TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 376
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s contained in Annexure A-1 related to M/s.Mahashakti Jewellers and addition had already been made on the basis of these papers in the case of M/s.Mahashakti Jewellers. ii) deleting the addition of Rs. 10000 on account of unexplained deposit in bank account, ignoring the fact that the assessee had not given any explanation about the source of deposit, either before the AO or during the appellate proceedings: iii) allowing relief of Rs. 218000/- out of addition of Rs. 346392/- made on account of undisclosed income from job work, without any basis and without considering the full facts of the case particularly the house hold expenses of the assessee for which the AO did not make any separate addition; iv) holding that the AO was not justified in determining/estimating undisclosed income on account of house hold expenses, while making assessment u/s.158BC(c) of the Act, although such undisclosed income had been determined on the basis of information available with the AO." "That the appellant reserves its right to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal on or before the date the appeal is finally heard for disposal." 2. Briefly stated facts are that a search action u/s.132(1) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de particularly when adverse inference had already been made in the assessment of Sh.Kishanlal Jiyalal Soni Prop. M/s.Mahashakti Jewellers. Appellant is an employee of M/s.Mahashakti Jewellers and the finding of certain papers relating to M/s.Mahshakti Jewellers cannot be said unusual. Moreover absolute inference cannot be drawn u/s.132(4A) particularly when appellant had admitted in clear terms that certain papers in Annexure A-1 relate to the business of M/s.Maheshakti Jewellers. There is no other evidence found as a result of search or brought on record by the AO that such purchase of silver were made by the appellant or for that matter appellant had made payment o Rs. 71,204 for job charges for making silver ornaments or the appellant had earned a sum of Rs. 2,22,355 on such transaction. Accordingly, I hold that the AO was unjustified in making addition of Rs. 11,11,782 on account of investment in purchase of silver, Rs. 71,204 on account of payment of job charges for making silver ornaments and Rs. 2,22,355 on account of profit earned. I, therefore, delete these additions totaling to Rs. 14,05,341. Thus, the appellant will get a relief of Rs. 14,05,341." 4.1. The aforesaid fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O was not justified in determining/estimating undisclosed income on account of household expenses. 9.1. The ld.CIT-DR has supported the order of the AO. The ld.counsel for the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on household expenses as the estimation is outside the purview of the block assessment. 10. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee that the estimation in block assessment is to be made on the basis of the material found during the course of search and any estimation is beyond the purview of the block assessment. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Therefore, this ground of Revenue's appeal is rejected. 11. In the result, Revenue's appeal, i.e. IT(ss)A No.206/Ahd/2013 is dismissed. 12. Now, we take up the Assessee's appeal in IT(ss)A No.208/Ahd/2013 for block assessment period 1987-88 to 1997-98. The assessee has raised the following grounds....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailable on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has given a finding on fact that Smt.Savitridevi, w/o assessee admitted in her primary statement i.e. in the statement before the start of the search that there may be about Rs. 2000 to Rs. 3000 of cash at her residence and there was also cash belonging to her father which was kept at her residence for the treatment who was hospitalized at Ahmedabad after he met with an accident. This finding on fact is not controverted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on record, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, this ground of Revenue's appeal is rejected. 16. Ground No.2 is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 1,06,910/- in respect of unexplained investment in gold ornaments, on the basis of unsubstantiated claim of the assessee without considering the full facts of the case. 16.1. The ld.CIT-DR supported the order of the AO and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. 16.2. On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the ld.CIT(A) has reasonably accept....