TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 692
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounts and other things were found and seized from various premises. In the case of Assessee also, a search warrant was issued and executed on 14.02.2007 and notice under section 153A was issued on 27.02.2008 and served on Assessee. In response to it Assessee filed its return of income on 26.05.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 32,02,910/-. The assessment was thereafter framed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) vide order dated 31.12.2008 and the total income was determined at Rs. 49,02,910/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 27.07.2010 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following ef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....place. Ground no. 1 was not pressed and therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. Ground no. 2 and its sub grounds are with respect to addition of Rs. 17 lac made by the A.O. and upheld by CIT(A). 4. During the course of search at the residential premises of Shri Samir Sinha, one of the partners of the Assessee, certain documents were found and seized. Page no. 220 of Annexure-A1 back side contained certain transactions and the date appearing on it was 5th March, 2003. It contained receipts in cash as well as cheque up to 16th June. The Assessee was asked to explain the transaction. The Assessee interalia submitted that the notings was in connection with an oral discussion and proposal for the purchase unit 204, 205 in project know....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paper, he has noticed that there was a noting about cheque - 6.0 and Csh (Cash) - 17. It is, therefore, stated that it implies that Rs.6 lakh has been received by cheque and Rs.17 lakh has been received by cash. It is also noticed that the premises in question (i.e. Unit No. 204 and 205 of the building) have actually been soid to Mr. Lakhani. Any notings made in a document has to be seen in totality. The fact remains that the premises in question (i.e. Unit No.204 and 205) have been sold to Mr. Lakhani. When a noting on a "document" has been found to be correct, then, these is strong preponderance of probability that the other notings made on the same "document" is also correct. Normally, there cannot be any direct evidence of such cash tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s made addition without bringing on record any corroborative material to prove that the said cash transaction had actually taken place and Rs. 17 lac was received by the Assessee outside the books of accounts. He further submitted that the A.O. had not examined the purchaser Shri Yogeshbhai Lakhani to whom such units were sold. He further submitted that even during the time of search no statement of the Assessee with respect to the aforesaid receipt was recorded by the A.O. He further placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Maulik Kumar Shah reported in 307 ITR 137. He thus submitted that the addition has been made by A.O. without bringing any material on record and therefore the addition made by A.O. be deleted. 7. The ld. ....