AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found. This information along with the list of seized articles and documents were sent to the Income Tax Department. 3.1. The wife of the assessee, Smt. Kajal Ghosh, is a Doctor in medicine and is an employee of the Government of West Bengal. She is an assessee having her own independent sources of income. The assets found were KVP's, some of which stood in the name of Dr. Smt. Kajal Ghosh, the wife of the assessee. One of the KVPs stood in the name of the father-in-law of the assessee, Shri P K Naug, who was drawing pension and some other KVPs were in the joint names of Sri Sudipto Ghosh, the assessee and Smt. Kajal Ghosh. Assets were also found in the name of the mother-in-law of the assessee, Smt. A. Naug, wife of Shri P K Naug, as well as in the name of his major son, Shri Abhishek Ghosh and Shri Anirban Ghosh, who was then a minor. The Assessing Officer in his order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, records that the assessee admitted that certain assets belonged to him and that the other assets do not belong to hm. Asset wise information were furnished to the Assessing Officer. Smt. Kajal Ghosh stated on oath that the assets which stood in her name belonged to her and was acqui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relied on the following case-law:- * Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.S.P., Chennai vs. K. Inbasagaran, Appeal (crl.) 480 of 2002, Judgement dt. 07/12/2015. * Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, CIT vs. Smt. Sadhna Devi, Varanasi, Income Tax Reference No. 196 of 1991 * Hon'ble Supreme Court, Krishnanand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1977 SC 796 * Allahabad High Court, Prakash Narain vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax: 1982 134 ITR 364 4.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a paper book enclosing therewith the assessment orders passed in the case of Dr. Smt. Kajal Ghosh and submitted that the assets in question and the income thereon, were assessed in the hands of Smt. Kajal Ghosh and argued that the same cannot be assessed once again in the hands of the assessee, as it would be a case of taxing the same income twice. It was further submitted that the same additions made in the assessments of the assessee were also made in the case of Smt. Kajal Ghosh, by the Assessing Officer and under those circumstances, the very same amount cannot be added in the hands of the assessee. 4.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee took the bench through eac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of benami is the intention of the party or parties concerned ; and not unoften such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus that rest on him ; nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises, as a substitute for proof. The reason is that a deed is a solemn document prepared and executed after considerable deliberation, and the person expressly shown as the purchaser or transferee in the deed, starts with the initial presumption in his favour that the apparent state of affairs is the real state of affairs. Though the question, whether a particular sale is benami or not, is largely one of fact, and for determining this question, no absolute formulae or acid test, uniformly applicable in all situations, can be laid down, yet in weighing the probabilities and for gathering the relevant indicia, the courts an usually guided by these circumstances : (1) the source from which the purchase money came; (2) the nature and possession of the property, after the purchase; (3) motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to lead the evidence to show that all these moneys belonged to the accused but when the wife has fully owned the entire money and the other wealth earned by her by not showing in the Income-tax return and she has accepted the whole responsibilities, in that case, it is very difficult to hold the accused guilty of the charge. It is very difficult to segregate that how much of wealth belonged to the husband and how much belonged to the wife. The prosecution has not been able to lead evidence to establish that some of the money could be held in the hands of the accused. In case of joint possession it is very difficult when one of the persons accepted the entire responsibility. The wife of the accused has not been prosecuted and it is only the husband who has been charged being the public servant. In view of the explanation given by the husband and when it has been substantiated by the evidence of the wife, the other witnesses who have been produced on behalf of the accused coupled with the fact that the entire money has been treated in the hands of the wife and she has owned it and she has been assessed by the Income-tax Department, it will not be proper to hold the accused guilty u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his amount was added has her income in the assessment order dt. 29/12/2012. It was part of the larger addition made towards undisclosed investments. Before the Assessing Officer, Smt. Kajal Ghosh, explained that the investment of Rs. 1,50.000/- was made by her from out of withdrawals from her PF Account. The Assessing Officer rejected this explanation as the ground given for withdrawals of PF was education of child. 6.1.1. I find that the assessment order passed in the case of Smt. Kajal Ghosh, was a substantive assessment. Even the interest on this investment was adder in her assessment. As already stated Smt. Kajal Ghosh is a Doctor by profession, working with the Government of West Bengal and she has explained the direct source of investment. In case there were some discrepancies, the issue can be only considered in the hands of Dr. Smt. Kajal Ghosh and not in the hands of the assessee. These investments and the interest income thereon, has been considered in the assessment of Dr. Smt. Kajal Ghosh, in a substantive manner, the same addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee as this would tantamount to double taxation of the same income. Hence, I deleted this additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear, is not accepted for the reason that, no method of accounting is followed by the assessee, who is only a salaried employee. Hence, we set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to calculate the interest accrued during this year only and bring it to tax. In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed in part. 9. Ground No. 3 is on the addition of Rs. 3,00,736/-, on account of unexplained investments 9.1. The assessee had investments to the tune of Rs. 5,77,736/-. He explained these investments by submitting that the same were from salary savings. The ld. Assessing Officer found that the withdrawals from the assessee's bank account is only Rs. 5,20,000/-. The difference of investment was added as unexplained investments. The assessee explains that part of the salary was always received in cash and it was only Rs. 1,38,505/-, which was received by way of cheque. It was also submitted that an investment of Rs. 3,35,000/- was given from the Bank Account maintained by the wife of the assessee but such bank account was not considered by the Assessing Officer. The assessee stated that he deposited the salary of Rs. 1,38,505/- in the joint account of the wife....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5178, belonging to Smt. Abha Naug, mother-in-law (of the assessee). 12.1. The copy of the Bank Account is placed at pages 104 to 110 of the paper book. Smt. Abha Naugh received rental income every month. I find that there is no deposit of Rs. 27,294/- on 28/01/2014 as alleged by the Assessing Officer. The balance is a continuous rental deposit of Rs. 4,200/- p.m. Smt. Abha Naugh passed away on 30th August, 2002 and her husband Shri P K Naug and Smt. Kajal Ghosh, declared 50 per cent each of this income in their return's of income. On these facts, which could not be controverted by the ld. D/R, this addition is of Rs. 74,029/- is hereby deleted and Ground No. 6 of the assessee is allowed. 13. Ground No. 7, is on the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- and interest of Rs. 16,000/- thereon, which is made by Shri P K Naug, who is the father-in-law of the assessee. The father-in-law explained the source of his investment. The assessee at page nos. 239 & 244 of the paper book filed a copy of the judgment of the C.B.I. Court, wherein these investments were explained. The Court had accepted the explanation given to Shri P K Naug that these deposits were made from out of sale proceeds received....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the result, I.T.A. No. 580/Kol/2016, Assessment Year: 2004-5, is allowed in part. I.T.A. No. 581/Kol/2016, Assessment Year: 2005-06 17. Ground No. 1, is on the legal issue, as to whether the AO has discharged the burden of proof that lay on him while holding that the assessee's wife, minor & major sons, mother-in-law, father-in-law, are benamidars of the assessee. 17.1. Consistent with the view taken by me while disposing of the appeal for the assessment year 2003-04, I adjudicate this issue in favour of the assessee. 18. Ground No. 2 is on the addition of Rs. 44,936/-, being interest on KVP, NSC and SB Account. The facts are identical to Ground No. 2 for the Assessment Year 2004-05. Consistent with the view taken by me therein, I hold that interest of Rs. 11,850/-on KVP and interest income of Rs. 1,609/-, on the bank account in the name of Smt. Kajal Ghosh, cannot be added in the hands of the assessee. Hence the same is deleted. The other 2 amounts being interest on KVP of Rs. 9,875/- & 13,004/-, and interest on NSC of Rs. 2,615/- and MIS of Rs. 5,000/-, belonging to the assessee are rightly brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. Hence this ground of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee, Sri Anirban Ghosh. 25.1. The income of the minor son of the assessee up to Rs. 1500/- need not be added to the income of the assessee. As this amount of interest in question is below Rs. 1500/-, I delete this addition and allow this ground of the assessee. 26. Ground No. 10, relates to an addition of Rs. 1 lakh/-being loan and gift received by Smt. Kajal Ghosh. As this amount was considered by the Assessing Officer of Smt. Kajal Ghosh in her assessment, the same cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. Hence this addition is deleted the ground of the assessee is allowed. 27. In the result, I.T.A. No. 581/Kol/2016, Assessment Year: 2005-06, is allowed in part. I.T.A. No. 582/Kol/2016, Assessment Year: 2006-07 28. Ground No. 1, is on the legal issue, as to whether the AO has discharged the burden of proof that lay on him while holding that the assessee's wife, minor & major sons, mother-in-law, father-in-law, are benamidars of the assessee. Consistent with the view taken by me while disposing of the appeal for the assessment year 2003-04, I adjudicate this issue in favour of the assessee. 29. Ground No. 2 is on the addition of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he source of deposit as NTS scholarship by cheque, Mamraj Agarwal Rashtriya Puraskar for rank in ISC exam, another NTS Scholarship by cheque and cash deposit by elder brother, Sri Abhishek Ghosh, from his NRI Account. As the sources are sufficiently explained, the addition made herein is deleted and Ground No. 8 of the assessee is allowed. 36. Ground No. 9, relates to an addition of Rs. 1,78,000/-, as unexplained cash transactions. 36.1. The assessee claimed that no transactions or assets were found in the seized material, a list of which is that pages313 to 314 of the paper book based on which this addition was made. In other words, the basis of this addition is not known. The ld. D/R, could not point out the basis on which this addition was made. Hence I delete the same and allow Ground Number 9 of the assessee. 37. In the result, I.T.A. No. 582/Kol/2016, Assessment Year: 2006-07, is allowed in part. I.T.A. No. 583/Kol/2016, Assessment Year: 2007-08 38. Ground No. 1, is on the legal issue, as to whether the AO has discharged the burden of proof that lay on him while holding that the assessee's wife, minor & major sons, mother-in-law, father-in-law, are benamidar....