TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 1270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ectively. The relevant proceedings are under sec.153A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short 'the Act'. 2. The relevant facts qua ITA No.1047/Mds/2011 are that the assessee is a contractor who filed his return on 4.2.2005 declaring income of G.53,122/-. Thereafter, a search under sec.132 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in short 'the Ac' was carried out by the Department on one Shri R. Viswanathan and other related persons on 23.8.2006 which led to 'search' of the assessee's residential house. During the 'search' some incriminating evidence was allegedly found from the assessee's premises. Thereafter, a notice under sec.153 of the Act was served on the assessee on 21.6.2007. In response, the assessee filed his return of income as follows:- Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....300 7,13,390 13,86,690 Therefore, the Assessing Officer while rejecting the assessee's explanation observed that as per valuation report given by the valuer engaged by the assessee, the cost was determined as G.5,92,960/-, whereas the assessee had shown the same in the assessment year in hand only as G.2,73,474/-. The Assessing Officer found it to be a case of unexplained investment and made addition of the difference amount ie. G.3,19,486/- (5,92,960 - 2,73,474) In this manner, the assessee's income was computed as G.6,20,306/-. 6. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals) wherein the addition towards drawings has been restricted to G.14,000/- only, unexplained cash credit of G.1,10,000 as well as election expenses ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in hand is that the assessee's valuer himself had estimated the construction cost as G.5,92,960/-. In our opinion, that was the construction cost as estimated at the time of preparation of report. Even if the same is accepted, the fact that the construction lasted upto Asst. Year 2007-08 cannot be lost sight of. The record of the case available before us also highlights the fact that the house is coowned by the assessee and his wife. In the case of assessee's wife, the cost of the house has been adopted as G.13,64,864/- and the same amount has been declared by the assessee. In his wife's case, the entire cost of construction stands accepted by co-ordinate Bench as well (Chennai ITAT). Meaning thereby that it stands established that the tota....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs that the assessee had failed to explain the entries. Therefore, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of sec.69(c)of the Act and treated the said payment as' unexplained expenditure'. 13. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals) wherein the addition made by the Assessing Officer qua inadequate drawings has been restricted from 1,51,000/- to G.86,000/-. Regarding the addition of unexplained expenditure, the Assessing Officer's findings have not been confirmed. Similarly, regarding addition towards bogus credit in the name of the assessee's wife and addition of unaccounted payments and loans etc., the assessee's arguments have also been accepted. As far as the addition of G.2,90,000/- (supra) is concerned, the same ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts as under :- "Account for amount given : President of the District ... G. 80,000/- Counselor ... G.1,30,000/- Chairman of Panchayat ... G. 80,000/- I have written the above said account." 18. We observe from the findings of both the authorities below that except the above confirmation only of hand writing, there is no other material to prove that the assessee ha....