TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1055
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Insurance Policies with HDFC, Rs. 88,490/- being the investment made in shares, Rs. 1,57,423/- being the investment in UTI, Rs. 37,500/- being the investment in shares of Aashna Invt. P. Ltd., City Union Bank & Sundaram Finance, Rs. 54,112/- being the fixed deposit with Andhra Bank, Rs. 19,50,000/- towards investment in RBI Bonds and Rs.,9,00,000/- being the investment in UTI, ICICI, IDBI & HDFC relief bonds, as the undisclosed investments/income of the assessee. iii. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld.AO amounting to Rs. 1,18,000/- towards cash deposit in SB account No.5115 and Current Account No.140 & 125 and Rs. 8,10,656/- towards Recurring Deposit, as the unaccounted investment of the assessee. iv. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld.AO amounting to Rs. 8,50,000/- as the undisclosed investment of the assessee being the unaccounted pronotes found during the course of search. v. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld.AO amounting to Rs. 2,00,955/- being the amount advanced to M/s. Shibi Travels as unexplained advances. vi. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ledgements of the returns filed by the assessee because it did not match with the records maintained by the Ld.Revenue Authorities. However the Ld.Revenue Authorities have not conducted any investigation on that regard. The Ld.Revenue Authorities also ought to have examined the copy of the returns filed by the assessee that was produced before them and thereafter arrived at a proper conclusion. Further the Ld.Revenue Authorities had not taken any coercive action for the alleged fraud committed by the assessee. In this situation we can neither hold the matter in favour of the Revenue nor the assessee. It is pertinent to mention that on the identical facts in the case of the assessee's mother Smt. Renu Sarin in IT(SS)A No.17/Chny/2014 vide order dated 20.03.2019 and in the case of the assessee's father Shri Rakesh Sarin in IT(SS)A No.66/Chny/2007 vide order dated 11.03.2019 also we had expressed similar view. Considering these facts we are of the view that the addition made by the Ld.AO for Rs. 6,29,226/- in the block assessment is devoid of merits because there is no conclusive finding by the Revenue that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the assessment years 1997-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....flowing through the bank accounts for making the investments and thereafter arrived at an appropriate conclusion. But in the case of the assessee it appears that no such exercise was carried out. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the Ld.AO by simply agreeing with the view of the Ld.AO. In the identical situation, in the case of assessee's husband Shri Rakesh Sarin in ITA No.66/Chny/2007 for the block assessment years 199-97 to 2002-03 and part of 2003-04, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 11.03.2019 had observed in para No.16.3 that, the Ld.AO's findings with respect to the return of income filed by the assessee to be bogus and false, do not carry much weight, because from the materials on record, it was evident that, no legal action were initiated against the assessee for having produced such bogus return of income before the Ld.Revenue Authorities, is also relevant in the case of the assessee because the facts are similar. Further in the case of the assessee's husband Shri. Rakesh Sarin the Ld.CIT(A) had granted relief by deleting the addition on this issue. Since in the case of the assessee also the Ld.Revenue Authorities had failed to examine the evi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... father Shri Rakesh Sarin in IT(SS)A No.66/Chny/2007 we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition made for Rs. 1,18,000/- towards unexplained cash deposit in bank account & Rs. 8,10,656/- towards recurring deposit. 7. Ground No.2(iv): Addition of Rs. 8,50,000/- towards pronotes:- During the course of search certain pro-notes were found in the assessee's premises and since no explanation could be obtained from the assessee's father Shri Rakesh Sarin who was unavailable at that time and the manager who was present, the Ld.AO added the aggregate of the same as the undisclosed investment of the assessee since they were not accounted in the books of account. On the identical issue and facts, this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee's mother Smt. Renu Sarin in IT(SS)A No.17/Chny/2014 and in the case of the assessee's father Shri Rakesh Sarin in IT(SS)A No.66/Chny/2007 held the issue in favour of the assessee. In the case of the assessee's father this Bench of the Tribunal had observed as under:- 7.2 We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the pro-notes were incomplete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....teral security from them which was seized by the Revenue. It was further explained that in case the travel agent was not able to repay the money lend then the assessee could surrender the ticket to the airlines and claim refund. It was further submitted that since the travel agent M/s. Shibi Travels failed to return the money, the assessee had approached the British Airways for cancellation and reimbursement of the ticket which was rejected by the British Airways stating that only the travel agent could claim the refund. It was further explained that subsequently the money was repaid by M/s. Shibi Travels Pvt. Ltd., and the ticket was returned to the assessee. However the Ld.AO rejected the explanation tendered by the assessee and added the amount of Rs. 2,00,955/- being the cost of the ticket to the income of the assessee. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) has held that no materials or evidence was recorded to establish the correct nature of transaction or as to how and where the amount were accounted in the books of accounts. Therefore he sustained the order of the Ld.AO. 8.1 At the outset we don't find any merit in the order of the Ld.Revenue Authorities on this issue. The assessee had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the order of the Ld.Revenue Authorities for adding the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as the income of the assessee. Hence we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the same. 10. Ground No.2(v) : Addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- being the amount advanced to M/s. Status Enterprises as unexplained advances:- It was observed by the Ld.AO that the assessee has advanced Rs. 1,50,000/- to M/s. Status Enterprises on 27.11.1999. On query it was explained by the Ld.AR that the amount is recorded in the regular books of accounts of the assessee. However on verification, it was revealed that no such entry was passed in the books of the assessee. Therefore the Ld.AO added the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has held that no materials or evidence was recorded to show the correct nature of transaction or as to how and where this amount were accounted in the books of accounts. Therefore he sustained the order of the Ld.AO. 10.1 Since neither the Ld.AR nor the assessee submitted any explanation before us on this issue, we do not have any other option but to confirm the addition made by the Ld.Revenue Authorities on this issue. ....