JYOTSANA CHOUHAN ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL -2, BHOPAL

The brief facts of the case as per assessment order are that a search u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted on the residential premises of the appellant assessee as well as on the premises of other related concerns/business associates on 29.01.2014. Since, the various concerns and individuals are inter-connected and have business associations, they have been put together under one common name. “Signature Group”. The assessee is an individual and having business income, rental income and Vivek Chouhan and Others other sources. Consequently, notices u/s 153A of the I.T. Act dated 12.09.2014 were issued to the assessee to file the retunes of income. In response to notices u/s 153A, the appellant assessee has filed returns of income.

The assessee has taken first ground for A.Ys 2010-11 to 2013-14 with regard to sustaining the addition by the ld. CIT(A) holding that the AO was justified in making addition in the years where the assessment proceedings were not pending and no incriminating material was found during the course of search. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that since no incriminating material was found and seized during the course of search. Therefore, no addition is called for and assessment orders are null and void. Ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the submissions of the Ld. counsel for the assessee. After considering rival contentions and material available on record, we find that Ld. CIT(A) after perusal of the assessment order concluded that during search and seizure operations, books of accounts, document, loose papers etc. were seized. The seized documents and papers are the incriminating material on the basis of which additions have been made. 5

The assessee has taken the grounds in respect of unexplained expenditure on foreign travel for A.Ys. 2010- 11 to 2014-15. The AO made the additions on account of foreign tours under taken by the assessee to various countries during the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2014-15. The assessee submitted before the AO that the payments for tours undertaken for A.Y. 2012-13 to 2014-15 were made by assessee to the traveling agents. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee on the ground that no supporting documentary evidences as payments made to the travel agents have been furnished. He further observed that the expenses shown by the assessee appears to be looked. Thus, the AO estimated the expenditure and made the additions of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs. 4,97,175/-, Rs. 1,60,060/- & Rs.8,00,000/- u/s 69C, respectively for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2014-15.

Ld. counsel for the has reiterated the submission as Vivek Chouhan and Others made before the authorities below and filed written synopsis. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.

We have heard both the parties and perused material available on record. We find that the AO has estimated unexplained expenditure on foreign tours undertaken by the assessee. Ld. counsel for the assessee has, during course of hearing, drew our attention to the various advertisements by the travel agents in respect of foreign tours offered by them. After considering totality of facts, we are of the view that it would serve the interest of justice if estimate by the AO is reduced to 50%. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete 50% of the additions i.e. Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs. 4,97,175/-, Rs. 1,60,060/- & Rs.8,00,000/- respectively for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2014- 15 and rest are sustained in view of the fact that the assessee could not furnish any confirmation of the travel agents. Accordingly, this issue is partly allowed for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2014-15.

In the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee has Vivek Chouhan and Others challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming that the AO was justified in holding that only 100grms of gold jewellery found with the assessee is explained out of the addition of Rs. 29,79,754/- made by the AO towards alleged unexplained investment in jewellery. During the course of search, 2936 gms gold ornaments were found at the residence, 643.30 gms gold ornaments were found in the bank locker and 3.733 kg silver utensils were found at the residence. The AO made the addition of 1045 gms plus 643 gms worth Rs.58,13,115/- on out of the total jewellery found in the room of the assessee and in the locker and Rs.59,59,508/- on account of silver utensils. The ld. CIT (A) allowed the deduction of 100 gms valued approximately at Rs.3,50,000/- in the hands of the assessee as per Board’s Circular and maintained the balance addition.

Ld. counsel for the has reiterated the submission as made before the authorities below and filed written synopsis. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that ld. CIT(A) has 8

In the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,95,333/- apportioning and treating the cash found during the course of search with the family as explained. The total cash found with all the family members was Rs.8,86,000/-. It was submitted that as per the cash book of the assessee, the cash is Rs.1,38,484/- and as per the cash book of the firm, the imprest cash balance with the brother of the assessee is Rs.9,30,000/-. Shri Vivek Chouhan is the partner in the firm and the cash of the firm was kept with him. However, the AO did not agree with the same and added one third cash in the hands of each one of the brothers. Thus, the AO made addition of Rs.2,95,333/- in hands of the present assessee. Ld. CIT(A) maintained the addition on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish the details of actual cash 10

Ld. counsel for the has reiterated the submission as made before the authorities below and filed written synopsis. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that ld. Counsel for assessee has contended that the respective cash books have been seized and are verifiable and without verifying the same from the books, the additions are not justified. Considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that this aspect requires verification at the level of the AO. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the issue back to the file of the AO with direction to the AO to provide the copies of the required records to the assessee and then the AO will decide the issue afresh. The assessee is also directed to co-operate in this regard. Thus, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes only.

In result, the appeals of the assessee in case of Vivek Chouhan are partly allowed.

Both the parties submitted that facts and circumstances of this issue are identical to that of the case of Vivek Chouhan. Therefore, following the reason given in the case of Vivek Chouhan (supra), we deem it appropriate to set aside the issue back to the file of the AO with direction to the assessee to furnish the requisite evidences in support of the claim and then the AO will decide the issue afresh in terms indicated hereinabove. Thus, this issue is allowed for statistical purposes only.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

Now, we shall take up the appeals in case of Vineet Chouhan in IT(SS)A Nos.314 to 317/Ind/2017 and for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2014-15.

For the assessment years, 2010-11 to 2013-14, the assessee has taken first ground with regard to sustaining the addition by the ld. CIT(A) holding that the AO was justified in making addition in the years where the assessment proceedings were not pending and no incriminating material was found during the course of search. Both the parties submitted that facts and circumstances of this issue are identical to that of the case of Vivek Chouhan. Therefore, following the reason given in the case of Vivek Chouhan (supra), we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly this issue is dismissed for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2013-14.

The assessee has taken the grounds in respect of unexplained expenditure on foreign travel for A.Ys. 2010- 11 to 2014-15. The AO made the additions on account of foreign tours under taken by the assessee to various countries during the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2014-15. Both the parties submitted that facts and circumstances of this issue are identical to that of the case of Vivek Chouhan. Therefore, following the reason given in the case of Vivek Chouhan (supra), the AO is directed to delete 50% of the Vivek Chouhan and Others additions for the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2014-15 and rest are sustained in view of the fact that the assessee could not furnish any confirmation of the travel agents. Accordingly, this issue is partly allowed for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2014-15.

In the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,95,333/- apportioning and treating the cash found during the course of search with the family as explained. Both the parties 14

The assessee has taken the ground that the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the AO was justified in making addition of Rs.1,04,44,784/- towards unexplained opening capital. Facts are that the assessee has earned capital gains and also profit from the partnership firm. The same have been disclosed in the returns filed earlier. No balance sheet was prepared in the earlier assessment years since the returns were filed on the presumption income u/s 44AD for the first time. The assessee prepared the balance sheet for the assessment year 2014-15. While preparing the balance sheet, the opening capital was shown at Rs.1,04,44,784/-. The AO asked to explain the justification 15

Ld. counsel for the has reiterated the submission as made before the authorities below and filed written synopsis. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the ld. Counsel for the assessee has claimed that all the details were furnished before the ld. CIT(A) but she did consider the same. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that opening balance is out of past savings of the assessee, investment in the partnership firms were verifiable from the books of accounts and bank balances were also verifiable. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the issue back to the file of the ld. C(IT(A) with direction to call for remand repot from the AO on this issue and thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) would decide the issue afresh in terms indicated hereinabove. Thus, this issue is allowed for 16

In result, the appeals of the assessee in case of Vineet Chouhan are partly allowed.

Finally, these group appeals filed by the above assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes.