Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. - (1.) This appeal was admitted under Sec. 260A of the Income Tax Act.
(2.) This appeal was admitted on the following questions: Assessment Year 1993 -1994 (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income -Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition on account of benami business and also benami bank account though the benami business were accepted by the Assessee and his two relatives of their statement under Sec. 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition by holding that the investment was made by the Assessee's daughter though it was not recorded in the assessee's daughter's bank account? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income -Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law deleting the addition on account of benami investment ? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income -Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition on account of income derived by Shri Radheshyam Marodia and Dilip Marodia though they admitted that they were salary paid employees of the Assessee and the business was being done on behalf of the Assessee? (v) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Income -Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law by accepting the additional evidence which were not filed before the Assessing Officer and deleted the addition on account of unexplained expenditure? Assessment Year 1994 -1995 (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income -Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition on account of unexplained cash, unexplained investment and jewellery? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income -Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 50 lacs on account of disclosure made by the Assessee or his representative were not allowed to cross -examine? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income -Tax Appellate Tribunal was erred in law in deleting the addition on account of jewellery because there was nothing on record to show that the Assessee or his representative were not allowed to cross -examine? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition with regard to estimation of commission on account of various benami account and also on account of benami business? (v) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,65,240 on account of transaction recorded in loose sheet? (vi) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition on account of business income derived by Dilip Marodia and Radheshyam Marodia though they admitted that they were salary paid employees of the Assessee ? (vii) Whether the Income -Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition on account of marriage expenses?
(3.) The Learned Counsel in support of this appeal submitted that on July 15, 1993, a search was conducted at the residence of the Assessee, late Nandlal Sultania and also at the residence of his accountants, Shri Radheshyam Marodia and Shri Dilip Kumar Marodia. During the course of the search their statements on oath under Sec. 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were recorded. Radheshyam in his statement stated that the Assessee was carrying on business in benami names and 49 bank pass books were seized from his residential premises. The UTI certificates for Rs. 68,000/ - (face value) in respect of Children Gift Growth Fund Scheme were also found from the residence of the Assessee. According to the Assessee, units were Rs. 26,000/ - were purchased by Smt. Anita Sultania, wife of Jaideo Sultania, his son, in the name of her minor daughter, Nitisha Sultania and Anita was an Assessee. Certificates worth Rs. 26,000/ - were invested by Smt. Mina Patwari, his married daughter, on behalf of her minor son, Ajoy Kr. Agarwal and that she was assessed to tax. Certificates worth Rs. 16,000/ -were stated to be acquired by Smt. Anita Sultania on behalf of her minor daughter, Shreya Sultania. The case of the department that the Assessee could not explain the source of money invested or produce bank accounts of the said Anita and Mina. The said certificates were found from the residence of the Assessee, the Assessing Officer considered it as a benami investment and added the amount in his total income under Ss. 69/69A of the Income -Tax Act for the assessment year 1993 -1994.;