TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (12) TMI 205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sis of vague notice under s. 158BC and that the notices under s. 142(1) and 143(2) having not been issued within prescribed time under the law, ought to have held the assessment as invalid and therefore ought to have cancelled the same. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that your appellant had made investment of Rs. 4,47,700 in shares and debentures which was unexplained and further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,47,700 on this account (Rs. 2,00,000 was already offered by the appellant). 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the stock of silver article seized of Rs. 15,17,000 belonged to your appellant only and further erred in confirming addition of Rs. 4,93,367 on this account. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that investment in gold ornaments of Rs. 20,6000 was unexplained and further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,600. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the total advance as per Annex. A-6 and A-12 of Rs. 11,15,315 were unaccounted as against Rs. 5,00,000 disclosed by your appellant and further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,15,315 on the account. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the investment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me to the conclusion that actual investment was Rs. 4,47,700 only. He, therefore, sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 2,47,700 (Rs. 4,47,700 - Rs. 2,00,000). Both the parties are aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) hence in appeal before us. 6. At the time of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee argued at length. He also filed the break up of investment in shares/debentures person-wise/date-wise and pointed out that total investment was actually of Rs. 4,68,800 and not Rs. 4,47,700 as taken by the CIT(A). However, this investment was made by five persons and the person-wise summary of the investment was as under: Summary of Investments ----------------------------------------------------- Name of the Amount Assessment Remarks person invested particulars ----------------------------------------------------- C.J. Choksi 2,59,200 ABNPC Rs. 2 lakhs (Appellant) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; in May, 2002 and presently settled and staying at Canada Sarang Choksi 5,000 Not Got married to (Appellant's assessed &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 14-11-2002 by the Asstt. CIT, C.C. 2, Baroda Ankit 57,700 ABNPC Assessed to tax C. Choksi 1594P since many years. (Appellant's Order under son) s. 158BD passed  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-wise. The learned Departmental Representative has not pointed out any mistake therein. From such person-wise break-up, we find that Smt. Sohiniben C. Choksi, wife of the assessee and Shri Ankit C. Choksi, son of the assessee are assessed to tax separately and even they have been assessed under s. 158B for the block period. In view of the above, in our opinion the investment in shares by Smt. Sohiniben C. Choksi and Shri Ankit C. Choksi cannot be considered in the hands of the assessee. They have to be considered in their respective hands. So far as Ms. Abha Choksi is concerned, we find that she is not assessed to tax and the assessee has not explained the source of investment by her. No confirmation is filed from her that the shares actually belonged to her. At the time of search these shares were found from the assessee's premises though she was married on 21st Nov., 1994. In view of the above facts, in our opinion, investment by Ms. Abha Choksi is to be considered in the hands of the assessee. The investment by Shri Sarang Choksi son-in-law is only Rs. 5,000. However, no confirmation from him is filed. The assessee also could not explain why those shares were found from the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; Found Rs. Seized Rs. ------------------------------------------------- Cash 62,790 5,00,00 Silver Articles 15,83,470 15,17,000 Gold ornaments 20,600 Nil ---------- ------------ 16,66,860 15,67,000 ------------------------------------------------- The assessee filed the return disclosing income of Rs. 25,55,858 under the following heads: Rs. ------------------....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cles were of the pawning business carried on by the assessee. The assessee is not well educated and is not conversant with the proper accountancy procedure or the provisions of the IT Act. The assessee by mistake further offered a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs for unexplained investment in the pawning articles. When the assessee is carrying on the pawning business either the money advanced against the pawned articles could be treated as unexplained investment or the pawned articles can be valued and treated as unexplained investment. However, under no circumstances, the amount advanced as well as the pawned articles both can be treated as unexplained investment. The total income offered by the assessee against unexplained investment in the pawning business is Rs. 15,23,633 (Rs. 10,23,633 for investment in silver articles + Rs. 5 lakhs for advances). The total value of the silver and gold found relating to pawning business was only Rs. 10,44,233 (Rs. 10,23,633 + 20,600). Similarly the money advanced in the pawning business even as per AO is only Rs. 11,15,315. Therefore, either considering the advances in the moneylending business or the value of pawning articles, the disclosure made by the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee is carrying on business of trading in silver ornaments and he is assessed to tax prior to search. At p. 39 of assessee's paper book there is computation of income of Ankit Choksi for asst. yr. 1999-2000 which is filed on 17th June, 1999 i.e. prior to the search. At p. 40 there is trading account showing closing stock of silver articles at Rs. 1,09,575. Similarly Shri Chandravadan J. Chokshi HUF is also assessed to tax prior to the search, and stock of silver ornaments with him as on 31st March, 1999 was Rs. 2,30,754. In the above circumstances, we do not find any justification for disbelieving the submission of the assessee that at the time of search silver ornaments seized from business premises included the silver ornaments belong to the trading business of Ankit Choksi at 18.332 kgs. and Chandravadan J. Choksi at 61.289 kgs. The remaining silver ornaments at business premises was at 23.299 kgs. valued at Rs. 10,33,633. The gold ornaments found from business premises were valued at Rs. 20,600. Thus the total value of gold/silver articles found from assessee's business premises which can be said to be relating to or received from moneylending business of the assessee i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and in the balance sheet the purchase of land as well as investment in the building construction is disclosed, in our opinion there is no justification for coming to the conclusion that the investment in the building was made by the assessee. The AO has presumed the investment in building to be made by the assessee on the only ground that during the course of search in her statement she stated that she did not know how much was incurred towards the construction of the house. However, this by itself is not sufficient to hold that the investment in the house was made by the assessee. Smt. Sohiniben Choksi is residing in a small place Dahod and it was for the first time in her life that her statement was being recorded and if at that time she could not remember how much was incurred towards the construction of house, it cannot be inferred that the investment in the house was not made by her but by her husband. It is nowhere stated by her that the investment in the house was not made by her. The AO in the block assessment has also mentioned that she does not have any source of income. However, we find that she filed the returns year after year since 1992. The AO has not treated that in....