TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Director of this company at 854, Sector 15-A, Faridabad. In consequence of the search, the cases of the assessee were reopen4ed u/s 153A of the Act and assessments were completed u/s 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act. 3. One of the common issues involved in these appeals is confirmation of denial of claim u/s 24(b) and u/s 80C of the Act. This issue has been taken by the assessee in his grounds of appeal as grounds No.2 to 6 in Assessment Year 2006-07, ground No.2 to 4 in Assessment Year 2007-08, ground No.2 to 4 in Assessment Year 2008-09, ground No.2 to 4 in Assessment Year 2009-10 and as ground No.4 to 6 in Assessment Year 2010-11. The facts about this issue is that the assessee had claimed loss under the head income from house property' by claiming deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act in respect of interest paid for purchase of house property and further deduction u/s 80C was claimed in respect of repayment of loan. Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the denial of such deductions claimed by observing similar findings in each year. For the sake of convenience, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2006-07 are reproduced below: "5.1 I have carefully considered the subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hence the disallowance made by the AO u/s 24 and u/s 80C are confirmed." 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us wherein he has taken ground No.1 in all the years as a legal ground by which he had claimed that no incriminating material was found during the search and therefore, the addition was not warranted. However, during proceedings before us, Ld. A.R. submitted that he will not be pressing this legal ground as contained in ground No.1. Therefore, ground No.1 in all the years is dismissed as not pressed. 5. Regarding merits of the case in respect of denial of deduction/ claimed from income from house property, the Ld. A.R. submitted that in the 1st year, i.e. in Assessment Year 2006-07, property was self occupied and, therefore, there was no question of rent deed. However, in respect of subsequent years, the property was rented out and the rent was declared as income from house property. It was submitted that name, address, PAN of the tenant were provided to the A.O. and therefore, the assessee had completed his part of onus. It was further submitted that the assessee had purchased a house property with the help of housing loan form ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te of ICICI bank placed at paper book page 64, the Ld. D.R. submitted that it is clearly mentioned on the certificate that loan was for plot No.86 Sector 21A, Faridabad and nowhere, it has been mentioned that the property was a constructed property. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. D.R. argued that loan from ICICI bank was availed after purchase of property and therefore, same loan cannot be said to have been used by the assessee for acquiring house property. Therefore, deduction u/s 24(b) and 80C were rightly denied. 6.1 In his rejoinder, Ld. A.R. submitted that as per sale deed, there was a construction of 1250 sq. ft and therefore, it cannot be said to be a vacant plot. It was further submitted that existence of electricity and water connection itself were sufficient to prove that building was being used for residence by tenant who had been paying rent also. 7. We have heard rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that the assessee had purchased the property on 25th day of November 2005 for a total consideration of Rs. 36 lacs for which he had made payment of Rs. 36 lacs in the form of 3 cheques for Rs. 5 lacs, Rs. 7.50 lacs and Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition of Rs. 5 lacs made by A.O. in assessment ye2007-08. The A.O. has made this addition on account of unaccounted estimated expenses incurred by the assessee on account of birthday of his grandson. Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the A.O. by holding as under: "7.1 I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is not in dispute that the assessee celebrated his grandson's birthday by organizing a party at the Marriot Hotel. From the impugned order it is seen that the assessee was asked to explain the source of expenses incurred on the birthday party to which vide letter dated 30.08.2011, it was submitted as under:- As far as function of birthday of grandson of Shri Vijay Aggarwal Marriot Hotel in 2006, the bill is not traceable and to buy peace of mind, the assessee surrenders amount of Rs. 50,000/- subject to no penal action which is the approximate expenditure incurred on that function. On being asked again to explain the source of expenses it was merely submitted that 'it was a small party organized at Marriot Welcome on 07.10.2006 and the expenses on this account were meted out by maternal side of the child and cash gifts received from the guest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not justified. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, we hold that the addition of Rs. 2.50 lacs will meet the ends of justice and in view of the above, ground No.5 in Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed. 12. The 3rd issue raised by the assessee relates to Assessment Year 2010-11 whereby assessee is aggrieved with the confirmation of the addition made by the A.O. on account of 89 liquor bottles found at the residence of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed this addition by holding as under: "4.1 Decision: The assessee's submission has been seen as also the impugned order. The AO has clearly stated that assessee has not clarified which of the liquor bottles were gifted/ purchased nor the source of investment for the latter. Merely stating that the withdrawal were Rs. 20,00,000/- cannot be taken per-se to cover the investment in these liquor bottles in the absence of any sort of corroboration. It was therefore imperative on the part of the assessee to clarify the position so that the Ld AO is able to come to a finding. This has not been done. No doubt the brands of the liquor bottles has not be elucidated but I find that the AO has mentioned t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Year 2010-11 are partly allowed. 16. The rest of the grounds in all the appeals relate to deduction / exemption u/s 24(b) and 80C of the Act which have already been dealt with. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are dismissed whereas, appeals in Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2010-11 are partly allowed. 17. Now, coming to appeal filed by the revenue in I.T.A.No. 609/Del/2013, the revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of Rs. 22 lacs out of cash found at the premises of the assessee. 18. Ld. D.R. submitted that there was no entry recorded in the cash book and assessment order with respect to addition of Rs. 22 lacs was read. It was submitted that Ld. CIT(A)'s order in this regard is cryptic and non speaking. It was further submitted that there was no material to show the adjustment between 01.11.2009 to 06.11.2009. He further argued that assessee vide letter dated 30.11.2010 had submitted that reconciliation of cash book will be filed but there is no evidence as to when reconciliation was filed. So, it was argued that matter should be reverted back to the A.O. for readjudication. 1....