TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 981
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vestment in construction of residential house. The addition of Rs. 2,38,206/- { (for A.Y.2002-03),(Rs. 27,611/-forA.Y.2003-04)(Rs. 2,14,952/- for A.Y. 2004-05)}* being erroneous in facts and in law is prayed to be directed to be deleted."[*figures of other years added to consolidate] 2.1. Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment orders passed u/s.153A(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act all dated 31/12/2007 were that the assessee is in transport business. A search u/s.132 of the Act was carried out on 24/11/2005. Consequence there-upon notice u/s.153A was issued and in compliance returns were filed disclosing income as follows:- Sr.No(s) Asst.Year(s) Original Return u/s.139((1) Income declared after search 1. 2002-03 4,54,950/- 6,87,750/- 2. 2003-04 10,59,910/- 18,22,610/- 3. 2004-05 16,16,030/- 19,60,070/- 2.2. The admitted factual position is that a house was constructed at Millan Park Society. To determine the cost of construction, the matter was referred to Valuation Cell and the Valuation Officer has assessed the cost of construction as per the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvinced and held that once the assessee has himself has admitted an investment of undisclosed investment towards construction of residential house the difference in the cost of construction was rightly assessed by the AO. Being aggrieved; now the assessee is further in appeals. 4. We have heard both the sides. From the side of the assessee, ld.AR Mr.Mukund Bakshi appeared and contested that the difference between the two valuations, one as disclosed by the assessee, and the other as estimated by the DVO, was very nominal in percentage therefore such a nominal difference has to be ignored. In support reliance is placed on the following case laws:- Sl.No(s) Decision in the case of ... Reported in... 1. CIT vs. Abeeson Hotels Pvt.Ltd. (2004) 191 CTR (MP) 263 2. ACIT vs. Smt. Ramkali Shivharey (2004) 4 SOT 338 (Agra) 3. CIT vs. Smt. Aparajitha Shantilal Mahajan (2005) 272 ITR 470 (MP) 4. Smt. Prem Kumari Mudria vs. ACIT (2008) 303 ITR 128 (Raj) 5. Amt Estate Organisers vs. ITO 113 ITD 255 (Ahd.) (TM) 5. From the side of the Revenue, ld.DR Mr.S.K. Gupta,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fees on estimate basis at 3% of the total cost determined but the correct factual position was that only Rs. 55,000/- was paid to the Architecture. 7. Considering the arguments of both the sides and on appreciation of the facts of the case, we are of the view that because of three basic reasons this ground deserves to be allowed. 7.1. First, that the assessee has maintained a detailed expenditure account. This account has precisely stated the item wise particulars of the expenditure, parties from whom the construction material was purchased with their respective bill numbers and the mode of payment. A substantial number of payments were found to be through cheque. Supporting bills have also been placed on record. Revenue Department has not pointed out any fallacy in the records maintained by the assessee. This is also not the case of the Revenue that either the bills were incorrect, bogus or not recorded properly. As against that, Revenue Department has applied certain rates of construction and there upon estimated the value at Rs. 39,90,300/-. This amount appears to be an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in law is prayed to be directed to be deleted." 8.1. The assessee for AY 2003-04 has incurred the expenditure of Rs. 1,20,000/-towards house-hold expenses, which was considered by the AO insufficient and therefore held that at least Rs. 14,500/- expenditure per month should have been incurred. As per AO the annual house-hold expenditure would have been Rs. 1,75,000/- annually, hence, the difference of Rs. 55,000/- was taxed. The same recourse was repeated for rest of the years. 9. When the matter was carried before the first appellate authority, ld.CIT(A) has held that a sum of Rs. 12,000/- p.m. would be adequate for AY 2003-04 and like wise for rest of the years part relief was granted. 10. Having heard the submissions of both the sides and considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the house-hold expenditure as estimated by the ld.CIT(A) appears to be adequate for the years under consideration for this assessee, specially when the Revenue has not challenged the said finding of ld.CIT(A). These grounds for all the years are therefore, dismissed. 11. For A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... document. Through that document it was found to be clear that it belonged to the said assessee and the contents were true. On the basis of those papers, in the cited decision, it was held that the registration, already granted, was liable to be cancelled u/s.186 of the I.T.Act, 1961. This judgement is not going to help the Revenue Department. In the present appeal we have observed that even after the investigation the AO was not able to correlate any undisclosed business activity or the unaccounted income of the assessee, therefore in the absence of any other corroborative evidence in the possession of the Revenue, this addition is uncalled for, hence ground is allowed. 15. For AY 2006-07 Ground No.1 is as follows:- "1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-IV, Ahmedabad has erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,27,987/- alleging that the content of the seized material found as stated in the order belongs to the appellant. The addition of Rs. 30,27,987/- being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted." 15.1. During the course of search a document was found and the assessee was asked to expla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue to corroborate that the said paper had any connection with the accounted or unaccounted business activity of the assessee. From the side of the Revenue even no such attempt was ever made to make an enquiry from those parties whose names were printed on the said paper. Because of these reasons, ld.AR Mr. Mukund Bakshi has emphasized that the said document was nothing but a bald document. For this legal proposition, case laws cited are:- Sl.No(s) Decision in the case of ... Reported in... 1. ACIT vs. Satyapal Vasan 295 ITR (AT) 352 [ITAT Jabalpur] 2. CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Mad.) 3. CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del.) 4. Jaya S.Shetty vs. ACIT (1999) 69 ITD 336 (Mum.) 5. Bansal Strips P.Ltd. vs. ACIT (2006) 99 ITD 177 (Del.) 18. From these decisions, it transpires that if an addition is to be made on the basis of a seized document, then it must be supported by some identification having any nexus with the unaccounted business activity of the assessee. The nature of transaction should reflect some direct or indirect connection w....