TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the act was carried out on 16.9.2009 and subsequent dates in the residential and business premises of various persons belonging to Utsav group. The assessee is one of the persons related to this group. Later, a survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was also conducted at several business premises of the assessee group. The AO has noted in the assessment order that Sri Sambhunath Agrawal (key person of the assessee group) filed a disclosure petition dated 14-11-2009 before the DDIT(Inv) thereby admitting undisclosed income of Rs. 7 ½ crores in the name of the family members which included surrender of Rs. 1 crore in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 by way of "Misc & others". The AO also noted that the statement of undisclosed income placed at schedule-2 of the' disclosure petition was signed by the assessee. However, the assessee did not include the said disclosure of Rs. 1 crore in her return for the relevant assessment year 2010-11. The AO required the assessee to explain as to why the disclosure made by Sri Sambhunath Agrawal on her behalf vide disclosure petition dated 14-11- 2009 was not included in her return. It was explained at the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en considered separately. Secondly, there is no finding of the AO in his assessment order that the cash deposit was unexplained in the hands of the assessee. It was explained at the assessment stage that the ITS data showing cash deposit of Rs. 51 lakhs was factually incorrect in as much as the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 6.50 lakhs only which was duly recorded in the books of account. The AO has not disputed or disproved the contention of the assessee. The AO has made the addition on the ground that he had no time for verifying the contention of the assessee. The AO has also mentioned that introduction of unaccounted money in the guise of loan or gift or capital gain was detected in the cases of the assessee group; but then, the same has been considered separately in the case(s) of the concerned assessees. The issue regarding cash deposit in the bank account or introduction of money in the guise of loan or gift or capital gain is in the way related to the disclosure of Rs. 1 crore in the assessment year 2010-11. 5. The Learned CITA observed in his order that the AO has brought no material on record to show that Sri Sambhunath Agrawal had got any legal sanction or auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the revenue is in appeal before us on the following sole ground:- "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- on account of undisclosed income without appreciating the facts of the case." The assessee has also preferred cross objection by raising the following ground: - "That the CITA has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 51 lakh towards deposit of cash in bank account when no such transaction had actually taken place." 7. The Learned AR relied on the order of the Learned CITA with regard to the addition deleted in the sum of Rs. 1 crore. With regard to the addition sustained in the sum of Rs. 51 lakhs, he argued that there was no cash deposit to the tune of Rs. 51 lacs as stated by the Learned AO which fact was never verified by the lower authorities and the fact of non-verification is also mentioned in the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly he prayed that this fact may kindly be verified by the Learned AO to ascertain the truth and prayed for specific direction to be given in this regard. In response to this, the Learned DR vehemently relied on the order of the Learned AO. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the Assessing Officer during the course of search contained three facts-(i) that he had no undisclosed income, (ii) the assessee had undisclosed income of Rs. 7 lakhs, and (iii) that he had invested Rs. 4 lakhs in stock of M/s. Moolchand Jain and Sons in support of which there was no evidence collected by the Assessing Officer and then deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs in the Bank Account which could not have been if his statement as given at the relevant time is deemed correct, because the assessee also stated that he lent some of the amounts to some persons. Therefore relying on only one such statement given by the assessee in these circumstances where out of three two facts were found to be not correct, then in these facts and circumstances, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to collect more evidence in support of the fact that there was undisclosed income of Rs. 7 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. These reasons had been considered by the CIT(A) as well as by the ITAT and therefore, their findings about the taxable income of the assessee has been given in the facts of the case. (iii) Kailashben Manoharlal Chokshi vs CIT (2010) 328 ITR 411 (Guj) "Held, that the statement....