Appeal partially allowed: immovable properties deletion upheld, reassessment directed for movables. Burden of proof on assessee.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the deletion of the addition related to immovable properties but directing a reassessment of the issue concerning movable properties. The Tribunal found that the immovable properties were not acquired during the relevant assessment year, and no evidence was provided for the movable properties. The burden of proof was deemed to lie with the assessee, and the deletion was justified based on the lack of evidence for movable properties.

---

---

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs.1,88,01,000 made by the A.O. based on a document found during search operations.
2. Assessment of immovable and movable properties based on the document.
3. Deletion of the addition by the Ld. CIT(A) and appeal by the Revenue.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal by the Revenue challenged the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.1,88,01,000 made by the A.O. based on a document found during search operations. The document titled "Statement of Assets & Liabilities" was crucial in this regard. The A.O. deducted the value of disclosed assets and assessed the difference as income under section 69 of the Act.

Issue 2:
Regarding the assessment of immovable and movable properties based on the document, the A.O. conducted enquiries and submitted remand reports. The Ld. CIT(A) considered these reports and concluded that the addition made by the A.O. was not justified. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the immovable properties were not acquired during the relevant assessment year and no evidence was provided for the movable properties. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition.

Issue 3:
The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without proper appreciation of the evidence and remand reports. The Revenue argued that the burden of proof lay with the assessee, especially regarding movable properties. On the other hand, the assessee argued that the document was prepared for a bank loan application and contained exaggerated values. The Ld. CIT(A) justified the deletion based on lack of evidence for movable properties. The Tribunal upheld the decision on immovable properties but directed a reevaluation of the movable properties issue by the Ld. CIT(A.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, upholding the deletion of the addition related to immovable properties but directing a reassessment of the issue concerning movable properties.

---