AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 3. We will first take up appeals No. IT(SS)43/Ind/2015 & ITA No.130/Ind/2015 in the case of Smt. Charu Gupta where following grounds are raised; ITA (SS)No 43/Ind/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 1. That the addition of Rs. 2,25,000/- (our of total addition of Rs. 14,27,000/-) confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal)-2 as investment on purchase of land at Khajuri-kalan be held to be unjustified on the facts of the case and be deleted. 2. That it be held that the learned CIT(Appeals) having found the contentions of the AO for making the addition for investment on purchase of land at Khajuri-Kalan as not correct and having accepted the contention of the appellant as correct, has erred in conforming the addition of Rs. 2,25,000/-. The said addition may therefore be deleted from the income of the appellant for the relevant year. 3. The appellant craves lead to add or amend any Ground of Appeal. ITA No.130/Ind/2015 Assessment Year 2012-13 1. That the addition for Gold Jewellery 204.869 Gms. (out of total Gold jewellery found at 1154.869 Gms.) sustained by the learned CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kalan vide registered deed executed on 25.3.2010. The cost of the land disclosed by the assessee which has been jointly paid with Smt. Laxmi Gupta was stood as Rs. 5,50,000/- paid at the time of purchase of land during the financial year 2007-08 and registration fees and stamp duty charges at Rs. 2,30,000/- paid during the financial year 2009-10. In the registered sale deed value of the property adopted by Subregistrar was Rs. 26,24,000/-. Ld. A.O after adding the stamp duty of Rs. 2,30,000/- computed the investment in the said property at Rs. 28,54,000/- and without considering the cost of purchase of land alleged to have been incurred by the assessee during Financial Year 2007-08 computed the undisclosed investment at 50% at Rs. 28,54,000/- in the hands of the assessee at Rs. 14,27,000/-. Aggrieved with the addition assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions of the assessee and perusal of records sustained the addition of Rs. 2,25,000/- as against Rs. 14,20,000/- made by the Ld. A.O. 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from referring to the submission made before Ld. CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3.3 A.O. has also submitted that seller has not been produced for examination nor any affidavit or confirmation filed from them. It is seen that the appellant, while explaining all seized documents and giving other required details, has submitted before the A.O. that Smt Rehana Praveen is not personally known to her. Since her address is already available in LPS-3(pg 1-32), she may be summoned for examination. On perusal of assessment records, in one volume, as submitted by the A.O. to this office, no action appears to be taken by the A.O. in this regard. However on the basis of appellant's submissions made in appeal, A.O. has been called for hearing during appeal proceedings and asked to give his comments. In response, A.O. has submitted copy of his dispatch register whereby summons u/s 131 have been issued to Smt. Rehana Praveen on 13.12.2013 as per SI No.2284 along with other witnesses. In response thereto, letter along with various enclosures including her bank statement, detailing these transactions been filed by Smt. Rehana Praveen on 17.12.2013 requesting for exemption on date fixed of 19.12.2013 for her personal appearance' have also been submitted by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 14,27,000/- made by the A.O. Addition of Rs. 2,25,000/- is, hereby, confirmed for A.Y.2010- 11. 15. From perusal of the above finding of Ld. CIT(A), we find that reference has been made to the seized document LPS-3 page No.42 wherein the statement of assessee's husband Mr. Neeraj Kumar is placed. In this statement it was stated that the property measuring 10500 sq.ft at Khajuri Kalan was purchased about 4 years ago in the joint name of wife and her mother for Rs. 10,00,000/-. So assessee has claimed the purchase cost at Rs. 5,50,000/-, Ld. A.O has adopted the purchase cost at Rs. 28,54,000/- and Ld. CIT(A) computed it at Rs. 12,30,000/- (Rs. 10,00,000/- as stated by the assessee's husband + registration fees paid). P3erusal of the paper books shows that apart from the sale deed dated 25.03.2007 assessee has filed following documents in support of its claim that actual purchase took place during Financial Year 2007-08:- 1. Copy of agreement dated 24.07.2007 between Syed Hanif and assessee - Page 15-18 2. Copy of agreement dated 02.06.2007 between Rehana Parveen and Syed Hanif - Page 19-22 3. Copy of Kabza-nama dated 02.06.2007 executed by Rehana Parve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amond was found from the locker. Assessee lives with her husband Mr. Neeraj Kumar and two unmarried children Ms. Shivangi Gupta and Siddharth Gupta. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee submitted that the gold jewllery found was mostly acquired by her during her marriage and at various ceremonial occasions. Ld. A.O did not considered the submissions and made the additions for unexplained gold jewellery and diamond at Rs. 25,01,704/- and addition for silver articles and diamond at Rs. 3,78,780/-, thereby assessing the income at Rs. 32,17,780/- as against Rs. 3,37,300/- shown by the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and got part relief. 21. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 22. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the order of Ld. A.O. 23. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Assessee is aggrieved with the additions sustained by Ld. CIT(A)for the undisclosed investment in gold jewellery of 204.869 gms as against 1154.869 gms of gold jewellery found during the course of search. In Ground No.2 assessee aggrieved that the additions sustained for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le of Ayushman Medical Diagnostic Pvt Ltd of which he is the Director and the appellant is . declaring salary income received therefrom, giving credit for jewellery, in the absence of Wealth Tax returns, as per above mentioned Board's Instruction No. 1916 is found reasonable and justified. Accordingly gold jewellery and ornaments weighing 950 gms for appellant's family consisting of one married lady, two male members and one unmarried daughter are treated as explained. Since total gold jewellery weighing 1154.869 gms has been found in case of the appellant, accordingly addition for 204.869 gms of gold jewellery and ornaments is found sustainable on this account. Further, addition made for 3944 gms silver, valued at Rs. 1,58,7601- and 1.5 carats of diamonds (Rs. 27,000/-) is, also hereby, confirmed in absence of any satisfactory explanation in this regard during the entire course of assessment as well as appeal proceedings. A.O. is directed to value unexplained gold jewellery of 204.869 gms as per valuation report on his records along with silver and diamonds at Rs. 1,58,7690/and Rs. 27,000/- respectively while giving effect to this appeal order. 24. As regards t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d be quashed and deleted. 3. That in the alternative and without prejudice to the Grounds stated above the additions made be held to be highly unreasonable and excessive and be reduced. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the case. 29. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested not to press Ground No.1, therefore Ground No.1 is dismissed as not pressed. 30. Apropos Ground No. 2 Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that similar issue was raised in the case of Smt. Charu Gupta for Assessment Year 2010-11 for the alleged unaccounted investment in purchase of land at Khajuri Khalan jointly with Smt. Charu Gupta. The assessee has claimed that she along with Smt. Charu Gupta purchased the land at Rs. 5,50,000/- during the financial year 2007-08 incurred Rs. 2,30,000/- for registration charges. Total amount of Rs. 7,90,000/- was invested and 50% of this amount comes to Rs. 3,90,000/- stands duly disclosed as investment. Ld. A.O made the addition on the basis of value adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority. Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition to Rs. 14,27,000/-. 31. We however find t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee Smt. Laxmi Gupta and her son Pankaj Gupta. Ld. A.O made the addition for Rs. 20,33,378/- without specifying the separate amount for gold jewellery and silver articles. When the matter came up before Ld. CIT(A) he gave the benefit of CBDT Instruction No.1196 dated 11.5.94 to the extent of 500 gram per married lady and confirmed the addition for un explained gold jewellery of 428.947 grams and 470 grams of silver articles. 37. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 38. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the locker is in the joint name of assessee and her son Shri Pankaj Gupta who lives with his family out of India and the gold jewellery found in the locker belongs to assessee, her son, daughter-in-law and children which received on marriages and auspicious occasions. Request was made of giving benefit of the CBDT Instruction No.1196 dated 11.5.1994 for the gold jewellery owned by Shri Pankaj Gupta and his wife Smt. Shailie Gupta. 39. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the order of lower authorities. 40. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The sole substantive ground No.2 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.That the addition of Rs. 98,000/- as undisclosed cash deposits in Bank be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The addition made be quashed. 3.That the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- as undisclosed on-money payment to Shri Shardendu Mishra be held to be bad and unjustified specially when there was no evidence to corroborate the statement of the said person. The addition made is requested to be quashed and deleted. 4.That in the alternative and without prejudice to the Grounds stated above the additions made be held to be highly unreasonable and excessive and be reduced. 5. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the case. 46. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested not to press Ground No.1, therefore Ground No.1 is dismissed as not pressed. 47. Apropos Ground No.2 for the addition of Rs. 98,000/- as undisclosed cash deposit. Brief facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings assessee failed to explain the source of deposit of cash of Rs. 98,000/- in her bank account held with HDFC Bank. It was contended that this a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rting the order of lower authorities. 50. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The issue for adjudication is whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the addition for Rs. 98,000/-. From perusal of the record, we find that the cash of Rs. 98,000/- in the assessee's bank account in two parts at Rs. 49,000/- each was deposited on 10.4.2010 and 12.4.2010. The address of the assessee in the bank account is shown at Bhopal. Cash of Rs. 98,000/- is deposited at Satna, Madhya Pradesh. The claim of the assessee that the cash was received from sale of agriculture land at Satna is verifiable from the documentary evidence placed at page 16-26 of the paper book showing the details of agriculture land situated at village Satna in the name of assessee's mother Smt. Sudha Jain. Further it is claimed that the amount was immediately transferred to Smt. Sudha Jain is also verifiable from the bank statement. Smt. Sudha Jain has used the amount for renovation of residential duplex house which is also supported by the documentary evidence placed at paper book page 27-43. In this given facts and circumstances of the case the assessee's submission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a was summoned and on oath stated to have received 'on money' of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- observing as follows; "I have carefully considered the facts of the case the material placed on record and the findings of A.O. and also perused the case record. I have also considered the written submissions put forward before the A.O. The registered value of the property is Rs. 2,44,000/- and the breakup of the payment as claimed appellant is: Rs. 1,50,000/-- by cheque on 24.12.2010 Rs. 94,000/-- by cheque on 03.05.2011 However, the seller of the said property Shri Shardendu Mishra has admitted to have received Rs. 2,00,000/-- on money in cash on the sale of the above plot at gram Borda, .Bhopal. Shri Shardendu Mishra also admitted that he has used the above sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- received in cash from the appellant for the payment of outstanding loan of UCO bank, Lalghati branch, Bhopal. 4.2 From the above it is evident that the Plot situated at gram Borda, Bhopal was purchased by the appellant from shri Shardendu Mishra for a total consideration of Rs. 4,44,0001- out of which Rs. 2,44,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs found from Locker No.153 at Kotak Mahindra Bank, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The addition made is requested to be quashed and deleted. 5. That in the alternative and without prejudice to the Grounds stated above the additions made be held to be highly unreasonable and excessive and be reduced. 6. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the case. 63. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested not to press Ground No.1, therefore Ground No.1 is dismissed as not pressed. 64. Ground No.2 & 3 relates to addition for silver article weighing 2.936 Kg valued at Rs. 1,70,288/- found from the residence, silver articles weighing 1.270 kg found from locker valuing Rs. 67,310/- and silver article weighing 2.065 kgs found from another locker valuing Rs. 1,15,640/-. These silver articles were found in the locker as well as in the residence of the assessee. The addition for the value of silver articles/utensils found in the locker and in the assessee's residence made by the Ld. A.O was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) against which....