COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. AVINASH CHANDER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A search under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the "Act") was conducted on 24th June, 1997 at the residential and official premises of the assessee. Thereafter, making post search inquiries, the case was handed over to the AO. A notice under Section 158 of the Act was issued to the assessee, which was served on 31st Aug., 1997. In response to the notice, the return of income for the block period 1st April, 1987 to 24th June, 1997 was filed on 29th May, 1998 declaring therein a total undisclosed income of Rs. 56,408. During the course of proceedings, it was "found that the assessee has four daughters, namely, Nisha, Meenakshi, Sonia and Sunaina. The first three daughters were married between December, 1995 to November, 1996 and the other one i.e., Sunaina was unmarried at the time of search. It was further found that the daughters of the assessee were not engaged in any business or any other work, which could generate any income, but they were maintaining bank accounts in which huge amounts were deposited from time to time. Therefore, the AO on the basis of seized material conclusively held that the bank accounts in the name of daughters, namely, Nisha, Meenakshi, Sonia and Sunaina were controlled by the assessee, who is none else than the benamidar of the daughters and therefore, the following additions were made by the AO for the block period vide order dt. 30th June, 1999 passed under Section 158BC(c) of the Act:

(2.) ON an appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short the "CIT(A)"] deleted some of the additions, i.e., (i) Rs. 70,33,060 on account of cheques and cash deposits in saving bank accounts of 4 daughters, (ii) Rs. 3,23,118 on account of interest income during block period on bank deposits of four daughters, (iii) Rs. 5,78,100 on account of expenses on marriages of daughters, (iv) Rs. 20,43,756 on account of foreign remittance received by assessee, and family members, (v) Rs. 7,00,000 on account of investment and estimated profit during block period in the concern of Sujeet Sharma held to be property concern of assessee, and (vi) Rs. 10,000 on account of household items vide order dt. 28th March, 2002 by holding that the daughters of the assessee are independent assessees and having declared the bank accounts, deposits in their names have to be considered in their hands.

(3.) THAT while giving relief as per ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 above, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the daughters were benamidars of the assessee and the unexplained deposits and interest thereon was rightly treated as income of the assessee and assessed accordingly.