TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and style of M/s. Sri Krishna Surgicals, a proprietary concern. Survey was conducted on 03.11.2008, in the business premises of the appellant along with the business premises of M/s. Fair Deal Enterprises, a proprietrix concern of Mrs. M. Sailaja, wife of assessee. During the course of the survey proceedings, certain lose sheets/documents were found and impounded, noticing certain investments including the investments in immovable properties. Based on the said findings, the following additions were made. a) Unexplained investments/loans advanced Rs.5,00,000 b) Unexplained investments in construction of house at Kavuri Hills Rs.24,12,341 c) Unexplained investments in the form of donations to political parties Rs.5,45,000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith a blank cheque for Rs. 5 lakhs, while admitting simultaneously the identity of the party/loanee. Accordingly, A.O treated the amount of Rs. 5,00,000 as mentioned in the promissory note and reflected in the blank cheque, as the unexplained investment of the assessee. 6. Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee had objected for such addition and submitted that assessee could not trace whereabouts of Mr. Naveen Chand who might have shifted his address from Tandur, and his present whereabouts were not known. It was contended that no such loan of Rs. 5 lakh was given by assessee to Mr. Naveen Chand. 7. Ld. CIT(A), however, confirmed the addition by stating as under : "6.3 Perused the findings of the Assessee and the submissions of the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sibility in explaining the contents of the documents that was found and impounded during the survey proceedings. Due to his failure to do so, will confirm the presumptions and conclusions drawn by the assessing officer that the amount of Rs. 5 lakh was lent by the appellant to Mr. Naveen Chand for which the promissory note and the blank cheque were obtained as security, which were found in the possession of the appellant. Thus, the failure on the part of the appellant to explain the contents of the promissory note accompanied by the blank cheque, supports the stand taken by the assessing officer that the said amount represent unexplained investments of the appellant as per the provisions of Sec. 69 of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, the ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the lose sheets found and impounded as A/FDE/01 to 09 and one among such noting was shown to be the payment of Rs. 5,45,000 made by assessee to a political party. Since, assessee did not offer the proper explanation in spite of the statements recorded on 15.12.2011 and the questionnaires issued on 3.11.2011 and 28.12.2011, the said amount was treated as unexplained investment in the hands of assessee for the year under reference. 11. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee objected to such addition. While furnishing the written submission dt. 16.05.2012 and 10.09.2012, it was only referred to the statement of the facts (para 5), furnished along with the grounds of appeal wherein it was merely mentioned that payment towards the same was denied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated as unexplained expenditure. Regardless of the nature the amount stand as an outflow of the cash from the hands of the appellant for which the sources are not explained, as such the addition made by the assessing officer stands sustained. This ground of appeal is therefore, dismissed". 13. Nothing was brought on record to counter the findings of Ld. CIT(A). In the absence of any explanation from assessee, we confirm the same. Ground is rejected. 14. In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed. ITA.No.429/Hyd/2013 : 15. In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following grounds : "2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee failed to produce the books of accounts and other relevant informat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rietor Mr. M. Muralidhar Rao). In the absence of clear explanations as regards to the sources of the investment, specially with reference to the books of account, the AO treated the amounts of Rs. 48,24,683 invested during the financial year 2008-09, as unexplained investment and 50% of such investments were treated as unexplained investments in the hands of assessee. 17. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee furnished additional evidence and the same was sent to A.O. on remand. A.O. made various submissions after partial enquiry. Ld. CIT(A) examined the contentions from para 7.3 to 7.8 of his order in detail and in para 8 extracted the statement and bank details of assessees regarding investments. Finally he concluded as under : "Under the....