for Rs. 4,50,000/- which was wrongly taken as received from S.P. Singh. Since on the same day a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- from S.P. Singh was received, so this mistake was committed. In fact this DD was purchased out of cash and same was added in the supplementary cash book. In respect of other amounts relevant evidence was filed 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000/-received from M.S. Alagh, Rs. 8,50,000/- from R.K. Associates and Rs. 2,00,000/- from Sharma Associates. 5. That LD. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming a disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- on account of Life Insurance Premium paid despite the fact that such expense has not been allowed as an expenditure." 53. Grounds No. 1 to 3 and 5 were not pressed before us, therefore same are 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. Asso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ply signed. PAN No. has also been given. The Assessing officer has not made any enquiry. Once the depositor has given the confirmation and PAN, if the Assessing officer had any doubt he should have conducted further enquiry and could not have rejected this evidence without any further enquiry. Therefore we are of the opinion that the assessee has discharged the burden of proving the genuineness of this transaction of Rs. 2 lakhs. 59. In respect of a sum of Rs. 4.50 lakhs and Rs. 4 lakhs received 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. Ala....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,110/-. 8. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not taking reliance of entries recorded in Supplementary cash book produced before the Ld. CIT(A) after admitting the same u/r 46A(1)(d) and despite the fact that Assessing officer has confirmed the verification of debit/credit entries recorded in the supplementary cash book." 64. Out of above grounds, grounds No. 1,2, & 3 were not pressed before us, therefore same are dismissed as not pressed before us. 65. In this case the assessee has filed an application 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 who....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... verification of certain issues. Addition on account of credit in the name of Radiant Empire amounting to Rs. 10lakhs, Jagir Singh Rs. 2494492/- were deleted on the basis of remand report, therefore no further discussion is required since the Revenue has filed no appeal against these deletions. 71. In respect of addition amounting to Rs. 10297500/- in the name of TRN Land Developers Private Ltd (in short TRN) following comments were given by the DCIT in the remand report: Assessee has contended that a sum of Rs. 1,02,97,500/- from M/s TRN Land Developers Private Limited was received during the year. Out of above, a sum of Rs. 15,97,500/- was 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 Si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as one of the directors as evident from the signatory to the information supplied to the AO. When the addition has been made u/s 68, it is clear that the primary onus is on the assessee to prove the three ingredients of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and only thereafter does the burden shift to the AO. Here, it is not understood as to why such a huge sum of Rs. 2,05,00,000/- is ostensibly shown as paid to the company by one KD Sharma, and on his apparent directions, the company in turn advances Rs. 1.02 lakhs to the assessee. Thus considering the gamut of the case and the inter-twining of the transactions without any shred of evidence 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere. Money was given because the assessee had purchased property jointly in PUDA auction for a consideration of Rs. 6520000/- wherein share of Sharma Associates was 15%. Total share came to 150000/- which was paid by this party. It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly confirmed this addition by observing that these documents were not given earlier. Once additional evidence was admitted under rule 46A, same has to be considered and acted upon. 74. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue strongly relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 75. After considering the rival submissions and the material on record, we find force in the submissions of the 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firmed the fact of giving advance to Pritam Singh i.e. the assessee. Source in the hands of the TRN was by way of deposits received from K.D. Sharma who has lodged an FIR against the assessee group alleging that the investment to the extent of Rs. 13,85 crores were made with assessee group. In fact K.D. Sharma had surrendered a sum of Rs. 12 crore and therefore sources in the hand of the TRN stand explained. Once the source of investment and PAN was available and if the Assessing officer still had doubt then he should have asked the assessee or that party to furnish further papers. The detailed evidence cannot be brushed aside particularly because of the fact that the depositor had already paid taxes 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f assessee and after withdrawal handed over the case to assessee. A certificate from Bank is also filed to clarify that amount withdrawn was bearer cheque. To verify the contention of assessee notice u/s 133(6) was issued to Sarabjit Singh who has filed a reply and copy of the same is filed. As these details were not filed during the course of assessment proceedings as such the same should not be accepted at this stage." Above clearly show that all the evidences were filed including a certificate from bank (copy placed at page 46 of the paper book). Certificate from the bank show that through cheque No. 252583 cash was withdrawn. This evidence cannot be brushed aside by simply saying that cash was withdrawn through Sarabjit Singh who is 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdance 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. 24,54,000/- being cash withdrawal by cheque through Dalip Singh holding the same is cheque withdrawal and not a cash withdrawal. 5. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 5,21,024/- on account of undisclosed investment in jewellery. 6. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of amount credited in the bank account." 89. Out of above grounds , grounds No. 1 to 3 & 6 were not pressed before us, therefore same are dismissed as not pressed. 90. Ground No. 4 - After hearing 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,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hfully Sd/- (Authorised Signatory) Above clearly show that various amounts have been withdrawn by cash. The amount has been withdrawn from same account which was doubted by the special auditor. In our opinion, it does not make difference that who has withdrawn the amount. Once the bank has certified that cash has been withdrawn then same cannot be added to the income because it does not matter who has gone to the bank to withdraw the cash. Therefore we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and delete this addition. 96. Ground no. 5 - After hearing both the parties we find that during assessment proceedings the Assessing Office noticed that jewellery valued Rs. 1423406/- was found from the residence of the assessee and Smt. Amrit Kaur. Detail of jewellery is as under: Sl.No. Date of seized Name of the assessee and premises Gross weight in gms. Amount(Rs.) 1. 27.06.2008 Shri Pritam Singh & Smt. Amrit 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/- Tota....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....04 gm 2779.98 gm Undisputedly out of this some jewellery weighing 731.500 gms was belonging to Surinderpal Singh and his family who is son of the assessee and residing in Dubai. In fact there was some dispute whether credit has been given for that jewellery or not however, undisputedly fact remains that the jewellery weighing 731.50 gms relates to him because along with this jewellery vouchers showing purchase of this jewellery in Dubai were also found. Further once this jewellery belonging to Surinderpal Singh is reduced and further credit in terms of Board Instruction is allowed then position becomes as under: Total jewellery found 2779.987 gm Less Jewellery belonging to him 731.500 gm Net jewellery 2048.480 gm Further credit required to be given for married female is 500 gm each, unmarried female at 250 gm and male members at 100 gm. Therefore credit would be as under: Mrs. Amrit Kaur w/o Pritam Singh 500 gm Mrs. Ranjit Kaur w/o Gurjit Singh (son) 500 gm Ms. Ravnit Kaur (grand daughter of Pritam Singh and daughter of Gurjit Singh 250 gm Pritam Singh and Gurjit Singh @ 100 gm 200 gm 1450 gm Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has given a sum of Rs. 54974186/- between the period 7.10.2002 to 1.1.2009. It was also certified that Surinderpal Singh had made certain gifts to the assessee. Computation sheets of income in respect of Suridnerpal Singh showing income of Rs. 23376309/- for Assessment year 2010-11 was also filed. Bank statement of RAK Bank were also filed. It was observed that source of income for Assessment year 2010-11 was beyond the period under consideration. Further the assessee had not filed Foreign Inward Remittances certificate. It was also observed that normally when the amount is received from outside India the same should be credited through authorized dealer only and if the assessee has filed the bank account from a Bank which is not authorized dealer then the amount could not be given except through authorized dealer. In this background and further discussion the amount received during the year was not accepted and addition of Rs. 1405223/-was made in the hands of the assessee. 106. Before the Ld. CIT(A) certain documents were filed which were sent for verification during remand proceedings. In the remand report Assessing officer again reiterated that in the absence of FIR's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In connection with the nature of the receipt, the assessee has in his submissions stated that in the assessment proceedings for AY 2009-10, the DCIT, International taxation, Chandigarh has accepted the gift as genuine. The Ld AO is silent on this matter except stating that the certificate obtained from Dubai as well as availability of sufficient funds with Surinder Pal Singh does not prove the purpose of remittance. Be that as it may, as regards the nature of the remittance, it is clear that the income-tax authorities cannot take two stands for the same transaction. Once the gift has been held to be genuine, there can be no dispute that the same will have to be accepted as genuine in the hand of the assessee. The assessee further has discharged his onus cast upon him by producing the order of assessment of Shri. S.P. Singh dated 30.12.2011 for AY 2009-10 Passed by the DDIT, International Taxation, Chandigarh. Thus, I accept the contention of the assessee and the ground of appeal is allowed." Thus from above it becomes clear that the Revenue has already accepted the fact of giving gifts by Shri Surinderpal Singh. We have already admitted the application for additional evidence in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut genuineness of the gift when the assessee over a period of seven Assessment Years has received a total sum of Rs. 6,67,05,848/- crores as gift ? (iv) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) on facts and circumstances of this is justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,68,913/- on account of money received from Smt. Ranjit Kaur when assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the gift? (v) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,76,410/- on account of money received from Smt. Amrit Kaur when assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the gift?" 114. Grounds No. 1 to 3 - This issue is identical to the issues raised in ITA No. 1193/Chd/2012 for Assessment year 2004-05. Since the facts and contentions are same, therefore following that order we confirm the deletion of gifts received by the assessee from Surinderpal Singh. 115. Ground no. 5 - After hearing both the parties we find that during assessment proceedings the Assessing officer noticed that a few credits were found in the books of the assessee from Smt. Ranjit Kaur (daughter-in-law): Sr.No. Date Particulars Amount 1. 02.07.2004 Payment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... counter comments has stated "The learned DCIT has accepted the contention of assessee as such there is no justification in any addiction on this account." Thereafter she decided the issue as under: "The Ld. AO in the remand report, after verification had submitted that the contention of the assessee was found to be correct. His only objection was that the donor during the course of her own assessment proceedings had made no such claim of gifting any amount to her father-in-law. Be that as it may these transactions had been verified by the Ld. AO. Hence I do not think it material that the addition should be sustained because the donor had made no such claim in her assessment proceedings. The relationship between in the assessee and the donor is also not in dispute. Hence the only issue left is the genuineness / purpose of transaction and in view of the fact that it is within the close family, the addition is therefore deleted." Above clearly show that once the gifts have been correctly reflected in the accounts and the details of the cheques etc. were found to be correct by the Assessing officer then there was no scope for denying the same and the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onship between in the assessee and the donor is undisputed. The credit worthiness and the identity of the donor is also not in dispute. Hence the only issue left is the genuineness / purpose of transaction and in view of the fact that it is within the close family, the addition is therefore deleted." Above clearly show that once the gifts have been correctly reflected in the accounts and the details of the cheques etc. were found to be correct by the Assessing officer then there was no scope for denying the same and the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly accepted the pleadings of the assessee. Therefore we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 123. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 124. ITA No. 1195/Chd/2012 - AY 2006-07 - Revenue 125. In this appeal the Revenue has raised the following grounds: "1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 155,50,000/- on account of gift received from Shri S.P. Singh when assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the gift. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case LD. CIT(A) was justified in accepting the genuineness of a gift from Non Resident Indian (NRI) brother of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....family, the addition is therefore deleted." 129. The Ld. CIT(A) after examination of the same allowed relief and deleted this addition. 130. Before us. the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue supported the order of Assessing officer. 131. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the impugned order. 132. After considering the rival submissions we find that this issue has been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) as under: "The Assessing officer in the remand report after verification had submitted that the contention of the assessee was found to be correct. His only objection was that the donor during the course of her own assessment proceedings had made no such claim of gifting any amount to her husband. Be that as it may these transactions had been verified by the Assessing officer. Hence I do not think it material that the addition should be sustained because the donor had made no such claim in her assessment proceedings. The relationship between in the assessee and the donor is undisputed. The credit worthiness and the identity of the donor is also not in dispute. Hence the only issue left is the genuineness / purpose of transaction and in view of the fact that it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 1196/Chd/2012 is dismissed. ITA No. 1197/Chd/2012 - A.Y 2008-09 - Revenue 139. 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. 152,33,693/- 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 assessee over a period of seven Assessment Years has received a total sum of Rs. 6,67,05,848/- crores as gift? (iv) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) on facts and circumstances of this is justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,32,632/- o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9; 144. 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/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 we have decide these issues against the Revenue. 145. Ground No. 4 - This issue is identical to the issue of gifts received from Smt. Amrit Kaur because here again the Assessing officer has accepted the contention in the remand report but still gift amounting to Rs. 23497/- was not accepted because Smt. Ranjit Kaur has not stated in her statement that such gift was given. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed relief on the basis of remand report by holding that merely because Smt.Ranjit Kaur did not mention about this gift during her statement would not prove anything when the documents clearly show the fact of gift. Therefore following our reasoning given for acceptance of gift in case of Smt. Amrit Kaur in Assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 146. Ground No. 5 - Through this ground the Revenue has ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Singh) GM Hirer 134238 Nil 134238 PBIL Apex Consortium Ltd 1259171 1259171 0 Jaswant Singh & Co 250000 250000 0 Parkash Singh & Co 210000 210000 0 Drainage Div, Ludhiana 1510320 1510320 0 M/s Pritam Singh & Sons (Prop Gurjit Singh) GM Hirer 100000 Nil 10000 PBIL Apex Consortium Ltd 5160418 3890418 1270000 Punjab Urban Planning Dev Authority 200000 200000 0 RR Paul 400000 400000 0 Draiange Div, Amritsar 190278 190278 0 Total 9939425 1939238 Since the assessee did not file any confirmation and other evidences therefore a sum of Rs. 1939238/- was added to the income of the assessee. 151. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) various details were filed which were sent for remand report. In the remand report the Assessing officer noted that the assessee has claimed that these were running accounts and ultimately net balance of Rs. 51205/- is recoverable from the said company. However, since the confirmation and PAN was also not filed, the credit could not be accepted. 152. Be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the hands of Pritam Singh and Sons was on account of security deposit with the said firm on 31.3.2002.The security was Rs. 224600/-and the amount was recovered on account of security deposit. In this regard he referred to various papers at page 44 to 52 of the paper book. He also contended that once the amount was received through cheque then same could have been accepted and in this regard he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Amarchand, ITA No. 243 of 2011. 157. In respect of amount received from PBIL Apex Consortium it was submitted that the assessee was acting as Director in this company which was having office at 409-410, Padma Tower, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. Various transactions took place in the name of Gurjit Singh and his proprietary concern, Pritam Singh & Sons and Surinderpal Singh. Copy of the running account was filed (copy of which is available at page 13 to 15 of paper book). The company had sufficient capital. In this regard reference was made to page 16 which is copy of the report from ROC showing that said company had paid up capital of Rs. 7.99 crores. It was further contended that the Assessing officer h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sources and the fact that the payment was received through cheque was sufficiently proved. Therefore the case is totally distinguishable on facts. 160. As far as addition of Rs. 1395000/- is concerned, copy of account filed at page 13 to 15 clearly show that the amounts have been regularly taken and given. Copy of account during the year reads as under: Date Particulars Vch Type Vch No Debit Credit 10.3.2003 By City Bank 5-0502/3-184 Receipt 13 125000 125000 To closing balance 125000 125000 125000 1.4.2003 By opening balance 125000 1.4.2003 To S.P. Singh Prop Gurjit Singh being Amount TRF Journal 1 125000 125000 125000 Date Particularls Vch Type Vch No Debit Credit 3.4.2002 Buy Andhra Bak A/C No. 50384 REceipt 1 2000000 9.4.2002 To Andhra Bank A/C No. 50384 Payment 2 1500000 20.5.2002 To Andhra Bank A/C No 50384 Payment 14 130000 25.5.2002 To Andhra Bank A/c No. 50384 P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee is returned u/s 44AD and therefore disallowance was not justified. 165. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. for the Revenue strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 166. After considering the rival submissions and the material on record, we find that relevant portion of 44AD reads as under: (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 43C, in the case of an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business, a sum equal to eight per cent of the total turnover or gross receipts of the assessee in the previous year on account of such business or, as the case may be, a sum higher than the aforesaid sum claimed to have been earned by the eligible assessee, shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such business chargeable to tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". (2) Any deduction allowable under the provisions of sections 30 to 38 shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to have been already given full effect to and no further deduction under those sections shall be allowed:" Plain reading of above provision clearly show that once the income is assessed u/s 44AD then there cannot be any further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... special auditor has taken into account all the credits during the year without giving any benefit of debits in such accounts. The Assessing officer noticed the details of such accounts as under: Gurjit Singh 2004-05 R N Highways Pvt Ltd 400000 400000 M&S Co. 200000 0 200000 Appex Export Sh. Surinder Pal Singh 100000 0 100000 M/s Surinder Pal Singh Oberoi ) Prop. Gurjit Singh) GM Hizer 300000 300000 PBIL Apex Consortium 6652545 6703750 - Total 7652545 600000 He further noted that since the basic ingredients of Sec 68 were not complied therefore a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs was added to the income of the assessee. 171. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) certain further documents were filed which were sent for remand report. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1 lakh on account of gifts received from S.P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edient is not proved as explanations put forth by G.M.Hirer is self explanatory. That in case AO needs further clarification he was free to ask from Mohinder Sharma Prop. G.M. Hirer which he chooses not to do. As such there is no justification in confirming any addition on this account". The Ld. CIT(A) thereafter observed that in case of credit of Rs. 2.00 lakh from M.S. & Co. in the confirmation there are no signatures and therefore confirmation was not accepted and this amount added to the income of the assessee. In case of credit of Rs. 3 lakhs from G.M. Hirer again confirmation was without signatures and therefore this amount was added to the income of the assessee. 172. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of credit of Rs. 2 lakhs from M.S. & Co. the Assessing officer has made enquiries u/s 133(6) and his conformation and other documents were filed before the Assessing officer (copy available at page 36 to 40 of paper book). In respect of a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs received from G.M. Hirer it was pointed out that enquiry was made by the Assessing officer against which a reply was also filed vide reply dated 2.6.2012 (copy available at page 41 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence before us to show that the assessee owned this tractor. No evidence for transfer of registration of this tractor has been furnished before the Assessing officer or CIT(A) or even before us. Therefore we are of the opinion that this addition has been correctly made and accordingly we confirm the same. Thus this ground is partly allowed by holding that the addition of Rs. 2 lakh from M.S. Co, should be deleted and addition of Rs. 3 lakh from G.M. Hirer should be confirmed. 175. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue strongly relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 176. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1167/Chd/2012 is partly allowed. ITA No. 1168/Chd/2012 - A.Y 2005-06 - Gurjit Singh 177. In this appeal the assessee has raised 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 aud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Export Pritam Singh Oberoi 1520000 0 1520000 MS & Co. 290000 0 290000 M/s Pritam Singh & Sons (Prop. Gurjit Singh) Pritam Singh 139200 0 139200 Balu Singh Jamadar 171500 0 171500 TOTAL 2420700 2420700 183. Since confirmation etc. was not filed, therefore a sum of Rs. 2420700/- was added to the income of the assessee. 184. During assessment proceedings out of above addition on account of Pritam Singh amounting to Rs. 1520000/- and Rs. 139000/- was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) against which no appeal has been filed by the Revenue. Therefore we are not discussing this issue. Other two additions amounting to Rs. 290000/- on account of M.S. & Co. and Rs. 171500/- on account of Balu Singh Jamadar were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) by following the reasons given in A.Y 2004-05 and also the comments of the Assessing officer during assessment proceedings. 185. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing then no addition can be made when the same was received back because then it cannot be said to be a fresh credit and accordingly we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and delete this addition also. 190. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1168/Chd/2012 is partly allowed. ITA No. 1187/Chd/2012 - A.Y 2004-05 - Revenue 191. In this appeal the Revenue has raised following grounds: "(I) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2674000/- 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 rebuttalbe presumption should have been drawn about genuineness of the gift when the assessee over a period of sev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess income and in this regard reference was made to computation of income (copy placed at page 14 & 15 of paper book). He also referred to pg 48 to 61 and pointed out that in this year there was no business which become clear from copy of profit and loss account (pg 48 of paper book). The total FDR were for Rs. 41.63 lakhs and loans from FDR is 26.05 lakhs. Assessee's own capital was Rs. 27.25 lakhs. All the FDRs are made from earlier years. These FDRs were purchased for commercial purposes i.e. for obtaining bank guarantee etc. and the loan against FDRs was used for construction business. Thus clearly the interest on FDRs was business income against which interest paid, if any, has to be allowed in the absence of any business receipts during the year. He again relied on the decision of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) and CIT Vs. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip, 289 ITR 475 (Delhi). 197. We have gone through the rival submissions carefully and find that admittedly the income from interest on FDR was returned as income from business and has also been assessed as income from business. Further FDRs were purchased for the purpose of obtaining bank guarantee etc. for ....