TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- 5 Personal expenses : 1,94,000/- 6 Household articles : 2,15,000/- 7 Deposits with Canara Bank : 28,53,778/- 8 Investment in UTI : 1,00,000/- 9 Gift to Master Vivek/Krishnapriya : 1,20,000/- 10 Investment in Tamilarasi : 52,500/- 11 Land at Thanjavur : 2,13,000/- 12 Deposits in Tamilarasi : 2,12,310/- 13 Interest suspense account : 4,23,460/- 14 Unexplained credits a. Capital account : 10,00,000/- b. Apna Finance : 7,80,000/- c. Ashok Mehta : 5,76,000/- d. Omprakash Mehta : 4,16,000/- e. Chandrasekhar & B. Gitanjali : 6,50,000/- 15 Credit Card payments : 3.15,714/- 16 Unproved expenditure : a. Advertisement : 1,60,055/- b.. Electricity charges : 33,794/- c. Travelling and conveyance : 1,20,000/- d. Car Maintenance : 37,471/- e. Preliminary expenses : 8,947/- f. Depreciation disallowed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these are signed by the advocate for the assessee namely Shri. T. Vasudevan. Now the question before us, whether the additional ground filed by the ld. Authorised Representative for assessee is maintainable or not. What are the procedures for filing additional ground was discussed in Rule 29 of Income Tax Rules, which is as follows:- Rule 29:- ''The parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or , if the income tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them or not specified by them, the Tribunal for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced''. Further, whatever rule is applicable for filing the appeal before the Tribunal is also applicable for filing additional grounds. Thus sec. 253(6) of the Act pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Act, 1961 as applicable to the assessee. In this case, an additional ground filed by the ld. Authorised Representative for assessee and it is not by assessee himself. In view of the above provisions laid down by the legislature, whether this additional ground is maintainable or not. We came across judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of P. Kuttikrishna Nair vs. I.T.A.T., Madras and Another, (34 ITR 540). In that case, whether the Tribunal can consider the Miscellaneous Petition suo motu and the Tribunal, in exercise of its own powers, can verify the mistake whether pointed out by the D.R. or on its own. This decision of the jurisdictional High Court pertains to the old Income-tax Act of 1922 where rectification by the Tribunal is provided under section 35 of the old Act and in section 35 of the old Act, it was specifically provided that the words "in like manner" appearing in subsection (2) of section 35 in relation to sub-section (1) of section 35 are not sufficient to apprehend the Authorised Representative of the Income-tax Department. It is noted that the ld. Authorised Representative for assessee have no power to sign any appeals, Co-objections, grounds and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reof ; (cc) in the case of a firm, by the managing partner thereof, or where for any unavoidable reason such managing partner is not able to verify the return, or where there is no managing partner as such, by any partner thereof, not being a minor ; (cd) in the case of a limited liability partnership, by the designated partner thereof, or where for any unavoidable reason such designated partner is not able to verify the return, or where there is no designated partner as such, by any partner thereof. (d) in the case of a local authority, by the principal officer thereof; (dd) in the case of a political party referred to in sub-section (4B) of section 139, by the chief executive officer of such party (whether such chief executive officer is known as secretary or by any other designation) ; (e) in the case of any other association, by any member of the association or the principal officer thereof; and (f) in the case of any other person, by that person or by some person competent to act on his behalf. The procedure for filing of additional grounds is at par with the filing of appeal and the rules framed under ITAT Rules for filing of appeal will also apply to add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of two magazines namely, Tamilarasi, a weekly and Puthiaparvai, a fortnightly. Regular books of accounts are maintained in respect of this business. This business was commenced in the accounting period 1992-93. Prior to that upto 15.11.1988 he was employed with Tamil Nadu Government as Deputy Director, Information department. During the previous year relevant to assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93. It was stated that he did not have any major income earning activity. There was a search in the case of the assessee on 24.09.96 u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. His residence in Kalashetra colony and the business premises at No. 84, TTK Road, were searched. Various documents as per Panchanama drawn up at the time of search were seized in the course of the search. A notice U/s, 158BC dated 04.11.96 was issued to the assessee. Subsequently notices were issued u/s. 142(1) of the Income-tax Act calling for certain particulars. On his request, the assessee was also permitted to take copies of seized materials. Finally on 05.09.97, the assessee filed his return of income in Form No. 2B in compliance with the notice u/s. 158 BC. In the return he admitted a total undisclosed income of E3,80....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing dates viz. 14.12.2012, 07.01.2013, 28.01.2013, 05.02.2013 and 19.02.2013. During the course of hearing before the Assessing Officer the assessee furnished various details on the issue of subscribers' deposits discussed elaborately in para 4 of the block assessment order dated 13.03.1998. The major issue of genuineness of purchase of newsprint was anyway deleted by the High Court as elaborated above. In respect of other issues forming part of the block assessment order, during the course of hearing before the Assessing Officer the assessee informed that since they are all minor issues and that due to lapse of time, there are no further details available. No written submissions were also made in respect of those issues before Assessing Officer. Accordingly, considering the submissions made during the assessment proceedings, the assessment order was passed by Assessing Officer within the three months time limit from the date of receipt of the order by Assessing Officer as directed by the High Court. During the course of this High Court remand proceedings before Assessing Officer, the assessee furnished further details only on the issue of Subscribers' deposit. 4.3 The assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- (13.4.95) 2,10,000 VV4 1,57,700/- (13.4.95) 1,62,500/- (02.6.95) 30,000/- (13.12.95) 3,50,200 VV5 500/- (01.04.95) 500 VV10 3,30,000/-(2.5.95) 1,42,500/- (29.7.95) 1,66,300/-(24.2.96) 2,00,000/-(24.2.96) 8,38,800 17,74,500 3.5 We understand that these subscribers (who have paid deposits from various locations) are sent with the weekly/fortnightly copies of Tamilarasi Puthiaparvai by means of lorries/its own van etc. However, this statement could not be corroborated by any documents and no such despatches appear to have taken place at all. This is in view of our below mentioned findings in respect of despatches of both Tamilarasi ( weekly) and Puthiaparvai (fortnightly) to the Agents/subscribers. Kept and maintained by the publications as to date. i). The publication has been dispatching the magazines both by Rail and Book post (duly evidenced by the Despatch Register/Railway Acknowledgements /Postal expenses for Book Post etc. ii). None of the Vasagar Vattams appear to have been included In the Despatch Summary/Register in evidence of despatches. iii). In the absence of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to have been issued have also not been produced either to the auditor of before the AO. In short assessee does not know the names or have a record of the persons to whom the deposits have been returned. There is no correspondence also in this regard in the nature of request from the depositors for return of the deposits. 4.5 The information collected by the auditor with regard to the dispatch of the magazines to these alleged depositors is also quite revealing. The special auditor has reported that there is absolutely no evidence for dispatch of the magazines to these alleged subscribers. He has enclosed the manuscript copy of the details of the despatches effected in November, 1997. As per this manuscript. 6027 copies have been dispatched but none of it is for the alleged depositors. The details of despatches furnished by the Special auditor are as under: Central : 1853 Egmore : 1785 City Agent : 750 H.B. Stall : 215 Postal : 377 Free copies : 100 Office copies : 50 Subscription & Extra : 896/- 6027/- 1). Since how long....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m to the assessee for the supply of the 2 magazines. Obviously, these letters were filed at the instance of the assessee, since no letters had been addressed to these persons by this office. Again out of these letters a few at random were chosen by the then Assessing Officer for making enquiries. Since the letters have come from various places, like Madurai, Dindugal, Vellore, Palani etc. the local officers of Income Tax Department in these places were requested to make enquiries about the genuineness of the letters and also to ascertain whether such persons were in receipt of the magazines. Here also, the enquiries revealed that these persons in whose names letters were received are not real and genuine depositors. Everyone of them who were contacted by the officers of the department denied having made any deposit. They also denied knowledge about the magazine. Enquiries made at Namakkal revealed that Mr. Chandrasekar who is a lecturer in Ramakrishna Nallammai Industrial Training Institute, had obtained lot of letters signed by students of first year degree courses in his college. But none of the students had made any deposit. The names and addresses of the persons with whom such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....letters were returned 'unserved'. Annexure II contains names of the persons where deposits were denied. Annexure III contains a mix of both types, namely where the letters could not be served and where the deposits were denied. In the remand proceedings, the assessee contended that letters sent to many cases were returned 'unserved' because of incomplete address and also due to the fact that many of them have shifted their residences. During the course of hearings on different dates before Assessing Officer, the assessee filed the present address of some of these persons. He also filed affidavits from these persons to the effect that they have indeed subscribed to the two magazines by depositing life-term membership fee of E2,500/-. The assessee also filed the Id. proof and the address proof of these persons. After these were filed by the assessee, vide our letter dated 12.02.2013 before Assessing Officer, the assessee was directed to produce all the persons mentioned in his earlier letters, for personal examination by the undersigned on 19.02.2013. The assessee also produced 9 persons. The details of the persons produced are as under: PERSONS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19.02.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as admitted that he has taken copy of application of subscriber deposit in respect of more than 1000 persons from the seized materials. In spite of such a huge number, the assessee could produce for personal verification only 9 of them and the current address was furnished only in respect of these miniscule number of persons only. The whole exercise shows that even though enough time was given to the assessee to produce anyone out of the 6000 odd persons for personal examination, the ground reality is that the assessee could produce only 9 persons now out of which also only 6 have confirmed. Under the circumstances, after going through the records, on examining the details filed by the assessee and also taking into account the elaborate findings of the earlier Assessing Officer, as extracted in paragraph 4(k) above, the Assessing Officer was satisfied that the assessee is not able to give proper explanation in respect of deposits lying in his account and the source for the same are not satisfactorily explained an since the provisions of sec. 68 is very clear that it is for the assessee to offer satisfactory explanation in respect of credits found in books and as elaborated above si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat there is no scope or estimated additions and disallowances. Having accepted the scheme in it was pertinent to note that the Tribunal in ITA Nos.1130/Mds/2003, 1151-1154/Mds/2002, dated 30.11.2007 had considered a similar deposit in a group case and accepted the claim of the assessee. Hence, it was submitted that there was no basis for the Assessing Officer to hold that 85% of the subscribers deposits were not genuine on an estimated basis and having accepted the bonafide of the deposit scheme run by the assessee, no part of the amount of deposits can be subject to addition as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee. 5.1. The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. 5.2 We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, the assessee said to have collected the impugned deposits from 6000 persons. The Assessing Officer gave ample of opportunity to get confirmation from the parties from whom the deposits were collected. Out of 6000 persons only 14 of them have given confirmation saying that they have given deposit. Hence the Assessing Officer considered 15% deposit as genuine and the balance he consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d income of the assessee . 6.1 The facts of the assessee are that for the year ended 31.3.1995, the asessee's account for purchase of newsprint debited the account of Capital Market with a sum of E7.5 lakhs on 21.7.1994. In the subsequent year, on 26.08.1995, the assessee's account for purchase of newsprint has been credited by (E7,50,000/-) towards News Print return by Capital Market. Enquiries were made with capital market regarding this transaction. In their letter Dated 25.2.98 M/s. Capital Market while confirming the delivery of newsprint to the assessee on 21.7.94 denied having received back the news print on 26.8.95. As per entries made in their books of accounts of the assessee along with their letter M/s. Capital Market had sent to the Assessing Officer copies of their letters dated 17.11.95, 15.12.95 and 28.2.96 addressed to Tamilarasi Publication. Of these letters the last two were addressed to the assessee personally. In these letters M/s. Capital Market has made clear that they have not received hack the news print or its cash equivalent of E7.5 lakhs. In their letter dated 25.02.1998 they have categorically stated that they have never got back either 24.5tons of ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the agreement or consent from the other party. In this case if the claim regarding return of the papers is not correct, the assessee has gained a benefit u/s.28(iv). The AO have concluded that the claim of return of paper in my view is not genuine. Hence the sum of E7,50,000/- is to be and is being included as assessee's undisclosed income contained in section 158 B(b), even though the return of income was not due as on the date of search for this assessment year, never the less the. income of E7,50,000/- is assessable as undisclosed income. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6.2 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer unilaterally relied on the version of capital market. Whereas, one, Raju had acted as the medium through which the newsprint was returned and he had also filed a confirmations letter dated 26.08.1995 from Raju. Statement of Raju was rejected without even examining him. No case for addition in assessee's hands and no benefit had accrued to assessee u/s.28(iv) as stated by the Assessing Officer. 6.3 The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. 6.4. We have heard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessing Officer included the sum as the undisclosed income of the assessee for the assessment year 1996-97 in the light of the definition of undisclosed income contained in section 158B(b) of the Act. No particular argument was advanced in his regard at the time of hearing. Order was contested on the ground of opportunity. Having heard both the parties and after perusing the records, we uphold the order of the Assessing Officer on this count. Being so, there is no change of circumstances to take different view. Accordingly, we confirm the addition made in this issue. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is rejected. 7. The next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to E1,50,000/- as advance paid to Mr. Vivek which was treated as undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer. 7.1 The facts of the case are that the assessee advanced E1,50,000/- to Vivek for which the source has not been explained. Hence, the Assessing Officer treated the assessee as undisclosed income. 7.2 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that considerable agricultural income for the family has been explained earlier available for expenses apart from other receipts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer to give due credit to the tune of E1,65,000/- only. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 9. The next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to E5,19,000/-being the difference in cost of construction which was treated as undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer. 9.1 The facts of the case are that during the year of account assessee has practically completed the constructions of a building in Parisutham Nagar. Tanjore. For its Construction assessee has debited an amount of E26.50 lakhs during 31.3.95 and E18.25 lakhs during the year ended 31.3.96. No books of accounts are maintained by the assessee in respect of the house construction. For the purpose of evaluating the cost. of construction of this property, a reference was made to the Valuation officer of the Department. The Valuation officer in his report has estimated the cost of construction at E49.94 lakhs. Thus between the value estimated by the Valuation officer and the cost admitted there is a difference of E5.19 lakhs, The assessee was asked to offer his explanation for the difference in this respect vide this office letter dated 04-03-98. A letter was filed by the assessee's repres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... construction and the DVO report which is less than 10.4% and there is no seized material reflecting this addition. Being so, we are inclined to delete the addition. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 10. The next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to E1,94,000/-being the personal expenses which was treated as undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer. 10.1 The facts of the case are that the assessee did not file return of income for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. However as per block return in form No.2B he had admitted an income of E21,000/-, 16,000/- and E19,000/- after deduction u/s 80L of E7,000/- for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively. The assessee was specifically asked as to how he was meeting his personal expenses, since with effect from 15.11.88, the assessee had resigned his job with the Government of Tamilnadu and he had no ostensible source of income. The query stands not answered before the Assessing Officer inspite of giving a number of opportunities to do so. The gross income of E21,000/-, admitted by the assessee in the block return represents interest on fixed deposits with Canara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... : 2 Nos. 7. General Split A/c : 1 No. 8. General A.c -1 ½ ton : 1 No. 9. Fax machine : 1 No. The department vide letter dated 02.07.1997, the assessee was asked to explain the source of acquisition of the above assets. The assessee stated that the machine is the part of the business assets in Tamilarasi Publication. The cash flow statement promised to be filed by the assessee has not been field before Assessing Officer. Hence, the estimated value of these items of household articles is included as the undisclosed income of the assessee by Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1997-98 comprised in the block period. Estimated Value Rs 1. Soni Colour TV26 : 1No. 30,000/- 2. Soni Colour TV24 : 1No. 25,000/- 3. Soni Colour TV18 : 1No. 20,000/- 4. Pioneer Audio Set : 1 No. 20,000/- 5. CD-CDS Laser jet : 1 No. 20,000/- 6. National AC 1 Ton : 2 Nos. 30,000/- 7. General Split A/c : 1 No. 50,000/- 8. General A.c -1 ½ ton : 1 No. 20,000/- Total 2,15,000/- Thus Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... alc E2,73,795/-, 1,90,578/-, 14,08,862/-, 1,22,843/-, 11,00,700/- and E7,47,000/-. But none of these confirmation letters are possible for verification. Hence this explanation are rejected by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer treated E28,53,778/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 12.2 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that the assessee has shown drawings in the cash flow statement as well as the years in which the regular returns were filed. Further, source for the personal expenses is traceable in the cash flow statement filed by the assessee. The reason given by the Assessing Officer to discredit the cash flow statement is arbitrary and merely based on surmises. No independent enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer to falsify the source for the investments given in the cash flow. A mere summary rejection of it cannot be a ground to hold that the amount invested is the undisclosed investment of the assessee. Further, the loans were supported by confirmation letters which were rejected without any examination. 12.3 The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Assessing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement filed. The reason given by the Assessing Officer to discredit the cash flow statement is arbitrary and merely based on surmises. No independent enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer to falsify the source for the investments given in the cash flow. A mere summary rejection of it cannot be a ground to hold that the amount invested is the undisclosed investment of the assessee. 14.3 The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. 14.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. These gifts are reflected in the cash flow statement for the financial year ending 31.03.1992 for E20,000/-, 31.03.1993 for E20,000/-. 31.3.1994 for E25,000/-, 31.03.1995 for E25,000/- and 31.03.1996 for E30,000/-, totaling to E1,20,000/-. Being so, we find that the assessee has explained this expenditure and accordingly, this addition is deleted. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 15. The next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to investment in Tamilarasi for E52,500/- which was treated as undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1992-93 15.1 The facts of the issue are that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as explained the investments. This ground of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. 17. The next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to deposit in Tamilarasi for E2,12,310/- which was treated as undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1993-94. 17.1 The facts of the case are that the assessee's capital account is credited with a sum of E2,12,310/- and the source for which was not explained by the assessee inspite of asking for the same. Hence, the Assessing Officer treated E2,12,310/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 17.2 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that the explanation was already given regarding source available in the cash flow statement The reson given by the Assessing Officer to discredit the cash flow statement is arbitrary and merely based on surmises. 17.3 The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. 17.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. An amount of E2,12,000/- was reflected in the cash flow as on 31.03.1993. Being so, the addition cannot be made. Hence, we delete th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee. Further, the Special Auditor has reported credits of E7,80,000/-, E5,70,000/- and E4,16,050/- in the Apna Finance, Ashok Mehta & Company and Om Prakash Mehta, and the assessee has not furnished the address of the parties. The department vide letter dated 25.02.1998, the assessee was informed that in case the assessee wished to prove the genuineness of these credits, they should produce books of accounts, bank accounts etc., supporting the transaction. The assessee ought to have complied with these by 02.03.1998. However, at a very late stage namely on 9.3.1998 assessee filed certain confirmation letters from these parties. However, the assessee has not produced the books of accounts, bank accounts etc.,. Hence, the Assessing Officer treated E7,80,000/-, E5,76,000/- and E 4,16,000/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. Further, in Tamilarsari publication account is credited with E5,00,000/- in the name of S.N. Chandrasekaran and E1,50,000/- in the name of Ms. Geethanjali. Earlier, there were debit balance against these names for identical amounts. At a later stage on 9.3.1998, the assessee field a letter alongwith with confirmation letters from S.N. Chandrasekaran and Ms. G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 The facts of the case are that the assessee paid an payment of E17,766/-for the assessment year 1994-95, E,78,634/- for the assessment year 1995-96 and E24,314/- for the assessment year 1996-97. The assessee has not produced source of income for payment of E17,766/- and E24,314/- Hence, the Assessing Officer treated the amount as undisclosed income of the assessee. The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee vide letter dated 7.3.1998 has furnished the source of income for E2,78,634/- in respect of the credit card with American Express. Of this one payment on 23.03.1995 of US $5642.00 was claimed to have been made by Mr.Thomas Yip of Hongkong in connection with some hospital expenses incurred by the assessee in London on his behalf. Except for a copy of letter dated 28.4.1995 from the said Mr. Thomas Yip addressed to the assessee no proof has been furnished in the respect. The letter of Thomas Yip was not produced it till 09.03.1998 when the matter regarding payments to credit cards was brought to the notice for explanation on 02.07.1997 itself. As regards merits, as per the letter of Mr. Thomas Yip, who is from Hongkong, allegedly fell ill suddenly in London and the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ained. Being so, this addition is sustained. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is rejected. 21. The next ground raised by the assessee for the following unproved expenditures:- a) Advertisement 1,60,055/- b) Electricity charges 33,794/- c) Travelling & Conveyance 1,20,000/- d) Car Maintenance 37,474/- e) Preliminary expenses 8,947/- f) Dep. Disallowed 4,60,000/- h) Disallowance u/s.40A(3) 1,33,365/- i) Scan Tech u/s.41(1) 67,055/- 21.1 With regard to advertisement expenses to the tune of E1,60,055/- which was treated as undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has debited a sum of E16,77,646/- by way of Administrative expenses. The auditor in his special Audit report has stated that the following items are not supported by bills/ vouchers (a) Moulis Advertising : Rs.2,00,000/- (b) C.C. Display : Rs.45,000/- (c) Advertisement exp. Display : Rs.18,000/- (d) Moulis Advertising : Rs.2,26,341/- (e) 2 publications : Rs.3,00,000/- (f) C C Display expenses : Rs.45,000/- (g) Dhina Than....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer, the facts of the case are that the assessee debited a sum of E68,256/-E52,399/- E22,240/-, by way of Car Maintenance, one fourth of this expenditure was treated as personal in nature i.e E17,064/- E14850/- and E 5560/- totalling E37,474/-. The Assessing Officer treated E37,474/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. 21.5 With regard to Preliminary expenses of E8,947/- which was treated as undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer, the facts of the case are that the assessee debited E8,947/- as preliminary expenses. By its very description the Assessing Officer considered the amount has not allowable. So, he treated E8,947/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. 21.6 With regard to depreciation disallowed to the tune of E4,60,000/-which was treated as undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer, the facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed depreciation of E30,26,551/-. One of the machineries viz WEB offset press model mark 62 is purchased for E48,40,956/-. Out of this consideration the assessee has not paid a sum of E2,06,794/- . During the course of discussion with the ld. Authorised Representative for assessee it transpired that this liability is not pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these expenditures are reflected in the regular books of accounts in M/s. Tamilarasi Publications, if it is actually reflected in the regular books of accounts of M/s. Tamilarasi Publications the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee.These facts required to be examined by the Assessing Officer. Hence, these grounds are remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. This grounds of the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to investment in jewellery to the tune of E2,00,00/- which was treated as undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer. 22.1 The facts of the case are that the assessee stated that he owns jewellery worth of E2,00,000/- as on 31.12.1995. The department vide letter dated 02.07.1997 directed the assessee to furnish a list of jewels owned by him together with his explanation regarding the source of its acquisition. However, the assessee has not furnished the details till date. Hence, the Assessing Officer treated E2,00,000/- as unexplained investment of the assessee for the year ending 31.03.1996 and accordingly assessed the investm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent year 1992-93, the assessee undertook foreign trips i.e from 1.4.91 to 18.04.91, i.e 18 days. The expenses in this regard is estimated at the rate of E5,000/- per day and ticket charged is estimated at E10,000/-. The expenses at to USA and Singapore from 9.8.91 to 27.09.91 for 50 days and 1.10.91 to 12.10.1991 to Zurich, Dubai and Singapore 12days. The Assessing Officer estimated the expense for 62 days at 5,000 per days, the expense comes to E3,10,000/- and the cost of ticket for two trips is taken at E2,00,000/-. The total foreign tour expenses taken at E6,10,000/-. The assessee undertook foreign trips to Frankfurt, London from 23.04.1992 for 09 days and to Singapore from 23.05.92 for 5 days, Singapore and Malaysia from 13.11.92 for 16 days. The Assessing Officer estimated the expense for 30 days at 5,000 per days, the expense comes to E1,50,000/- and the cost of ticket for three trips is taken at E4,00,000/-. The total foreign tour expenses taken at E6,10,000/-. For the assessment years 1993-94, the assessee's total foreign tour expenses is E5,50,000/- , for the assessment years 1995-96, the assessee's total foreign tour expenses is E7,52,000/- and for the assessment years 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1.80 1.80 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.01 income -family Agricultural 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 income- lease Interest from 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.23 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.26 0.17 0.08 Banks Receipt from 5.22 1.00 29.55 26.58 2.50 Tamilarasi Loans & adv. 0.30 1.70 0.20 Refunded Dividend-UTI Received from N. Sasikala 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 2.50 Canara bank 0.87 deposit maturity Land advance 1.50 1.60 2.90 1.50 10.00 refund Salary income 0.48 0.50 0.33 Rent received 0.12 0.12 0.18 Unsecured 2.00 loans LIC Policy 1.47 Total 2.44 2.78 2.69 2.66 4.18 4.70 15.18 4.08 34.76 41.33 4.06 Receipts PAYMENTS Particulars 31.3.87 31.3.88 31.3.89 31.3.90 Units in UTI 31.3.91 31.3.92 31.3.93 1.00 31.3.94 31.3.95 31.3.96 30.9.96 Ind Jothi Indian 0.10 bank Travelling 0.20 0.80 0.80 1.10 1.00 Expensess LIP paid & PF 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.46 0.14 ....