TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 396
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... figures scribbled on loose slips which were found and seized during the course of search, therefore, this ground pertaining to mixed question of law and fact may kindly be taken for adjudication. 3. Ld. Counsel of the assessee objected to the admissibility of additional ground and subsequently, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that in all fairness if it is found just and proper to admit additional ground of the revenue, then the assessee has no serious objection if the same is adjudicated on merits. In view of above submissions of both the parties and on careful perusal of the impugned order, we observe that the additional ground raised by the revenue having mixed essence of law and fact is necessary for proper adjudication of the grievance of the revenue, therefore, the additional ground submitted by the revenue is admitted for adjudication. Appeal of the revenue IT(SS)A No.118/Del/2006 4. The revenue has raised one main ground and one additional ground which read as under:- "The ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,08,000 made on account of cash deposits in Bank on various dates." "The ld. CIT(A) has also erred in deleting the addition o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R further pointed out that the assessee failed to furnish required confirmation and other details and documentary evidence, therefore, the AO was right in holding the same as undisclosed income of the assessee for AY 1999-2000 and 2000-01 respectively. The DR further pointed out that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without any basis, therefore, conclusion of the CIT(A) on ground no. 5 may be set aside by restoring that of the AO on this issue. Replying to the above, ld. AR submitted that the AO did not afford due opportunity of hearing for the assessee and the CIT(A) after considering the explanation, submission and other relevant documentary evidence of the assessee was justified in deleting the addition. 7. On careful consideration of above rival submissions and careful perusal of the impugned order, we find that the CIT(A) in ground no. 5 of the assessee has dealt with this issue on addition of Rs. 6,08,000/-. The operative part of the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition reads as under:- " Now the contention of the appellant is found to be correct. The statement of the bank account which on one hand reveals cash deposits as brought out by the AO in his order for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....withdrawal of funds from the same appears to be longer but as it remains unproved that the funds withdrawn were spent or invested somewhere else, the assessee's explanation will have to be accepted. So far as deposit of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 1,25,000/- on 12.7.2000 is concerned, these are not two independent deposits On perusal of the photocopy of the pass book it is found that the assessee had deposited Rs. 1lakh in cash on 12.7.2000 and funds to the extent of Rs. 30,392/- was already available as old balance. Out of the total credit balance of Rs. 1,30,392/- only, cash of Rs. 1,05,000/- was initially withdrawn. This was for the purpose of preparation of the bank draft and as confirmed by the bank certificate dated 12.7.2000, pay order No. 9243 was prepared on this date i.e. 12.7.2000 for Rs. 1,25,000/-. Since it was got cancelled by the appellant on the same day, credit of Rs. 1,25,000/- was given to appellant's saving account and that is how the deposit of Rs. 1,25,000/- again appeared on 12.7.2000. Thus so far as this subsequent deposit of Rs. 1,25,000/- is concerned, deposit to the extent of Rs. 1,05,000/- at least stands proved. Balance of Rs. 20,000/- is being considere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held "on the intangible additions made in the previous years, the assessee had paid the income tax and possibly penalty for not disclosing it, and if the law permits the assessee to contest addition of this intangible additions for explaining the capital in the subsequent asstt years, the opportunity should be allowed to it in the interest of equity and fair play". Since cash credit to the extent of Rs. 6 lakhs has already been held to be undisclosed income of the appellant as discussed supra, the appellant deserves its credit in respect of subsequent credit entries found in the bank statement. In this view of the matter also addition of Rs. 6,08,000/- was not called for. Accordingly for the reasons discussed above, the same is hereby deleted." 8. On logical analysis of the above conclusion of the CIT(A) in the impugned order, we note that the first appellate authority granted relief for the assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Ram Sanehi Gian Chand (1972) 86 ITR 724 (P&H) wherein it has been held that on the tangible additions made in the previous years, the assessee had paid the income tax and if the law permits the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ips, was rightly treated as undisclosed income of the assessee and there were scribblings which showed various expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,92,817/- and there was no cogent and sustainable explanation from the assessee, therefore, the said amount was also disallowed and added to the undisclosed income of the assessee. Ld. DR vehemently contended that the total addition under the said came to Rs. 12,72,707/- and protective addition was made in the hands of assessee and the same was rightly treated as substantive income in the hands of assessee's wife Smt. Avinash Monga. 11. Ld. DR vehemently contended that the CIT(A) was not justified in granting relief for the assessee as the appellate order in the case of Smt. Avinash Monga has not attained finality and the addition could not be deleted only on this basis. The DR finally prayed that the impugned order may be set aside by restoring that of the AO. 12. Replying to the above, ld. Counsel of the assessee supported the order of the first appellate authority and submitted a copy of the order of ITAT Delhi 'A' Bench in ITA No.389/Del/2005 and C.O. No. 160/Del/2008 in the case of ACIT vs Avinash Monga dated 8.11.2011 and submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame of the assessee. We do not find any error in this action of the ld. CIT(A). The seized slip did not contain any detail of as to what the figures contained therein represented the names mentioned on the slip were only of ladies, leading the CIT(A) to the observation that the amounts represented some sort of contribution like a kitty party. Since the remaining amounts, totalling to Rs. 85,000/- were not relatable to the assessee, the addition to this extent was rightly deleted. 24. Now we turn to the addition of Rs. 12,62,707/-. This figure represents the amounts mentioned in pages 2 to 24 of the seized annexure A-1. As per the ld. CIT(A), some of the seized slips contained narrations that the figures mentioned therein related to the jewellery. The rest of the slip did not contain any such recital. The AO assumed the figures on all the slips to represent the expenditure for purchase of jewellery, even though no jewellery relatable to the added amount was seized in the search operation, the AO concluded that the figures mentioned in the seized slips represented jewellery purchased by the assessee. Pertinently, addition of these amounts was made in the block assessment of not on....