TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1727
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perations. 3. That without prejudice to Ground No. 1 & 2 above, the additions as made by the AO and confirmed ld. CIT (A) are very excessive. Various observations made by the authorities below in their respective orders are either incorrect or legally untenable. Detailed written submissions as made by the Appellant supported by documentary evidence and the case laws have either been ignored or had not been properly appreciated. 4. That the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C is illegal and at any rate, without prejudice, the interest as charged is very excessive. This ground was duly argued before the ld. CIT (A) but the same has not been disposed off." 3. The assessee has got 1/3rd share in the residential house in Sainik Farms which was being treated as self occupied property. Further, the assessee had acquired another property at Aurobindo Marg on which no rental income has been offered under the provisions of Section 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the Assessing Officer estimated letting value @ Rs.35,000/- per month and added an amount of Rs.294,000/- to the total income on providing for deductions u/s 24 of the Act. The ld. CIT (A) held ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er: Sl. No Name S/Sh/Smt Premises Jewellery fund (in Rs.) Jewellery found (in Wt.) 1. SS Suri & Kinty Suri (Wife) 192-B, Sainik Farm, M B Road, New Delhi 26380346 2539.486 2 Kinty Suri 501, HDFC Bank, Saket, New Delhi 4230938 786.930 3 Kinty Suri 20, Standard Chartered Bank, E-26, Saket, New Delhi 2635061 651.86 4 Mehru Suri (Married Sister) 694, HDFC Bank, Saket, New Delhi 2359042 875.79 5 Kinty Suri 500, HDFC Bank, Saket, New Delhi 8435039 1031.41 6 PP Suri & Narender Kaur Suri (Father & Mother) 578, UCO Bank, Defence Colony, New Delhi 812676 268.50 7 Narender Kaur Suri (Father & Mother) 401, HDFC Bank, E-143, Saket, New Delhi 2839425 947.30 Total 47692527 7101.279 9. During the assessment, the assessee submitted that jewellery weighting 875.79 gms belongs to Nehru Suri the married sister of the assessee who is living abroad which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. 10. The jewellery held by the family members as per the Wealth Tax return is as under: Sh. Surpreet Singh Suri 394.860 gms Smt. Kinty Suri 2086....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....name of appellant's wife (Smt. Kinty Suri). The applicant furnished copies of wealth tax returns for assessment year 2013-14 of himself and his wife in which weight of declared jewellery was shown at 394.860 respectively. The AO granted credit for the same weight of the jewellery. The appellant also submitted certain bills from Swarn Shree Jewels (Prop. Vihaan Eximis Company Pvt. Ltd.) showing purchases, of jewellery in cash from 01.04.2013 to 29.10.2013 (date of search) totalling to 1645.548 Gms. The Assessing Officer did not give any credit in respect of these bills because i) the purchases were claimed in cash, ii) the bills mentioned 'cash' in place of the name of the Purchasing party (did not have name of the appellant or his wife as purchaser) and iii) source of this cash was stated to be imprest received from the companies i.e. M/s Vistar Construction Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd. During the appellant proceedings, it was the argument of the AR that the AO was not right in ignoring the purchase bills submitted by the appellant. The appellant also submitted that credit was not given as per CBDT'S instructions no. 1916 dated 11.01.199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iwala Vs ACIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 196 (SC/20171 250 Taxman 14 (SC), 2017-TIOL-236-SC-IT (Copy Enclosed) where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Where there was nothing on record to show that sister of assessee was in exclusive possession of bedroom in assessee's house from where cash was seized and further, there was contradiction in statement of assessee and his sister with respect to ownership of actual amount in cash, seized cash would be included as unexplained income in hand of assessee under section 69A, SLP dismissed 3. Sukh Ram Vs ACIT 159 Taxman 385 (Delhi/[2006] 285 ITR 256 (Delhi)/[2006] 204 CTR 336 (Copy Enclosed) where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where pursuant to a search conducted at residential premises of assessee, huge sum of cash was found, for which assessee explained that said cash belonged to certain organization but did not bring any material on record to substantiate his explanation and, moreover, verification of books of account of said organization showed no connection with cash recovered from assessee, in said circumstances assessee was to be treated as owner of said cash, and same was to be added to income of assessed under se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s which is as under: Sl. No. Name of the owner as per panchnama Relation with the assessee Premises Net weight Remarks 1. Narender Kaur and Preet Pal Suri Parents Locker No. 578, UCO Bank, Defence Colony, New Delhi 268.500 Considered by AO 2 Narender Kaur and Preet Pal Suri Parents 192 B, Sainik Farm, New Delhi 1388.390 Considered by AO in the hands of the assessee 3 Narender Kaur and Preet Pal Suri Parents Locker No.401, HDFC Bank, New Delhi 947.300 Considered by AO 4 Kinty Suri and Surpreet Suri Wife 192 B, Sainik Farm, New Delhi 1151.096 Considered by AO 5 Kinty Suri Wife Locker No. 500, HDFC Bank, Saket, New Delhi 1031.410 Considered by AO 6 Kinty Suri Wife Locker No. 501, HDFC Bank, Saket, New Delhi 786.900 Considered by AO 7 Kinty Suri Wife Locker No. 20, Standard Chartered Bank, New Delhi 651.86 Considered by AO 8 Mehru Suri Sister Locker No. 694, HDFC Bank, Saket, New Delhi 875.79 No dispute Kinty Suri + Surpreet Suri - 1151.096 Kinty Suri - 2470.19 Narender Kaur + Preet Pal Suri - ....