TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 692
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... while himself acknowledging in the appellate order "the figures and notings in various slips were indicative of the cost of gold, the labour charges and sales tax leviable etc." 3. The CIT(A) has erred on facts and law in deleting the addition of Rs. 91,770/- on account of an unexplained investment without appreciating the fact that the paper containing the expenses was found from the premises of the assessee during the course of search and seizure operation and the onus cast upon the assessee in terms of section 132(4A) was not discharged. 4. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 91,770/- without considering the fact that entry of Rs. 2100/- pertains to school fees and also in correlating that the expenditure have been made by Urja Gas Company. 5. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 4 lakhs on account of unexplained investment without considering the statement of affairs filed by the assessee where no loan from Satvanti Monga is reflected. 6. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 34,631/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has fai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh Monga, vide warrant of authorization dated 22.4.2002, in the case of Shri Suresh Monga and Shri Tarun Monga, at M-103, Greater Kailash II, New Delhi. No valuable articles/cash/jewellery/documents/bullion were seized, since they were apparently found to be within the prescribed limits. However, some loose slips of torn papers containing scribblings were found and seized. Block return was filed declaring nil undisclosed income. The AO assessed the income at Rs. 34,79,087/-, vide block assessment order dated 30.4.04. 7. As per the block assessment order, a search and seizure operation was carried out on 26.4.02, on Kishorilal Joginderlal group of cases, Kanpur; that as a part of that search, a search was also conducted at the business and residential premises and the lockers of the in-laws of Shri Manish Bhatia and Shri Kunal Bhatia. The assessee, Smt.Avinash Monga is a member of the family in-laws of Shri Kunal Bhatia, son of Kishori Lal Bhatia. Suresh Monga is the husband of the assessee. 8. The AO observed that the assessee was a school teacher, regularly filing her Income Tax return and declaring income from salary, house property and other sources; that in the seized doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 12,72,707/- and Rs. 91,770/-; that while doing so, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to take into account the fact that the slips containing the entries were found from the premises of the assessee during the search and seizure operation; that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider that the assessee had miserably failed to discharge the onus cast upon her u/s 132(4A) of the Act with regard to the seized documents; that though the ld. CIT(A) has himself acknowledged in the impugned order that the figures and the notings in various slips were indicative of the cost of gold, labour charges and sales tax leviable, etc. the ld. CIT(A) has still gone on to delete the additions correctly made; and that apropos the addition of Rs. 91,770/-, the ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the fact that the entry of Rs. 2100/- pertained to school fee and also in co-relating that the expenditure was made by Urja Gas Company. 15. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has strongly supported the impugned order. It has been submitted that the assessee lady is a retired school teacher having pension income besides income from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uests, as had also been stated by her husband, Shri Suresh Monga, in his statement; that the jewellery found in the house had been purchased out of the assessee's own sources, or gifts from relatives, as also stated by the assessee's husband, Shri Suresh Monga, in response to question No. 37, in his statement; that the jewellery was stridhan of the assessee, received at the time of her marriage and on other occasions, as also stated by Suresh Monga; and that the ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted both the additions wrongly made. 16. We have heard the rival contentions on this issue and have perused the material on record with regard thereto. 17. The amounts, as below, were added by the AO, total amounting to Rs. 12,72,707/-, and forming the basis of ground Nos. 1&2:- Annexure Amount Figure/s Remarks A-1 Page No. Assumed as undisclosed income in the asstt. order u/s 158 BC appearing/scribbling on the loose slips/torn pieces of paper 1. (Rs. 95,000) Rs. 95,000 Aggregate of following has been added to undisclosed income. Renu Khanna 5,000 Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribbled above on loose slips, purpose, nature date/period not known, no address, no signature. 10. 31,700 31.700 The person who has scribbled above on loose slips, purpose, nature date/period not known, no address, no signature. 11. 28,600 28.600 The person who has scribbled above on loose slips, purpose, nature date/period not known, no address, no signature. 12. 5,000 5,000 Rough estimate only, no address, not known who has scribbled the figures whether sale or purchase, not corroborated. 13. 1,10,517 1,105.17 i) The person who has scribbled above on loose slips, purpose, nature date/period not known, no address, no signature. ii) The figure of 1105.17 has been read as Rs. 1,10,517 for adding to undisclosed income. 14. 49,00t0+ 22,000+ 63,950+ 28,000 49,000 22,000 63,950 28,000 The person who has scribbled above on loose slips, purpose, nature date/period not known, no address, no signature. 15. 25,500+ 38,000 25,500 38,000 Rough estimate only. No address, not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 12,62,707/- by observing that the slip at page-1 of annexure- 1 showed various figures, totalling to Rs. 95,000/-; that this slip contained the name of Smt. Monga, with "10,000/-" written against her name; that the slip did not contain any detail of the nature of the figures; that there was no indication as to the purpose of the entry, what to talk of any mention of the amount having been utilized for investment in jewellery; that in any case, it could not be presumed that the entire amount had been spent for jewellery purchases, as observed by the AO; that in all likelihood, the amounts against the various names, who all happened to be ladies who represented various contributions towards a common activity, like a kitty party, in which the share of the assessee was only Rs. 10,000/-; that in the other slips, there was nothing to relate them to the assessee; that since the assessee failed to disclose the source of Rs. 10,000/- mentioned against her name in slip No.1, the addition to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- only was being confirmed. 21. While deleting the addition relating to the entries on the other heads, the ld. CIT(A) observed that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....707/-, this figure represented the total of the figures appearing on pages 1 to 22 of the seized annexure A-1. Out of these, page 1 of Annexure A-1 contained various figures, total amounting to Rs. 95,000/-. This slip contained the name of Smt. Monga, with "10,000" written against her name. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition to this amount of Rs. 10,000/-, which was mentioned against the name 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to Rs. 4 lakhs and housing loan from Central Bank of India, amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/-. 29. As per the AO, the sale deed of property No. M-103, Greater Kailash- I, Delhi, was seized as annexure-III, page 54. The sale deed was between the seller, S.N. Oberoi and the purchaser, the assessee. It was executed on 5.2.99, at a consideration of Rs. 18 lakhs. Since the purchase of the house by the assessee had been done in F.Y. 98-99, it was within the block period. The assessee was asked to explain the source of the purchase of the property. The assessee submitted that she had bought the first floor of the property for Rs. 18 lakhs, vide registration deed dated 5.2.99 and had paid stamp duty also, amounting to Rs. 1,44,000/-; and that this had been shown appropriately in the statement of affairs for the year ending 11.3.00, relevant to assessment year 2000-01, filed by the assessee along with the Income Tax return for that year; that the source of acquiring the said property was loan from bank, sale of Gurgaon plot of the assessee and past saving of retirement funds available with the assessee. The AO asked the assessee to file the source of the investment made in the property pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee, the AO had admitted that the loan from Smt. Satwanti Monga had been repaid; that it was seen that the assessee had purchased the property for Rs. 18,00,000/-, vide registration deed dated 5.2.99 and had paid stamp duty of Rs. 1,44,000/-; that this had been shown in the return of income and the statement of affairs filed with the Department, for assessment year 2000-01; that the source of acquiring the property was sale of HUDA(Gurgaon) plot for Rs. 4,50,000/- from bank account of Smt. Satwanti Monga and housing loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Central Bank of India, total amounting to Rs. 18,50,000/-; that the purchase of the property was admittedly declared in the regular returns filed by the assessee; that the AO had also not denied that the payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- had been made from the bank account of Smt. Satwanti Monga, mother-inlaw of the assessee, which was repaid to Smt. Satwanti Monga; and that at best, it was an accommodation loan to the assessee by her mother-in-law, Smt. Satwanti Monga. 32. In this regard, the ld. DR has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment; that while do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... return of the earlier year, it was not clear as to which FDR had been disclosed; that on further query, no specific reply had been given by the assessee. It was therefore that the AO treated the FDR as undisclosed investment and added the amount of Rs. 34,631/- u/s 69 A of the Act, for assessment year 99-00. 38. The ld. CIT(A) having deleted this addition, ground No.6 has been raised by the Department. 39. The ld. DR has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 34,631/-; and that while doing so, the ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee had failed to explain the investment in the FDR. 40. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has, once again, placed strong reliance on the impugned order. Attention has been drawn to the copy of the concerned FDR as placed in the assessee's paper book. It has been contended that the FDR was held in the joint names of Smt. K.Chawla, the sister-in-law of the assessee and the assessee; that the FDR was held in the joint names only for the sake of convenience; and that the assessee was only the second holder thereof. 41. In the assessment order, the AO's objection was that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....various credit and debit entries of substantial amounts, ranging from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 9,29,646/- were existing. The AO entertained a doubt that the assessee, who was a salaried employee, could not have credit entries of such high value. The AO repeatedly asked the assessee to furnish copy of bank statement along with the narration of credit and debit. This was, however, not done and only bits and pieces - one or two entries were explained. As such, the AO asked the assessee to explain the credit and debit entries above Rs. 10,000/- in all the bank accounts held by the assessee, either individually, or jointly to show cause, if no satisfactory explanation was offered, as to why the same be not treated as unexplained cash credit and added the assessee's income for the block period. The assessee, vide reply dated 28.4.04, gave detail only of credit entries of account No. 11223. However, no explanation was given with regard to the credit and debit entries of bank account No. 16488 and bank account No.9994, in which two accounts, the credit and debit entries were of very high value as per the AO and appeared prima facie unexplained. 45. As such, the AO calculated the peak credit bal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t:- A/c No. 9994 - Avinash Monga/Suresh Monga: 09.11.00 500000 From CBI, loan 07.10.98 175000 Security from the tenant 11.11.01 200000 No such entry exist in the A/c. 25.11.99 99600 Received from Bright Chit Fund 29.11.99 88350 Received from Bright Chit Fund 29.11.99 55563 Received FDR encashed 02.12.99 75300 Received from Bright Chit Fund 02.12.99 55563 FDR encashed 03.12.99 200000 Transfer from A/c No. 16488 27.12.99 175000 Security from Vinesh Kochar towards rent. 49. The ld. CIT(A) observed that a bare look at the entries made clear that they were in the normal course of maintaining a bank account; that even so, the assessee had explained the credit entries in the account at the time of hearing, which had not been considered by the AO; and that these accounts had been adequately and properly declared in the returns filed by the assessee over the years. The ld. CIT(A) observed that as such, they could not be considered as undisclosed. 50. The ld. DR has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,05,986/- being credit entries in Bank Account ....