TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1727
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 that the benefit of the vacancy allowance u/s 23(1)(c) of the Act is not avai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 2086.812 gms Smt. Narender Kaur Suri 1354.146 gms Sh. Pritpal Singh Suri 742.840 gms 11. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee and his wife Smt. Kinty Suri filed the returns of Wealth Tax on 13.09.2013 declaring total jewellery of 24....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 11.01.1994. 5.8 During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR was asked to produce original of the bills as there was certain doubts about authenticity of these bills, however, in spite of sufficient opportunities, the originals were not produced. I have made got independent enquiry and found t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 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 section 69A. 4. Mahabeer Prasad Jain Vs ACIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 9 (Allahabad)/[2018] 253 Taxman 152(Allahabad)/[2017] 399 ITR 600 (Allahabad) Copy Enclosed) where Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that where assessee had purchased drafts by depositing cash but failed to provide source of said cash utilized to make such investment, addi....