AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich was acknowledged, by the assessee on 11.03.2000. The assessee filed the return of income for the block assessment, in Form No.2B on 24.04.2000, disclosing 'Nil' income. Block assessment was taken up for scrutiny, by issuing a notice under Section 158 BC(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 12.12.2001. Assessee's explanation and details were sought for, along with a notice under Section 142(1) and 131 of the Act. A reply dated 18.12.2001 was submitted. After considering the books of accounts and other materials, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 28.12.2001, for the assessment year 1990 - 1991 to 2000 - 2001, arrived at the undisclosed income for the block period, as Rs. 38,59,700/- and assessed the same at 60%, under Section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with an addition of 10%, on the tax, towards surcharge. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (i/c.) Central Circle I, Trichy, the Assessing Officer, arrived at the total tax payable, as Rs. 25,26,180/- Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal in I.T.A.No.270/2001-2002, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Central II, Chennai. The assessee raised 14 grounds. The appellate authority regrouped th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....luation report Rs.2,99,700 Less: Rebate on self-supervision @ 7.5% on Rs. 2,99,700 Rs. 22,478 Rs.2,77,222 Less: Further allowance on account of adoption high rates in the valuation report @ 7.5% on Rs. 2,99,700/- Rs. 22,478 Rs.2,54,744 7. The fifth issue relates to addition of Rs. 3,00,000/-, towards inadequate drawings. The appellant family consists of himself, his wife, three sons and two daughters-in-law and two grandchildren. Before the appellate authority, attention has been invited that the appellant had originally offered only Rs. 2,00,000/- in his statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified, in adding Rs. 3,00,000/- on this account. Therefore, submission has been made before the appellate authority that the appellant ought to have been given the relief, to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Accepting the said plea, as reasonable, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), vide order dated 05.07.2002, has directed the Assessing Officer, to substitute the figure of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards insufficiency in drawing for domestic expenses. 8. As re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence found, during the course of the search operation and by observing that the statement of the Assessee recorded on 03.01.2000 under Section 132(4) of the Act, 1961 does not throw any light on the aspect of payment of the money, for the purchase of property and in the light of the provision, Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that such statement recorded, cannot be relied on, by making it referable, at the hands of the Assessee, the Tribunal has held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has rightly deleted addition of Rs. 31,00,000/- and thus, dismissed the case of the Revenue. 12. On the aspect of addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the Tribunal held that, in the absence of any material found during the course of search operation, and whereas, the power of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) though co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer, cannot be extended to make any addition, towards the undisclosed income and accordingly, held that the Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) is not justified, in sustaining addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-. So saying, the Tribunal, has deleted Rs. 5,00,000/-, under the head undisclosed income. 13. Coming to the cost of construction, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son of the assessee, dated 29.12.1999, not corroborated with any documentary evidence, cannot be relied upon, for making any addition, in the hands of the assessee. 15. Before the Tribunal, Revenue has contended that the Assessing Officer has rightly made an addition of Rs. 86,000/- being the value of 215 grams of gold jewellery, found to be the excess stock, during the course of search operation. According to the Revenue, the excess stock was nearly 2% of the total stock available with the assessee and therefore, it cannot be ignored at all. Revenue has also contended that when the Assessing Officer had already considered 410 grams of jewellery, said to have been received for repair, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought not have held 215 grams of gold jewellery found to be in excess, during the course of search operation, as negligible. 16. On this issue, let us consider, as to how the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the appellate authority, has addressed this issue, which are detailed, as hereunder. " 4.0 This issue has been dealt with by the Assessing Officer in para 7.1 to 7.5 of the assessment order. During the course of the search in the busines....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition or deletion, only to the extent of Rs. 86,000/-. So saying, the Tribunal held that there was no infirmity, in the order of the appellate authority, as regards deletion of Rs. 86,000/-. 18. Perusal of the Memorandum of Grounds in the instant appeals, shows that there is no specific ground, relating to deletion of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards, inadequate drawings. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Tiruchirappalli has sought for an answer under section 260A on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the addition of Rs. 31 lakhs made with respect to on money payment by the assessee for the purchase of property cannot be sustained on the ground the said addition was made based on the statements recorded during the search from the assessee and his son and seller of the property. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in not holding that the above said statements recorded at the time of search from the purchaser of the property is to be treated a corroborative evidence in support of the admission made by the assessee and his s....