TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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) 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 Learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of M/s. Krishna Paper Products, Silvasa. Further certain loose 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition was made. The amount which was already declared by the assessee 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 Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The appellant's submission that he has voluntarily disclosed Rs.6,17,662/- in the return, 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments not belonging to assessee. Total 11,09,753/- 11. Having heard the submissions of both the sides, we have noted that the amount as reflected in AS-21 of Rs.4,69,000/- and an amount as appeared at AS-24 of Rs.42,000/- did not belong to the assessee. It has been vehemently contested that the entries on that paper did not relate to the assessee rather no name of the assessee had appeared at any place on this document marked as AS-21 which was not recovered from the assessee but from the premises of Krishna Paper Products. Likewise, the treasury receipt marked as AS-24 did not belong to the assessee but it was related to some other party, namely, M/s. Royal Enterprises. Considering the totality of the facts and....