TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 813
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts on vital points in all appeals are common, therefore, for the facility of reference we are taking the facts from Asst. Years 2001-02 and 2005-06 mainly. 2. Brief facts of the cases are that the assessee is an employee with Gujarat Police Department and posted as Sub-Inspector of police at Rajgadh Police Station, Tal. Ghoghamba, Dist. Panchmahal. A search by Anti Corruption Bureau (in short A.C.B.) of the State Government was carried out upon the assessee on 28.03.2005. In consequence of of the search, cash of Rs. 30,43,400/- was found from the residence of the assessee. Besides cash other documents related to cash, F.D.R., KVP, NSC , investment in immovable properties, etc. were found. These investments were alleged to be in the name....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailable on records, the total income of the assessee is computed as under : Rs. Rs. Income from salaries As per statement of income 92,101 Income from other sources 1) Investment in Kisan Vikas Patras as discussed in para-3 1,30,000 2) Investment in Time deposit as discussed in para 5 5,000 1,35,000 Total income determined at 2,27,101/- Rounded off 2,27,101 At this stage it is pertinent to note the observations of ld. Assessing Officer in paragraph no.4 to 7 of the assessment order which read as under :- 4. On the basis of this exercise, notice u/s 148 of the IT Act issued a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pertinent to note that the assessee states of having filed return of income AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06 whereas the investment pertains to AY 2001-02. The explanation offered by the assessee has no merit therefore the investment in KVPs is considered as unexplained u/s 69B of the IT Act. The assessee did not declare the investment of KVPs in his return of income for AY 2001-02 and thus willfully concealed his income within the meaning of explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the IT Act, 1961. 7. The statement of the assessee is not acceptable as the investment was to confirmed with documentary evidence which are not furnished by him and the documents under which the matter is conveyed by him to the ACB is also not produced. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Panchnama of ACB it is noticed that cash were found from four different places of residence of Shri Rathod which is as under :- Rs.10,00,000/- In a cotton bag Rs.2,86,000/- In a plastic kept in brief case Rs.13,57,400/- In a drum kept in the kitchen Rs.4,00,000/- In the maliya of kitchen Rs.30,43,400/- On the strength of the above details the ld. Assessing Officer determined taxable income at Rs. 39,78,720/-. 5. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, assessee went in appeals before CIT(A) but the appeals before ld. first appellate authority did not bring any relief to the assessee. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. Before us. The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- in his possession. It was the case of the prosecuting agency that during the course of investigation, it came to the notice of the department that assessee has made investments in his name as well as in the names of his dependents and the evidences demonstrating the Disproportionate Assets had come to the light. The ld. Special Judge has considered these allegations and acquitted the assessee. On due consideration of the judgment of Special Judge, ACB, particularly paragraph, 57 & 74, we are of the view that before the Court of Special Judge, ACB, assessee has produced evidences demonstrating his position about alleged unaccounted assets. In all assessment years, the income has been computed on the basis of Panchnama and other details col....