2013 (4) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act on 22-9-2005 and various documents/ books of accounts/other valuable articles/other things were found and seized from the various premises covered under section 132(1) and 132(1A) of the Act. 4. On verification of the various documents found and seized from the residential premises of Shri Lalit K.Patel & Kantibhai M, Patel, transactions in respect of land situated at village Jetalpur pertaining to assessee/ his family members were found. Therefore, pursuant to provisions of section 153C(1) of the Act proceedings u/s. 153C read with sec.153A of the Act were initiated against assessee by serving notice u/s.153C r.w.s. 153A on 8-5-2006. Satisfaction within the meaning of sec. 153C was also recorded before initiating the proceedings. In ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....there is no incriminating material or undisclosed asset found at all for any of the six assessment years prior to the date of search and hence the A.O. should have not framed the assessment order(s) u/s. 153C r.w.s.253A. 4. Without prejudice on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT (A) should have realized that the A.O. was not justified in embarking upon the processing and scrutiny of the assessment in a fashion which was permissible u/s. 143(3) but in this particular case it was not permissible u/s. 153C r.w.s. 153A. 5. Without prejudice, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,00,000/- for two loans taken from Alkaben & Kokilaben. 6. On the facts and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....partial relief to the assessee by holding as under:- "15. The contentions/details in respect of this ground of appeal, agitating the addition u/s. 68 were carefully considered. As seen from the details/explanation of the appellant (partly reproduced in para-14 of this order) the balances represent trading account, running account, balances brought forward etc. Apparently there were only two cash creditors in the financial year namely Kokilaben Patel and Alkaben Vasudev, whose deposits of Rs.1,0,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- respectively is stated to have been received by account payee cheque and affirmed by their confirmations. As per the details filed, the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- had been received vide cheque No.0000340 dated 1-8-2002 on which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs.2,50,000/- + Rs.1,50,000 i.e. Rs. 4 lakhs and is therefore restricted to Rs.4 lakhs. The related ground of appeal is allowed accordingly." 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT (A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 8. Before us the Ld. A.R. submitted that with respect to the two cash creditors namely Kokiklaben Patel and Alkaben Vasudev whose deposits were of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- respectively, the amount was received by account payee cheques and was further confirmed by the their confirmations. He further submitted that in the case of Alkaben Vasudev, interest of Rs.1450/- had also become due. He further submitted that Assessing Officer did not summon both the depositors. In view of this matter, he submitted that assessee h....