2019 (2) TMI 1879

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IT-2(1), Indore. 2. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual earning income from salary and interest. Return of income for Assessment Year 2004-05 filed on 04.10.2015 declaring income of Rs. 1,54,998/-. A search was conducted at the residence of the assessee on 18.08.2004 & 19.08.2004 and along with cash and jewellery, various other incriminating materials were found and seized. Subsequently notices u/s 153A & 143(2) of the Act was issued. In compliance to the notice income tax return filed on 5.2.2005 declaring income at Rs. 1,54,998/-. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee was asked to explain various seized documents. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order dated 6.8.2012. From the perusal of the finding of the Tribunal in para 4.3.4 we find that similar type of addition relating to gift which was also claimed to be owned by the company Rajat Gems & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd was confirmed by the Tribunal. "4.3.4 Now coming to legal submission made, the appellant has taken the stand that since the gifts of Rs. 2,00,000/- were not actually taken by him he cannot be burdened with the responsibility of establishing such gift transactions. The contention of the appellant is absolutely devoid of any merit. The appellant cannot get himself absolved from the responsibility of explaining the entries in his own bank account. If the appellant claims that the bank deposits were not result of gifts than ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing set off for the marriage expenses shown by the assessee at Rs. 3,80,450/- remaining amount of Rs. 12,19,550/- was added and the same was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) also. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the addition is merely estimated because number of guests were much less and the list was a proposed list and not a final list of the invitees who attended the ceremony. On going through the submission made by Ld. Counsel for the assessee before the lower authorities as well as the loose papers impounded during the course of search we observe that at page 1 to 57 of BS-4 and page 1 to 97 of BS-12 list of tentative invitees were 1589 persons but in the very same set of seized documents at item 15 of BS-1 there was invoice dated....