TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 158BC assessment the addition of Rs. 2,04,533/- in respect of alleged profits from speculation and Rs. 3,12,563/- as dividend income in block assessment of the appellant u/s. 158BC without evidence thereof? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,50,000/- of unaccounted cash and in not granting the set off thereof against Rs. 6,00,000/- added separately as investment in Kala Mandir Project? (iii) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in upholding in section 158BC assessment the addition of Rs. 11,50,000/- being the alleged unaccounted investment in Kala Mandir Project wherein the Appellant is neither a partner nor a proprietor? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding in section 158BC assessment the addition of Rs. 1,05,017/- in respect of investment in Bharuch land inspite of the fact that seized evidence showed that Appellant had not paid the same? (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding in section 158....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er sum of Rs. 3.12 lakhs on the ground that income arising out of dividend, debenture, interest etc. should also form part of such undisclosed income. 6. Revenue has in its Tax Appeal No. 641 of 2013 framed Question(A) with respect to this decision of the Tribunal on this issue. We would comment on the same when we take up the Revenue's appeal for discussion. At present stage suffice it to notice that the Tribunal examined the issues raised by the Revenue and made observations which are purely factual in nature. No question of law, therefore, arises. 7. So also with respect to Questions (ii), the issue pertains to confirmation of addition of Rs. 5.50 lakhs. The stand of the of the assessee is that when the addition of Rs. 6 lakhs is made as investment in Kala Mandir Project, such amount of Rs. 5.50 lakhs could not be seen as part of such investment and, therefore, should not have been separately added. The Tribunal, however, observed that the claim of the assessee that the amount was received back from Kala Mandir but such amount was not disclosed in the books of Kala Mandir. The Tribunal observed that no cogent evidence was furnished by the assessee to this effect to refute ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Book)." From the another side, ld. CIT DR heavily relied on observation made by the A.O. in block assessment and entries in seized material and argued that the assessee never admitted his father as partner in Kalakunj and details were not given before the A.O. Even then, these evidences admitted now have not explained the investment made in Kalakunj. Thus, he prayed to upheld the order of CIT(A). 15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the paper book submitted. The assessee had denied any partnership business before the A.O. in Kalakunj, no details address, PAN has been submitted at any stage but these evidence were found from the possession of the assessee. The bottom part showed total unaccounted investment of Rs. 11.5 lacs in Kalakunj. The paper book filed by the assessee has not explained the source of entries. Thus, we confirm the order of A.O and upheld the CIT(A)'s order." This issue is also based on the evidence on record. 9. Questions (iv) and (v), pertain to extremely small amounts primarily based on facts, were not seriously argued before us also. 10. In Tax Appeal No. 883 of 2013, as we have noticed there is only one question. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entire period on the basis of limited evidence of 22 days available during the course of search would not be justified. 16. In the case of Surinder Kumar vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) the Court found that during search, material was found showing unaccounted sales by the assessee. Such material related to a period of 112 days. It was, therefore, found that unaccounted sales had taken place throughout the year. It was on this basis the Court held that the addition for the entire year based on material relating to 112 days was justified. It was observed that in such case some amount of estimate has to be made. The same should not, however, be unreasonable or arbitrary. The estimate has to have some rational connection with the addition being made. It was found that the Tribunal had adopted the rational basis for determining unaccounted production for the block period. 17. In the case of Smt. Jyoti Kumari vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax(supra) the Court observed that in search cases, in the case of existence of undisclosed income, it is for the assessee to explain the said and it is not for the Assessing Officer to produce negative evidence. 18. In the case ....