TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the money advanced to M/s. Vicky Films and Rs. 4,50,000/- being the money advanced to M/s. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment as unexplained investment. iii. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,500/- towards investment in shares, Rs. 5,00,000/- towards investment made in RBI bonds, Rs. 25,000/- with respect to investment made in various UTI/IDBI and HDFC Relief bonds, Rs. 20,000/- being the investment made in Kisan Vikas Patras, Rs. 3,50,000/- and Rs. 41,50,000/- towards investment in RBI relief bonds which was assigned to Standard Chartered Bank as the undisclosed investments / income of the assessee. iv. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld.AO amounting to Rs. 13,41,800/- as unaccounted investment being the cash deposits in the bank account and Rs. 14,106/- towards deposit in RD account. v. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld.AO amounting to Rs. 4,72,112/- towards negative cash balance. vi. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld.AO amounting to Rs. 25,50,000/- as the undisclosed investment of the assessee being the unaccounted pro-notes found during the course of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 related parties Smt. Renu Sarin in IT(SS)A No.17/Chny/2014 vide order dated 20.03.2019, Shri Rakesh Sarin in IT(SS)A No.66/Chny/2007 vide order dated 11.03.2019, Shri Akshay Sarin in IT(SS)A No.18/Chny/2014 vide order dated 28.03.2019 and M/s. B.R. Sarin & Sons in IT(SS)A No.11/Chny/2014 vide order dated 01.04.2019 also we had expressed similar view. Considering these facts we are of the view that the addition made by the Ld.AO for Rs. 14,28,240/- in the block assessment is devoid of merits because there is no conclusive finding by the Revenue that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the assessment years 1997-98 to 2003-04. Hence we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition made by the Ld.AO for Rs. 14,28,240/- in the block assessment. 5. Ground No.2(ii) : Additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition for Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 4,50,000/- towards advance extended to M/s. Vicky Films and M/s. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment without conclusive finding. Therefore we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition made for Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 4,50,000/- with regard to the advances extended to M/s. Vicky Films and M/s. Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment respectively. 6. Ground No.2(iii): Addition of Rs. 4,500/- towards investment in shares, Rs. 50,000/- towards investment in RBI Bonds, Rs. 25,000/- towards investment in various UTI/IDBI and HDFC Relief bonds, Rs. 20,000/- towards investment in Kisan Visan Patras, Rs. 3,50,000/- and Rs. 41,50,000/- towards investment in RBI relief bonds as undisclosed investment / income:- On the identical issue and on the same facts, this Bench of the Tribunal had deleted the additions in the case of assessee's related parties Smt. Renu Sarin in IT(SS)A No.17/Chny/2014, Shri Rakesh Sarin in IT(SS)A No.66/Chny/2007, Shri Akshay Sarin in IT(SS)A No.18/Chny/2014 and M/s. B.R. Sarin & Sons HUF in IT(SS)A No.11/Chny/2014. In the case of Smt. Renu Sarin, this Bench of the Tribunal has observed as under:- During the course of search it was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ef by deleting the addition on this issue. Since in the case of the assessee also the Ld.Revenue Authorities had failed to examine the evidence produced by the assessee, we are of the considered view that the addition made is not sustainable. Moreover at this stage, it would be impracticable to remit the matter back to the file of Ld.AO for de-nova consideration as the matter relates to the block period 1997-98 to 2002-03 wherein the facts had occurred beyond 20 years ago. Therefore we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition made for Rs. 84,53,375/-, Rs. 45,75,000/- and Rs. 4,27,500/- towards investment in shares, bonds, patras, etc., RBI bonds and HDFC Standard Life Insurance. Since the facts and the issue being same, the decision rendered in the case of the assessee's related parties Shri Rakesh Sarin and Smt. Renu Sarin, Shri Akshay Sarin & M/s. B.R. Sarin & Sons HUF holds good in the case of the assessee also and accordingly we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition of Rs. 4,500/- towards investment in shares, Rs. 50,000/- towards investment in RBI Bonds, Rs. 25,000/- towards investment in various UTI/IDBI and HDFC Relief bonds, Rs. 20,000/- towards investment i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to Rs. 4,72,112/-. 9. Ground No.2(vi) : Addition of Rs. 25,50,000/- towards unaccounted pro-notes:- During the course of search certain pro-notes were found in the assessee's premises and since no explanation could be obtained from the karta of the HUF 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 because they were not accounted in the books of accounts. On the identical issue and facts, this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee's related parties Smt. Renu Sarin in IT(SS)A No.17/Chny/2014, Shri Rakesh Sarin in IT(SS)A No.66/Chny/2007, Shri Akshay Sarin in IT(SS)A No.18/Chny/2014 and M/s. B.R. Sarin & Sons HUF in IT(SS)A No.11/Chny/2014 held the issue in favour of the assessee. In the case of the Shri Rakesh Sarin 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 in all aspects and therefore presumption cannot be made that the assessee had lend money though there is some air ....