TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Grounds of appeals taken by both the assessee's are not in consonance with Rule 8 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Rules 1963) are descriptive and argumentative in nature. 4. In brief following five issues are involved in these appeals; 1. Challenging the validity of the search u/s 132 of the Act and the assessment framed subsequent there to u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. Addition for unexplained cash deposit in the Bank Account 3. Addition for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 1,88,939/- 4.Alleged undisclosed investment in the purchase of residential/plot of Rs. 21,10,825/- 5. Unexplained investment in purchase of agriculture land at Rs. 5,10,000/-. 5. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the Search and Seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the residential premises of both the assessee's (who are husband and wife) located at Nehru Nagar, Bhopal on 13.11.12, on the basis that they are having connection with the SR Group of Bhopal which is engaged in the business of mining and manufacturing of various forms of irons and other metals, ferro and alloys.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tocopies of material seized during search at is residence is placed on assessment record. The appellant has filed reply dated l5/12/2014 before the A.O. in response to questionnaires issued by the A.O. on 18/11/2013 and 23/09/2014 (question no. B-7, Sr.No 1 to 10) wherein there is a specific mention of loose papers and documents found during the search from the residential premises. The Appellant had not filed Income Tax Return for assessment year 2007-08. It was only filed after the issue of notice on u/s l53A on 17/10/2013, which is beyond the time limit specified u/s 139(1) of the IT Act. The appellant has not filled any appeal for the said assessment year 2007-08,challenging the issue of notice u/s lS3A and has also participated in assessment proceedings before the A.O. for all assessment years from 2007-08 to 2013-14. 5.4. The A.O. has specifically mentioned in para 4.1 of the assessment order that the Appellant assessee is associated with the SR Group, and is the Director in VNS Group of Institutions, Bhopal which is interconnected and having business association with the said Group searched u/s 132 of the IT Act 1961. The group is referred to by a common name "SR Group". ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6/-, Rs. 2,11,210/-, Rs. 4,24,977/- and Rs. 7,53,365/- for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2012-13. Both the persons are regularly earning income from salary as Engineers since last about 20 to 25 years. In the grounds raised before us relates to unexplained cash deposit totaling Rs. 3,51,500/- in the case of Shri D.K. Swami and Rs. 63,000/- in the case of Smt. Preeti Swami. Revenue authorities are unable to prove that the assessee's have some other source of income also. Looking to the amount of income disclosed by both the assessee's and also in the given circumstances of the case, the assessee has been consistently making transactions through its various bank accounts and withdrawing and depositing the cash and also one cannot ignore the possibility of accumulated cash for so many years, we are of the considered view that no addition was called for towards unexplained cash deposit at Rs. 1,28,500/-, Rs. 1,88,939/- and Rs. 1,05,000/- for Assessment Year 2008-09, 2010-11, and 2011-12 in the case of Shri D.K. Swami and similarly no addition was called for in the case of Smt. Preeti Swami at Rs. 63,000/- for Assessment Year 2011-12. We accordingly delete these additions and allow the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Capital Gain of Rs. 1,88,939/- to the file of Ld.A.O for afresh adjudication and direct the Assessing Officer to examine the documents of purchase of residential house to be furnished by the assessee and if found correct then allow the claim u/s 54 of the Act and delete the addition for Long term Capital Gain of Rs. 1,88,139/-. In the result the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 in the case of Shri D.K. Swami is allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Now we take up the fourth issue raised by the assessee Shri D.K. Swami through Ground No. 4 & 5 for Assessment Year 2012- 13 which arised on account of addition of unexplained investment of Rs. 5,28,125/- and Rs. 15,39,000/- for the purchase of House No.226 at EI Estate, Bhopal and purchase of Flat No.B-16 at Bhoomika Residency, Kolar Road, Bhopal. 15. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Brief facts of this issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings Ld.A.O noticed that the assessee has made investment in residential house/flat. Ld.A.O observed that House No.226 at EI Estate, Bhopal purchased on 15.4.2011 at Rs. 5,28,125/-. Ld.A.O also observed that the prevailing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 23, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation.-In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealthtax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957)". 17. From perusal of the above section 55A of the Act the Assessing Officer in order to ascertain the fair market value of the asset may refer to the Valuation Officer for valuation of the impugned assets if he is of the opinion that fair market value exceeds the fair market value as claimed by the assessee. However in the instant case Ld.A.O has not taken any resort to comply with the provisions of Section 55A of the Act and merely on the basis of surmises applied the estimated prevailing market rate without giving any basis for the same and computed the unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. 18. We therefore in the given circumstances of the case are of the considered view that Ld.A.O ought to have referred the ....