TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 1036
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition of Rs. 11,500/- of 1/5th of Car and Vehicle expenses against addition of Rs. 14,090/- of 1/4th of car and telephone expenses made by the Assessing Officer. 3. That the Worthy CIT (A) has erred in holding deemed rental value of Shop No. 2 Railway Road, Rajpura @ Rs. 36,000/- P.M. as per para 8 (a) of the order by not considering the fact that the shop is being used as godown for the purpose of business for keeping wooden packing and Misc.items and as an evidence, photograph of the same had filed. 4. That the Worthy CIT (A) has erred in holding the deemed rental value of Residential House at Islampure, Near Rajpura by not considering that the house was in depleted condition and is not in a position to be let out to a tenant as per para 8 (e) of the order and as evidence had filed photograph of the same. 5. That the Worthy CIT (A) has erred in holding deemed rental value of shop at Main Bazar, Mohinder Ganj, Rajpura as per para 8 (f) by not considering the fact that the shop is being used as workshop for repairing certain electric items and also filed photograph of the same. 6. That the Worthy CIT (A) has also erred in holding deemed rental value of 174th share in ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....report of the AO. The provisions of section 153A first proviso expressly provide for reassessment of six assessments preceding the year of search and there is no restriction imposed in the language of the Section to restrict the AO to only issues arising out of documents/assets found/seized during the .course of search operation. Once the search warrant is executed in the case of the assessee, the application of section 153A leading to reopening of six assessment years preceding the year of search becomes automatic. The AO in such a situation would not limit the field of enquiry only to the seized documents/asset and any issue arising even otherwise would be adjudicated. Therefore, the ground of appeal on this issue raised by the appellant is dismissed." 4. We have carefully perused the rival submissions, facts of the case and the relevant provisions of the Act, including the decisions discussed by the CIT(A), in the matter. The AO, has acted in consonance with the provisions of Section 153A of the Act, as observed by the CIT(A). Therefore, this ground of appeal is not legally and factually tenable. Accordingly, findings of the CIT(A), are upheld and Ground No.1 is dismissed. 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not fit for living for human beings, as the house was in a dilapidated condition and no electricity and water conditions were available in that house. 10. In view of the above identical fact-situation, in respect of Ground No.6, the same is allowed, as that house is not in a condition to be used for human beings. 11. In Ground No.5, the assessee contended that CIT(A) erred in upholding the deemed rental value of shop at Main Bazar, Mohinder Ganj, Rajpura, as per para 8(f) of the assessment order, by not considering the fact that the shop is being used as workshop for repairing certain electronic items. The findings of the CIT(A), are contained in para 8 of the appellate order, whereby the addition made by the AO, was upheld, on the ground that no evidence was filed by the assessee regarding use of the property for business purpose. However, in the course of assessment proceedings, assessee has filed such evidence and the CIT(A) sought remand report from the AO. Ld. CIT(A) observed that photographs taken during the current period, cannot be said to be evidence for business use in the past. Such observation of the CIT(A) remained uncorroborated by any evidence brought on reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made sales of Rs. 19,80,230/- upto 2.5.2002. However, M/s Verma Electronic (P) Ltd. did not make any payment to the assessee till 1.5.2002 and later on, payment of Rs. 60,000/- only was made to the assessee. Therefore, above facts prove that the discount allowed to the assessee, neither was cash discount, as the payments were not made within reasonable time, nor it was a trade discount, as the same was to be deducted from the bill itself. The AO, has brought on record that two other parties to whom discount has been given at 0.73% and to M/s Verma Electronics Pvt. Ltd., discount has been given at 12.85%. The assessee submitted that it is the prerogative of the assessee having regard to the business exigencies. The CIT(A), confirmed the impugned disallowance as per the finding given in para 23 of his order, which is reproduced hereunder : "I have considered the basis of disallowance by the AO and arguments of the AR on the issue. The AO has made out a very good case in highlighting the fact of giving disproportionately high percentage of discount to a person defined u/s 40A(2)(b). The assessee made sales of Rs. 8,46,294/- to unrelated parties for which discount @ .73% of the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition of Rs. 60,000/- made on account of salary to technical persons for which no justification was filed by the assessee. 5 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 60,000/- made on account of unexplained loan received from Vipan Kumar (HUF), for which no explanation was given by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. 6 The Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal on or before the appeal is heard and disposed off." 20. In Ground No.1, revenue contended that CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- made on account of unexplained share application money introduced into the capital of the company M/s Verma Electronics Pvt. Ltd. treating the same not made by the assessee but by some other persons. In Ground No.2 revenue contended that CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,90,000/- made on account of unexplained investment by ignoring the fact that the same was not explained by the assessee. 20 (i). In the course of present appellate proceedings, the revenue placed reliance on the order passed by the AO, whereas ld. 'AR' supported th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s regard and it becomes clear that the assessee had given detail explanation regarding the source of share application money and addition made by the AO is without any basis. The addition is therefore directed to be deleted." 20(iii) As the impugned amount has been contributed by the sister of the assessee and the appellant, as per the details furnished above, and requisite evidences have been field by them to explain such share application money, findings of the AO are not based on credible evidences. Therefore, findings of the CIT(A) are upheld. Consequently, Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the revenue, are dismissed. 21. In Ground No.3, revenue contended that CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 3,88,356/- on difference in accounts of M/s Videocon Appliances and M/s Videocon International Ltd. Revenue placed reliance on the order passed by the AO, whereas ld. 'AR' placed reliance on the findings of the CIT(A). 21(i) We have carefully perused the rival submissions, facts of the case and the relevant record. Before CIT(A), it was submitted that the appellant purchases various items from Videocon International Ltd. and such purchases have been recorded in the regular b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....house hold expenses of the assessee are estimated Rs; 2,20,OOO/- per annum except met by others, which are very reasonable and difference Rs. 1,35,882/- (2,20,000-84,118) is added to the income of the assessee." 21(ii) Having regard to the fact-situation of the present case and the reconciliation statement filed before the CIT(A) as well as before the AO, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, the same are upheld and Ground No.3 of the revenue is dismissed. 22. In Ground No.4, revenue contended that CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 60,000/- made on account of salary to technical persons for which no justification was filed. The appellant submitted that during the year under consideration, salary to technical persons was debited under the separate head. Requisite details of the salary and copy of account of salary was filed before the AO. It was, further, contended, that, "we are dealing in electronic items and for providing service to our customers, we had engaged two technical persons who were also engaged during the earlier years. Therefore, the addition made by the AO, is not justified." The appellant also placed reliance on the decisi....