TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.2,69,736/- and Rs.1,30,000/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 2. The learned CIT (A) had erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in disallowing adhoc allowance of Rs.44,249/- i.e. 25% of Rs.1,76,997/- under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The action is unjustified and unwarranted." 03. The brief fact of the case shows that assessee is an individual deriving income from business and profession from interior designing and artist. She filed her return of income on 20th October, 2003, declaring total income of Rs.1,51,320/-. Subsequently, search took place on Nagi Group on 30 May 2008. Notice under Section 153A of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued. In response to that notice, assessee filed a return of income on 17th November 2009, at Rs. 2,55,585/-. 04. On scrutiny, the Assessing Officer noted that credit in the bank account of the assessee was of Rs.16,38,128/-. Assessee could not explain satisfactorily the source of such credit to the extent of Rs.12,89,721/- which was added by the learned Assessing Officer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....withdrawal. He submitted that assessee has withdrawn cash of Rs.3,29,735/- and has also cash sales of Rs.1,93,764/- out of which Rs.4,63,500/- has been deposited back. The learned CIT(A) has only accepted the cash sales of Rs.1,93,764/- but has not accepted Rs.2,69,736/- and confirmed the addition. 10. With respect to Ground no. [2], he submitted that merely because the assessee agreed during the course of assessment proceedings the expenditure could not have been disallowed. He submitted that compete details of such expense in form of ledgers accounts and vouchers/supporting were produced but it is not possible to maintain 100 % third party evidences. 11. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. 12. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the confirmation of the addition of Rs.2,69,736/- and Rs.1,30,000/- under section 69A of the Act. We find that assessee has deposited a cash of Rs.4,63,500/-. The claim of the assessee is that she has withdrawn cash of Rs.3,29,735/- from her bank accounts and has also shown cash sales of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., we find that out of addition of Rs.1,30,000/-, assessee deserves relief of Rs.25,000/- which is considered as reasonable and hence, addition to that extent is deleted. Further, assessee is also entitled to the excess of Rs.5,86,163/- minus (-) Rs.1,22,663/-. Therefore, even otherwise, the addition of Rs.1,30,000/- is covered as expenditure. In view of this, the learned Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs.2,69,736/- and Rs.1,30,000/- on account of deposited in the bank account. Thus, ground no. 1 of the appeal is allowed. 14. Ground no. 2 is with respect to disallowance of expenses being 25% of Rs.1,76,997/- which has been agreed by the assessee before the learned Assessing Officer. The assessee also did not deny that the complete third party evidences are not available with her. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) in confirming this disallowance. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is dismissed. 15. Accordingly, ITA No. 5940/Mum/2019 for Ay 2003-04 filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 5941/Mum/2019 AY 2004-05 16. ITA No. 5941/Mum/2019, is filed by the assessee against the order of the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven by one of the clients. Assessee also submitted a confirmation before the learned CIT(A) of Orion Enterprises but the learned CIT(A) held it to be an afterthought and confirmed the addition. 19. The assessee is aggrieved with that order and is in appeal before us. 20. The learned Authorized Representative submitted a paper book and case law compilation. 21. With respect to Ground no [2] he submitted that on identical reasons as prevalent in A.Y. 2003-04, assessee submitted that total credit of Rs.11,16,590/- is out of known sources. He referred to page no. 5, stating that while explaining the sources of the same, assessee has stated that these are the cash deposits out of the funds withdrawn from her bank account. He referred to the page no. 6 of the order of the learned CIT(A), wherein the submissions are made. He submitted that undisputedly the cash of Rs.3,83,000/- has been withdrawn from the bank account which has not been used by the assessee anywhere else and therefore, while explaining the total source of deposits in bank account of Rs.11,16,590/-, the credit of Rs.3,83,000/- should have been allowed to the assessee. 22. With respect to Ground no [1] , additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....drawal from the bank account by the assessee has been used for any other purpose other than re-depositing it in the bank account of the assessee. In absence of any contrary finding, merely because assessee did not submit the reason for withdrawal of cash and its redeposit, addition could not have been made. This is also so, because, the withdrawal from the bank account is of small sum and redeposit is also of small sum. Accordingly, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.3,83,000/- under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed. 25. Ground no. 1, is with respect to the addition of Rs.3,20,000/- under section 69C of the Act. During the course of search a loose paper pertaining to Orion Enterprises was found wherein the extra work of Rs.6,40,000/- was mentioned. There was no address or date mentioned there on. During the course of appeal before the learned CIT(A), assessee submitted letter dated 23rd December 2011 from Orion Enterprises that above document belongs to them. It was further stated that this was a quotation for the work to be done for Mr. Marwah, in his flat at 902, Imperial heights, Pali hill. Orion Ente....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n source of Rs.55,35,768/- and therefore, same was added under section 69A of the Act. Consequently, assessment order under section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act was made on 30th December, 2010 at a total income of Rs.61,60,410/-. 30. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT(A), who after taking remand report of the learned Assessing Officer noted that the correct figure of bank deposit is only Rs.41,31,305/- against Rs.57,22,157/- mentioned by the learned Assessing Officer. As per the records of the earlier assessment orders, the learned CIT(A) disbelieved and confirmed the addition of Rs.2,08,242/- and Rs.8,35,300/-. 31. Assessee is aggrieved by that order and has preferred this appeal before us. 32. The learned Authorized Representative submitted a paper book where n he submitted cash flow statement as well as other documentary evidences. 33. He submitted that sum of Rs.2,08,242/- is loan and gifts received from relatives and further cash deposit of Rs.8,35,300/- is from the bank accounts. He referred to the cash flow statement placed at page no. 2 and 3 of his Paper Book. He also referred to the remand report placed at page 11 of the Paper Boo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled her return of income on 30th October 2006, at Rs.6,80,851/-. On search, in response to notice under section 153A of the Act on 17th November, 2009, she filed her return of income declaring income of Rs.8,73,615/-. 40. During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer found that total credits in the bank account of the assessee is Rs.71,94,129/- out of which source could not be explained to the extent of Rs.58,16,658/- which was added under section 69A of the Act. Further, Rs.2,63,743/- being 25% of the total expenditure was disallowed on adhoc basis. Assessment order passed on 30th December 2010, at Rs.69,54,020/-. 41. Assessee approached the learned CIT(A), who after obtaining the remand report from the learned Assessing Officer held that there is no credit of 58,16,658/- but the correct sum of credit is only Rs.16,21,552/-. He upheld the addition to the extent of Rs.50,000/- which was stated to be out of cash withdrawal from the bank account. He further confirmed the disallowance of Rs.2,63,743/- out of the expenses. 42. The assessee is aggrieved with that order and is in appeal before us. 43. The learned Authorised Representative and lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owance out of total expenditure, when accounts are audited, is also not warranted. However, we are of the view that personal nature of expenses also cannot be ruled out. In view of this, in the interest of justice, we direct the assessee to restrict adhoc disallowance of expenses to only 10% of total expenditure other than depreciation. Thus, out of the total expenditure of Rs.8,26,359/-, the adhoc disallowance at the rate of 10% i.e. Rs. 82,635/- is confirmed and balance disallowance deserves to be deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is partly allowed. 45. In the result, ITA No. 5943/Mum/2010 for A.Y. 2006-07 is partly allowed. ITA No. 5944/Mum/2019 AY 2007-08 46. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 24th July, 2019, for A.Y. 2007-08 raising following grounds of appeal:- "1. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 5,15000/-and Rs. 6,31,790/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 2. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oting in loose sheet paper no. 22 of Rs.10,05,000/-. 50. Therefore, assessee is aggrieved with that order and has preferred the appeal before us. 51. The ground no. 1 is against the confirmation of addition of cash deposit of Rs.5,15,000/-, Rs. 4 lacs on account of unexplained fixed deposit and Rs.6,31,790/- on account of dividend and mutual fund income not offered for taxation. 52. On careful consideration and on perusal of hearing both the parties, we find that the assessee has explained the source of cash deposit of Rs.5,15,000/- being withdrawal from her own bank account. This ground is identical to ground in earlier years, where the learned CIT(A) disbelieved that cash withdrawn from the bank account of the assessee are available with her. The learned CIT(A) held that it is merely a bald statement without any supporting evidence. In the earlier years, we have reversed the finding of the learned CIT(A) and deleted the above addition for the reason that if there is no other evidence with the Revenue of spending the above amount anywhere else , credit for same cannot be denied. Therefore, for the similar reason, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to delete the addit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeal is allowed with above direction. 56. The [2] ground of appeal is with respect to the addition of Rs.24,92,000/-. The fact shows that a loose paper numbers 21 and 22 are found during the course of search. On page no. 22 certain noting were found which shows that there is an office area of 390 sq. Ft. . Noting also has reference of Rs. 28,80,000/-. This sum is bifurcated in Rs.13,93,000/- has been shown in cheque and Rs. 14,87,000/- have been shown in cash. The noting also shows details relating to registration of the property. The backside of the above page shows details of various fixed deposits. It is also mentioned that per sq. ft. rate is Rs.7,236/-. When it is multiplied to area of 398 sq. ft., the resultant figures is Rs.28,79,928/-. As there is mention of Rs.13,93,000/- by cheque, the remaining amount of Rs. 14,87,000/- was added as unexplained investment of the assessee under Section 69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to Rs.10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs.10,05,000/- is covered in the fixed deposits of Rs. 45 lacs. Assessee has also stated that the details are available in the balance sheet of the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) both did not consider the above explanation of the assessee. We hold that when assessee is having fixed deposit of Rs.45 lacs and when assessee claims that fixed deposits stated in page no. 22 is not an unaccounted fixed deposit but included in the same. Ld AO did not found that in which bank this FDR is placed. During search also there is no recovery of such FDRs. Further, when assessee is showing that the fixed deposits of Rs. 10 lacs is also part of the total deposit of Rs.45 lacs already disclosed by the assessee and when there is no mention of the name of bank etc, same cannot be added to the total income of the assessee. It is also to be seen that the learned Assessing Officer has held that assessee has obtained fixed deposits of Rs.10,05,000/- by paying cash. However, there is no corroborative material that in which bank account the fixed deposits have been placed. However, as the assessee contends that this fixed deposit mentioned in page no. 22 is already inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essing officer in making addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 2. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts. of the case in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 15,89,027/- u/s 69A of the Act. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 3. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 8,84,792/- u/s 69A of the Act. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 4. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 5. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 1,17,164/-u/s 69A of the Act. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 6. You Petitioner crave leave to add, amend, alter and /or withdraw any or all the aforesaid ground of appeal." 65. The fact shows that the search took place in the case of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew that as figure against the name of MSF is mentioned Rs. 5,00,000/- , the figure mentioned against AB of 15 and MSF of 14, are also in lacs but written in two digits. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer was of the view that against the AB, the sum is Rs. 15 lacs instead of '15' and Sum against the MSF is Rs. 14 lacs against '14' and therefore, the total addition of Rs.29 lacs (+) plus 5 lacs was made under Section 69A of the Act. Order of ld AO was confirmed by ld CIT [A] . 72. Assessee explained that this is merely a loose paper and does not have any evidentiary value. It was stated that the learned Assessing Officer unnecessarily and without any basis stated that figures written in two digits are transaction lakhs.. It was further stated that merely because one of the figure is mentioned in lacs, the double-digit figures could not be also considered to be in lacs. It was stated by the assessee that even on the same page there are figures mentioned in Thousands also . Therefore, considering the figures in lacs is without any basis. Even on the merits, assessee stated that assessee has paid Rs. 15,000/- to Mr. Atul Bhalla towards the gift, who is the broker for the servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee has stated that he has given a loan of Rs.12 lacs to M/s Orion Enterprises on 8th January 2007, and which has been repaid on 31st March 2007, to the extent of Rs.10 lacs and assessee has maintained this explanation consistently. There is no evidence that assessee has paid Rs. 15 lacs to Mr. Atul Bhalla and Rs. 14 lacs to Mark S Fernandez. The learned Assessing Officer has also not called for examination of these two individuals. In view of this, addition of Rs. 29 lacs made by the lower authorities is merely on conjunctures and surmises. Therefore, we do not agree with the addition confirmed by the lower authorizes to the extent of Rs. 29 lacs. However, with respect to addition of Rs. 5 lacs mentioned on the same loose paper with respect to Mark S Fernandez cannot be faulted with because of the reason that the assessee remained silent before the learned Assessing Officer, learned CIT(A) and even before us. In view of this out of the total addition of Rs. 34 lacs, in ground no. 1 the addition of Rs.5 lacs is confirmed and balance of addition of Rs. 29 lacs is deleted. 77. The second ground of appeal is with respect to addition of Rs. 15,89,027/- confirmed by the learned CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs and not in the handwriting of the assessee. When these documents do not pertain to the assessee and when assessee has stated that the query should be raised in case of Orion Enterprises from where the document is found. The remand report also confirms that document is found from the premises of Orion Enterprises then, how these documents are related to the assessee and why assessee is asked to explain the same in her individual capacity is not known. Further, even otherwise the expenditure of Rs. 17 lacs has not been incurred by the assessee at all and therefore it cannot be outstanding. There is no reference that when the same were paid or from which source the same have been paid and to whom. In view of this, the addition of Rs. 17 lacs in the hands of the assessee is devoid of any merits. The learned CIT(A) has restricted it to Rs.15,89,027/- . In view of this, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed. 82. Ground no. 3 is with respect to the addition of Rs. 8,84,792/-. This addition has arisen on account of seized document. The copy of such seized document is placed at page no. 10 of the Paper Book. It mentions that assessee has received Rs. 1,59,792/- from M/s Sundram Motel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration of the various information submitted by the assessee, we find that the above additions made in the hands of the assessee is on account of complete misreading and misunderstanding on the part of the lower authorities. On 6th November 2007, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 1,59,792/-, which is credited in the bank statement, which is also placed at page no. 49 of the Paper Book. This is received from Sundram BNP Paribas Mutual Fund on account of redemption proceeds. Further, Rs. 6,50,000/- credited on 11th July 2007, is also transferred from HDFC Bank Ltd by cheque no. 161459 from the account of the assessee. Respective bank account of HDFC bank of the assessee from where the same has come and where it is deposited has also been placed on record. With respect to Rs.75,000/-, assessee has already included the same in the sale account. In view of this, we find that the learned lower authorities are not correct in sustaining addition of Rs.8,84,792/- in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, ground no. 3 of the appeal is allowed. 88. Ground no. 4 of the appeal is against sustaining the addition of Rs. 9 lacs under Section 69 of the Act. The fact of the case shows that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lls of furniture. In fact additions made by her in Furniture and fixture and other assets can be verified and if those additions are found bogus, additions of the same can be made. Therefore, in our opinion the addition of Rs.9 lacs in the hands of the assessee is unjustified. Hence, ground no. 4 of the appeal is allowed. 93. Ground no. 5 is with respect to the addition of Rs. 1,17,164/-. No arguments are advanced on this ground. In view of this, no interference is called for and ground no. 5 is dismissed. 94. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No. 6548/Mum/2019 is partly allowed. In ITA No. 6835/Mum/2019 AY 2009-10 95. In ITA No. 6835/Mum/2019 for Assessment Year 2009-10 the assessee has raised following nine grounds of appeals against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) dated 20th September, 2019:- "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act. The action is unjustified and unwarranted. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is in appeal against the additions sustained by the learned CIT(A). 97. The first ground of appeal is against the addition of Rs. 4 lacs. The fact shows that according to page no. 1 Annexure A-1, seized during the search, it shows that assessee received gift of Rs.2 lacs each from his father and his brother. Assessee was questioned and it was stated that no such transactions took place. However, during the course of assessment proceedings on 16th December, 2010, assesses submitted that she is the only daughter and her father and brother has decided to give 2 lacs each to her and therefore, these gifts are received by the assessee from relatives is exempted. The learned Assessing Officer made additions of these sums holding that there are inconsistent submissions of the assessee and no documentary evidence is produced. On perusal before the learned CIT(A), she reiterated the above submission and also submitted the affidavit of receipt of the gift. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the above addition for the reason that only assessee had completely denied receiving the above gift and furthermore, assessee has not provided dividend to explain the source of gifts from the donors. Theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from Mr ATul Bhalla of Rs. 45 lakhs and balance Rs. 35 lakhs from the cash amount of Rs. 95 lakhs to be arranged by one finance broker. Further the balance cash of Rs. 60 lakhs from finance broker was to be utilised for repaying the loan of Rs. 45 lakhs to Atul Bhalla and the balance of Rs. 15 lakhs for payment of income tax. Based on this the learned assessing officer asked the assessee to explain the above noting based at page number 6 and 7 of annexure A - 1. The assessee submitted that she is in the habit of making notes of the various proposals and the transactions in respect of the loans from the banks in respect of property at Mumbai, personal loans and vehicle loans have all materialised however the transactions related to loan for Delhi property did not materialise. The learned that assessing officer is believed the explanation of the assessee and he noted that Delhi property though is not reflected in the balance sheet of the assessee but as per the detailed noting in the newspaper there is a reference of acquisition of property and therefore he made an addition of Rs 2. .70 crores in the hands of assessee u/s 69C of the act. 100. The matter reached before the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earch. There is no reason given by the learned CIT - A that if the Delhi property has not materialized by the assessee, why would assessee borrow a loan of Rs. 45 lakhs from somebody else and where from the assessee would on a further 45 lakhs. He therefore submitted that the addition of Rs. 90 lakhs made by the learned CIT - A is merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises and with no evidence. He further submitted that the newspaper also do not indicate that assessee is having those sums 102. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. 103. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. It is apparent that the learned assessing officer on the basis of the seized paper has made an addition of Rs. 2.70 crores in the hands of the assessee stating that the loose papers shows that how the funds would be arranged for payment of consideration of above property partly by cheque or partly by cash. Therefore it was assumed by the learned assessing officer that assessee has purchased the above property. This fact was proved by the assessee in negative by showing that this prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transactions have never materialised. The AO noted that description of the jewelry on the sale slips do not match with any of the jewelry items found at the time of search action and therefore he made the addition. 105. The matter reached before the learned CIT - A after obtaining the remand report on submission of the assessee as well as the joint of the assessee confirmed the above addition. 106. The learned authorised representative submitted that these are the loose papers which does not have any evidentiary value and are merely estimation. Assessee has never purchase such jewelry. He stated that the assessing officer and stated that assessee might have sold the jewelry to pay of the existing liability. He therefore submitted that addition has been made purely on the guesswork. 107. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower authority and stated that the assessee is giving contradictory submissions before the lower authorities and therefore the addition deserves to be confirmed. 108. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The learned assessing officer has categorica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cost of stone emerald of Rs. 107,000/-. This fact was not denied by the assessee before the lower authorities or before us. In view of this we dismiss ground number 4 of appeal. 114. Ground number 4 is with respect to the addition of Rs. 1,236,900 u/s 69B of the act. The fact shows that Rs. 9.55 lakhs were added by the learned assessing officer u/s 69B on the basis of inventory of expensive watches and electronic item is made at the time of search. Further in addition of Rs. 281,000 was also made on the basis of inventory of luxurious purses at the time of search. Therefore the addition of Rs. 1,236,900/- was made. Before the assessing officer assessee contested that the valuation is on higher side and further certain watches are received as gift and therefore could not have been added to the income of the assessee. 115. When the matter reached before the learned CIT - A, he considered the submission of the assessee, obtained remand report of the learned AO, and rejoinder of the assessee. He held that the claim of the assessee that the above expensive watches, electronic items and luxury purses have been received as a gift from her clients and friends without any evidences. N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t find any infirmity in the orders of the learned lower authorities in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,867,098/- u/s 69B of the act after granting benefit of 500 g of gold jewellery to the assessee in terms of CBDT instruction number 1916. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the appeal is dismissed. 121. Ground number 7 is with respect to the confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,976,500/- the facts relating to the above addition so is that on the basis of the inventory of paintings made at the time of search the learned assessing officer observed that the inventory total to Rs. 1,976,500/-. The assessee submitted that most of these paintings were personal paintings made by her and the balance are commercial paintings which have been shown in her books of accounts at the actual cost. The learned assessing officer noted that the number of paintings are commercial paintings and the value adopted by the Department while valuing them is the cost incurred for the paintings. Therefore he made an addition of Rs. 1,976,500/-. 122. When the matter reached before the learned CIT - A the assessee gave a list of 44 paintings and it was stated that the big and small paintings found the assessee'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n view of this we set-aside the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to segregate each of the painting if made by her. The AO is directed to verify and reduce the addition to that extent. Further, the amount of printing already recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee should also be reduced from un accounted income u/s 69B of the act. The assessee is directed to produce such details before the learned assessing officer, which may be examined and issue may be decided afresh. In the result, ground number 7 is allowed with above directions. 126. Ground number 8 is with respect to the addition of Rs. 6,634,555/- u/s 69B of the act. The fact relating to the above addition shows that certain slips having noting of sale/purchase of jewelry which were seized at the time of search action shows that there is sale and purchase of jewelry. There were such 43 slips. The assessing officer questioned the assessee. The assessee having denied that these are only estimates and have never materialised. The learned assessing officer made an addition for the reason that in some of the slips actual payments are also mentioned. Accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not summon Anmol Jwellers. In view of this, we set-aside the whole issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to produce Anmol Jwellers before the learned assessing officer and explain the purposes and content of the above slips. Merely stating that these are estimates will not serve the purpose unless, assessee proves the intent and purpose of preparing those estimates as well as the contents of receipt of money. Further assessee is also directed to show how the bill of sanjaykumar which is paid credit card of HDFC bank is found in possession of asseseee where bill is issued by Anmol Jwellers. On furnishing the above details, the learned AO may decide the above issue on its own merits. However when the assessing officer decides that above income is required to be added, then the learned assessing officer may also consider the finding of the learned and CIT - A that some of the items in those bills are also found during the course of search and which have been added in the hands of the assessee u/s 69B of the act. Such addition is deserves to be eliminated as it will amount to double addition. Accordingly ground number 8 of the appeal....