TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent made to the said party over and above payment of Rs. 3.50 crores made by cheque and subsequently retracted without giving any supporting evidence to the contrary? 3. In this case, search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 24.01.2011. The assessee is a well known actress of Indian Film Industries. Various incriminating documents were found during search. On this issue during the course of search an amount of Rs. 50 lacs was declared as undisclosed income for cash payment for purchase of Studio Aesthetique. Various incriminating material were found during search. When the same was confronted to Smt. Madhu Chopra, the mother of the assessee who was managing the affairs of the assessee, she admitted the following with respect to Q. No. 19 as under: Q. 19 Do you want to state anything else? Ans. Yes, I admit that based on the above seized papers and the answers to the Q Nos. 11 to 17, I offer following undisclosed incomes, which had accrued to me and Priyanka Chopra through various Events, Shows and Sale of flats in the Years as mentioned above. The application of this cash by the above mentioned activities are as under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 6.O5 crores has been made for purchase at various properties and various renovation works. I have already stated that all my financial transactions are looked after by my mother, Mrs. Madhu Chopra and since she has admitted that the above mentioned payments are unaccounted, I state that the same is correct and I agree and abide by the same as my mother is fully aware and competent to know everything related to my Finance." 4. Subsequently, Smt. Madhu Chopra, the mother of the assessee vide letter dated 13.4.2011 filed in the office of Income Tax Office on 06.06.2011, retracted the above said statement. In this background, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that as per the seized material Rs. 50 lacs in this regard was to be added as undisclosed income of the assessee. Regarding the retraction statement of Smt. Madhu Chopra, the said retraction stated that no cash payment was made for purchase of Studio Aesthetique, except the payment made by a cheque of Rs. 3.50 crores. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced. He observed that the assessee has not contradicted the seized material on the basis of which she had disclosed an amount of Rs. 50 l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is unsustainable. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyanasundaram (supra) relied upon by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is on totally different facts and circumstances. In the said case, where the tribunal's decision was authored by one of us, the issue related to on money payment in respect of immovable property based on conflicting statement of the seller and certain figures noted in loose sheets. Hence, this decision was rendered in a different context and does not help the case of the assessee. Hence, we set aside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restore that of the Assessing Officer. 9. In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands allowed. Assessee's appeal (in ITA No. 2769/Mum/2015): 10. The assessee's appeal relates to sustenance of following additions by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) : 1) Addition of Rs. 40 lacs being unaccounted/undisclosed income in the form of Gifts from LVMH Watch and Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd. 2) Addition of Rs. 15 lacs on account of unaccounted/undisclosed income in respect of professional remuneration received from Ramee Royal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and parcel of the endorsement signed by the assessee, the said receipts are treated as perquisites u/s. 28(iv) of the I. T. Act and is taxed accordingly. 14. Upon the assessee's appeal, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that the Assessing Officer has rightly taken the gift of watch as perquisite and taxed it correctly u/s. 28(4). He observed that in the written submission, the assessee has accepted the same. However, he noted that the assessee has mentioned that the value of the watch is much less. However, since the assessee has not able to produce any of the evidence in this regard, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not accept the demand of the assessee. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition. 15. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. We have heard the counsels and perused the records. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee has received gift of watch as per the agreement from which the assessee acted as model for its advertisements and promotional activities for an agreed remuneration of Rs. 1.4 crores for 2 years. Furthermore, it was submitted that the value of the watch is much le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 works out to (Rs.2,36,000 + Rs. 2,28,000) Rs. 464000. Therefore, in the absence of any details, this amount of Rs. 4,64,000/- is also added u/s. 28(iv) of the I T Act and taxed accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s. 271{l)(c) of the I T Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate ^particulars of income and thereby concealing the said income. 19. Upon the assessee's appeal, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition. However, as regards the addition of Rs. 16 lacs, he restricted the same to Rs. 15 lacs and added Rs. 1 lac in the case of Mr. Chand Misra. 20. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 21. In this regard, we note that the assessee has raised an additional ground wherein it has been argued that this addition is not based upon any incriminating material found during search for the document relied upon were impounded during survey. We find that in this case, the assessee has filed original return on 29.09.2008. Subsequently, this assessment has been done u/s. 153A pursuant to search and seizure. Now it is the settled law that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision in the case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of two different units and separate agreements are made. Further, as admitted above, the penthouse was not utilized since A.Y. 2009-10, however, the assessee is claiming depreciation on the same. In this regard, the assessee was asked to submit the details with supporting documentary evidence that the said penthouse has been used for office purpose and why annual value under the provisions of sec. 23(l)(c) should not be determined treating it as income from House Property by disallowing depreciation. In reply to the same the assessee's representative orally stated that the said penthouse is used for keeping the assessee's dresses as godown, however he has not furnished any documentary evidence that it has been utilized for official use. Further, it can be seen that the property under consideration is a penthouse which is located in the residential area. Hence, it cannot be considered as commercial property. Therefore, the annual value of the above said properties has to be determined under the provisions of sec. 23(l)(c) and charged under Income from House property. Relying on the case of Smt. Radhadevi Dalmiya Vs. CIT 125 ITR 134 the Tribunal ....