TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ized from the premises of Shri Ashok Kumar Dokania without appreciating the contents of the seized documents and his written statement to the effect that the figures written on the loose papers were cash payments made to staff in the F.Y. 2007-08. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee never raised objection of assessibility of the said cash payment to the staff in F.Y. 2007-08 when it replied to the show cause notice." 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a closely held limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading/import of Furniture, Plywood and Laminates. The assessee company was managed by Shri Sajjan Dokania in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordingly, the AO, among other things, made an addition of Rs. 38,25,000/-, allegedly incurred by the assessee on account of cash payments made to staff in the F.Y. 2007-08, as unexplained expenditure u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the said addition on the reason that the said seized documents is dumb document since the same belonged to F.Y. 2008-09. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, the impugned addition has been made on the basis the loose sheet bearing page no. 41 of Annexure-A, found during the search operation from the one Shri Ashok Kumar Dokania and it is not disputed that the relevant loose sheets, be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been explained by Shri Ashok Kumar Dokania belonging to Financial Year 2008-09 and the AO presumed the said page no. 41 belongs to F.Y. 2007-08. He has not given any reason nor any material evidence to come to such conclusion in contrast to the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act, which is so heavily relied upon by the learned AO. Secondly, whereas the said Shri Ashok Kumar Dokania has deciphered the payment given to 'RSK Rs. 2.30 lakhs', the AO has made addition of Rs. 2.50 lakhs. Thirdly, whereas, Shri Ashok Kumar Dokania has explained payment made to 'Ashish-.30', the AO has presumed the payment made to one 'Mr. Ashok Rs. 30,00,000'. It is prima facie evident that the AO has failed to give any reason for deviating from the facts explained by....