COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GIRDHARI LAL BASSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') against order dt.

(2.) THE assessee is an individual and is engaged in property dealing. Search and seizure operation was carried out at the to cash amount of Rs. 47.27 lacs. Sum of Rs. 46 lacs was seized in absence of explanation about the source of amount. This explanation was not found to be acceptable. The AO ascertained facts by conducting a survey on Union Bank of out of which a sum of Rs. 45 lacs was withdrawn was negatived by the overdraft balance book showing balance as on admitted that entry of withdrawal of Rs. 45 lacs was cooked up at the instance of the assessee. The certificate issued to return to the following effect :

(3.) RETURN was duly verified by the assessee and was accompanied by Vakalatnama signed by him in favour of his under s. 158BA of the Act holding that sum of Rs. 45 lacs so seized from the assessee during search represented his undisclosed income. Apart from the said amount, other additions were also made which included amount representing foreign gifts received by the assessee and unexplained investment in purchase of cars. In the bank account seized during the search, there were entries showing amount received from NRIs as gifts. The assessee was duly confronted with the said entry and statement of the assessee was recorded. Unable to give any valid explanation, he surrendered the amount of the gifts as income. The assessee also in response to a questionnaire about the source of investment in car owned by him, offered the investment in the car as undisclosed income for the block year. Similarly, he also surrendered the amount of investment in purchase of another car which was not in his name but in the name of his nephew.