TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... survey is wrong & illegal." 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated that at the bar that the additional ground is not pressed. Rejected as not pressed. 4. Apropos Ground No. 1, from the assessee's return of income, the AO observed that the assessee had shown gifts received of Rs. 10,00,000/-, i.e., Rs. 5,00,000/- from Kaushalya Devi, New Delhi and Rs. 5,00,000/- from Shri Shree Bhagwan, New Delhi. The AO required the assessee to furnish the complete details of the donors, their copies of accounts, date and mode of receipt of the gifts and confirmations and to justify the gifts in terms of the identity of the donors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the gifts. However, since as per the assessment order, the required details were not filed, the AO added the entire amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the income of the assessee as unexplained under section 68 of the IT Act. 5. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. 6. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition wrongly made under section 153A of the Act, without there being any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me in the relevant Return of Income filed, and even otherwise it will tantamount to double addition, thus the addition made is arbitrary, wrong, and illegal. 4. Because in any view, without prejudice and without admitting the above additions the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not telescoping the addition of income of Rs. 45,000/- of above Ground No.3 and income from other source further shown in Return u/s 153A of Rs. 2,58,060/-, with addition of investment of Rs. 5,00,000/- of Ground No.2 above. 5. Because in any view, the interest charged u/s 234B as per notice of demand is wrong and illegal." 12. Ground No.4 is stated to be not pressed. Rejected as not pressed. 13. Apropos Ground No.1, the AO observed that the assessee was having several house properties; that the one at B-5, Shanti Kunj, Hathras was selfoccupied; that the assessee had purchased another property, a flat at Bankey Bhawan, Hathras for Rs. 3,68,025/-; and that no rental income from this flat had been shown. The AO held that in keeping with 'Radha Devi vs. CIT', 125 ITR 134 (All), the notional annual value in respect of more than one self-occupied property is to be assessed under section 23(4) of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted. The ld. CIT(A) observed from a perusal of the seized document that it had been drawn on 31.03.2005 and as such, it pertains to A.Y. 2005-06; that in this document, profit during the A.Y. 2005-06 had been shown at Rs. 2,76,502/- and that for A.Y. 2004-05 was of Rs. 3,03,060/-, as 'Pichhala Labh'. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. 22. As before the Authorities below, the assessee has maintained that no tea and sugar business had been done by the assessee and the amount related to tea and meetha chooran business done by the assessee on behalf of his father; that this business was being done on a very small basis, although it was being done by the family in the name of M/s Gupta Aushadhi Bhandar, Hathras, by the father of the assessee, late Shri Devi Das, who, regularly assessed, had expired on 15.06.2004; that this income had been declared by the assessee as estimated by him in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, for A.Ys. 2003-04 and 2004- 05; that the nature of the business was that of tea and sugar chooran and not of sugar; that out of Rs. 3,03,060/-, as mentioned in the seized document, the assessee had declared Rs. 45,000/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se Property u/s 23(4) is wrong, illegal and against the facts and law of the case. 2. Because in any view, the addition confirmed of Rs. 2,76,502/- w.r.t. tea/ sugar business by not properly appreciating that this in not the profit, but the investment as on 31.03.2005 i.e. A.Y.2005-06 showing loss of Rs. 26,558/-, rather after reducing the profit Rs. 3,03,060/- relating to preceding year (i.e. Rs. 45,000/- of A. Y. 2003- 04 and Rs,2,58,060/- of A. Y. 2004-05) which has already been shown as income in the relevant Return of Income filed, and even otherwise it will tantamount to double addition thus the addition made is arbitrary, wrong, and illegal." 28. Ground No.1 is similar to Ground No.1 involved in ITA No.275/Agra/2013 (supra), for A.Y. 2003-04. Therefore, our observations therein are, mutatis mutandis, squarely applicable to the year under consideration also. In accordance therewith, Ground No.1 is accepted. 29. The issue in Ground No.2 is the same as that in Ground No.3 for A.Y. 2004- 05, in ITA No.276/Agra/2013 (supra). As rightly contended, for the year under consideration, the figure concerned is that of a loss. The addition of Rs. 2,76,502/- is, as such, a ....