AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 4777010/- out of addition of Rs. 4924152/- from the locker was deleted. Further Assessee has filed cross objection no. 56/Del/2015 against the order of the ld CIT (A) where he has confirmed the addition of Rs. 147142/- on account of balance unaccounted jewelry found from locker in her name. Further for the same year ld AO has filed appeal in ITA No 7084/ Del/2014 against the order of the ld CIT (A) dated 13/10/214 wherein the ld CIT (A) has deleted the penalty of Rs. 7281540/- out of the penalty levied of Rs. 7325683/- u/s 271 (1) (c) by ld AO order dated 14/3/2014. 3. In case of Ms Padmarani Kapala for AY 2012-13 appeal is filed by the ld ACIT , Circle 13, New Delhi in ITA No 3613/Del/2014 against the order of the ld CIT (A)- I, New Delhi dated 10/4/2014 wherein addition of Rs. 5.99 Crores on account of cash found in the locker in the name of the assessee was deleted. Further for the same year ld AO has filed appeal against the order of the ld CIT (A) dated 13/10/214 wherein the ld CIT (A) has deleted the penalty of Rs. 1,83,69,266/- levied u/s 271 (1) (c) by ld AO order dated 14/3/2014. 4. ITA NO 4207/del/214 for AY 2010-11 The Ld ACIT CC -13, New Delhi has filed an appeal ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as asked to the assessee that in Locker No. 5333 a cash of Rs. 1.70 crores was found and seized and also jewellery of Rs. 49,24,152/- lacs out of which jewellery of Rs. 28 lacs was seized. In answer to that question, it was stated that she has already replied in her affidavit dated 12.04.2012. Based on this statement of Smt Padmarani Kapala, statement of wife of Dr. MV Rao , Mrs. M Swarnlata was also recorded on 31.05.2012. Vide answer to question No. 4 it was stated by her that there was old balance of Rs. 70 lacs and the cash of Rs. 1 crore was deposited by the assessee. It was further stated that she might have deposited Rs. 80 lacs in cash, which was given to her by her husband. 10. During the course of assessment proceedings vide letter dated 29.11.2013, the ld AO issued show cause notice to the assessee stating that in the four lockers a cash of Rs. 7.69 crores were found out of which Rs. 7.60 crores have been seized and why Rs. 7.69 crores should not be added to her income. The assessee submitted her reply on 09.12.2013. It was stated that as the declaration of Rs. 4.5 crores have already been made by Dr. MV Rao and further the money does not belong to her therefore no addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessment Year 2007-08 in proceedings u/s 148 of the Act and are assessed in his hands by order dated 05.03.2015 for Assessment Year 2007-08. He subsequently referred to para No. 5 of the assessment order wherein, a sum of Rs. 1 crores being cash deposited in locker No. 5333 belonging to the assessee were offered by Dr. M. V. Rao and he was assessed thereon. Therefore, he submitted that Rs. 1 crores has already been taxed in the hands of Dr. M. V. Rao and therefore sustenance of addition once again in the hands of the assessee, will tantamount to double addition. With respect to balance of Rs. 70 lacs cash, he submitted that it were deposited in the locker prior to the block period and therefore, cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee in the block period. 14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the orders of the lower authorities. In the present case Rs. 1.70 crores were found in the locker belonging to the assessee. Out of this Rs. 1 crores is already assessed in the hands of the Dr. M.V. Rao for the same assessment year, which is evident from the assessment order passed on 05.03.2015 u/s 148 of the Act, wherein, the sum of Rs. 1 crore foun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 544 gms belongs to Dr MV Rao, which has been accumulated by the assessee from 1993 to 2007 for 14 years. The ld AO rejected the contention of the assessee and held that jewellery belongs to the assessee and therefore, made an addition of Rs. 4924152/-. The assessee challenged the same before the ld CIT(A). 16. The ld CIT(A) held that out of jewellery found, jewelry weighing 833.10 gms found during the search is almost identical to description and weight to the items disclosed in the probate case records of Dr. M.V. Rao, therefore, he held that it is proved beyond doubt that these items were acquired long ago and cannot be brought to tax for this year in the hands of assessee. He further held that four items weighting 749.70 gms were released as they were also found in the Probate Case recorded on Dr. Rao. He further held that as per CBDT instruction gold ornaments weighing of 500 gms per married woman and 250 gms per unmarried woman are to be treated as customary and not seized. Therefore, he gave credit of another 750 gms of gold. Thus, out of 1748.80 gms he treated ornaments weighing 1583.10 gms as explained. The balance of 165.70 gms he upheld the addition taking the value @88....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax return or not, it cannot be charges to tax under the Income tax Act. Conversely, if the same is shown in the wealth tax return, it cannot be excluded from the income tax computation if assessee fails to show that same was acquired out of tax paid money. Hence, we reject the contention of the ld AR that total of 819.4 and 288.4 gms of different purity of gold is owned by Dr. MV Rao. We also do not find any infirmity in his order to allow 750 gms to the mother and assessee as per CBDT Instructions. The balance jewellery of 165.70 gms is remaining unexplained and therefore, addition to that extent is correctly confirmed by the ld CIT(A). In view this we find no infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) therefore, ground No. 3 the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed. 21. Accordingly, ITA No. 3612/Del/2014 filed by the revenue is partly allowed and CO No. 56/Del/2016 filed by the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 7084/Del/2014 (Assessment Year 2007-08) 22. ITA No. 7084/Del/2014 is filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-I, New Delhi dated 13.10.2014 wherein, the penalty levied by the ld AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sons for upholding the penalty on that addition. He therefore, submitted that to that extent no infirmity exists in the order of the ld CIT(A). With respect to jewellery found, he submitted that out of jewellery of Rs. 25 lacs the assessee could not explain the minor portion of 165.70 gms which addition is upheld by the ld CIT(A). He therefore, submitted that despite the confirmation of the addition by the ld CIT(A) the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. 28. We have carefully considered the rival contentions as well as the orders of the lower authorities. On the quantum issue, we have held that out of the sum of Rs. 1.70 Crores, Rs. 1 Crore is already offered by the Dr M. V. Rao in his hands, which is also taxed by the ld AO of Dr M.V Rao in his hands. Therefore to that extent there is no reason to sustain penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the act. With respect to balance Rs. 70 Lakhs addition in quantum appeal of the revenue, the assessee could not explain the source from which the sum was found in the locker. In the quantum appeal , we have confirmed the addition to that extent. In absence of any plausible explanation with respect to the above sum , we confirm the penalty on addit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and Rs. 3.08 crores were deposited by her on 24.10.2011 and 25.10.2011 respectively. Subsequent to the search on 05.03.2012 Smt Swaranlata, wife of Dr. MV Rao surrendered Rs. 6.5 crores in the hands of her husband. This disclosure was rejected and amount was taxed in the hands of the assessee. The assessee preferred the appeal before the ld CIT(A) who for similar reasons given by him in his order for Assessment Year 2007-08 also deleted the addition for this year. Therefore, the revenue is in appeal. 31. The ld DR also raised the similar argument stating that when the cash was found from the locker owned by the assessee there is no reason to delete the addition. 32. The ld AR submitted the paper book and also filed the copies of the return filed in case of Dr. MV Rao along with copies of the assessment orders. He submitted that Rs. 65 lacs were owned by Dr. MV Rao for Assessment Year 2009-10, Rs. 35 lacs for Assessment Year 2010-11 and Rs. 4.5 crores for Assessment Year 2012-13. He submitted that all these transactions have been accepted by revenue in the hands of Dr. MV Rao and therefore there cannot be any reason to tax it in the hands of the assessee. 33. We have carefully ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13 34. This appeal is also filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-New Delhi dated 13.10.2014, wherein, penalty of Rs. 18369266/- u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act levied by the ld AO is deleted. The ld AO has levied the penalty on the addition of Rs. 5.99 crores on account of unexplained cash in the hands of the assessee and levied the penalty of the above sum for concealment of income. Before the ld AO it was stated that as the appeal on the quantum additions are pending before the ld CIT(A) the penalty proceedings may be kept in abeyance. The ld AO rejected the contention of the assessee and levied the penalty. The order was challenged before the ld CIT(A). Ld CIT(A) has held that the addition is confirmed in the hands of the assessee on protective basis until it is assessed in the hands of Dr. MV Rao on substantive basis, no addition survives, and therefore penalty cannot be levied. The ld CIT(A) deleted the penalty holding that sum of Rs. 5.99 crores were to be taxed in the hands of Dr. MV Rao and further appellant was incapable of generating any substantial income therefore, it could not be concealed income of the assessee. Thus, the ld CIT(A) deleted the penalty. Ld....