TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant. 02. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the disallowances made by the Learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are contrary to law and based on erroneous understanding of the facts. 03. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and interpretation of law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making addition to the extent of Rs.3,94,439/- out of entries and related transactions as found in the impounded documents and materials treating the same as unaccounted transactions. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... papers have also been impounded from the premises of Dileep Kumar Gujarati, Accountant, Silavasa. For A.Y. 2003-04, the AO had recorded the details of the documents and thereafter computed the total amount recorded on those papers at Rs.5,39,439/-. The AO alleged that the assessee had failed to explain the entries related to those transactions. Resultantly, an addition of Rs.5,39,439/- was made on account of unaccounted transactions. 4. When the matter was carried before the first appellate authority, learned CIT(A) has granted part relief as follows:- "12(b). For A.Y. 2003-04: The Assessing Officer has made addition for Rs.5,39,439/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.1,35,000/- + Rs.2,68,376/- + Rs.1,26,063/-). The appellant has himself voluntarily dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee was considered and due relief was given, but for rest of the amount in the absence of satisfactory explanation the impugned addition was made. In the absence of any evidence on merits from the side of the assessee, we hereby affirm the relief granted by the learned CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal for A.Y. 2003-04 is hereby dismissed. B. For A.Y. 2007-08 (ITA No.114/Ahd/2009) 7. Grounds raised are reproduced below: "1. The order of assessment is contrary to the facts and prejudicial to the appellant. 02. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the disallowances made by the Learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not correct. The appellant has not disclosed any amount pertaining to the loose papers. The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.11,09,753/-The appellant's submission that papers AS-21 for Rs.4,96,000/-, AS-24 for Rs.42,000/-, A1/375 to 387 for Rs.1,51,500/- and A1/21 for Rs.4,47,253/- do not belong to the appellant, is not acceptable. The paper is found in possession of the appellant and as per section 132(4A), presumption is that it belongs to the person in whose possession documents are found unless he proves otherwise. The appellant has not explained to whom this paper belongs hence as per section 132(4), it belongs to the appellant himself. Further, the amount of Rs.4,47,253/- (A1/21), is regarding investment in bungalows and t....