TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 590
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s income. The second question pertains to addition of Rs. 3.64 crores and Rs. 20 lakhs, alleged to be property related transactions again not reported by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) and ITAT concurrently ruled with respect to the second amount (i.e. Rs. 20 lakhs) that since the transactions related to the time period 1999-2000, the addition was time-barred, besides overturning it on the merits. 2. Briefly the facts are that the search and seizure proceedings were conducted on 28.2.2007 in the assessee's premises. The assessee was issued notice under Section 153A and filed return declaring income as follows : Assessment Year Amount 2002-03 Rs.13,97,169/- 2003-04 Rs.15,14,302/- 2004-05 Rs.7,24,374/- 2005-06 Rs.6,80,773/- 3. The assessing officer framed the assessment under Section 153A at Rs. 31,79,234/-, Rs. 28,13,213/-, Rs. 34,26,965/- and Rs. 37,95,827/- for A.Ys 2002-03, 200304, 200405 and 2005 -06 respectively. 4. The AO also determined salary - on the basis of the document said to be a letter/e-mail seized during the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been taken on record since the assessee was under the onus of proving that the income had in fact been declared. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported as Urmila Gambhir V. CIT 325 ITR 171 (Delhi) to say that in the past the Courts have taken note of such seemingly innocuous documents which do not connect with the assessee and yet upheld the liability in income tax proceedings. So far as other amounts are concerned it is urged that the ITAT and the CIT(Appeals) fell into error in rejecting the addition of Rs. 64,78,256/- and a sum of Rs. 41,32,800/- on account of unexplained income relying on the findings of the AO in Annexure A10, Party R-11 and submitted that these loose papers were sufficient to indicate undisclosed investments. Counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that a bare reading of the documents seized shows that it had no connection with the assessee or his family. It was submitted that prior to 30.6.2000 the assessee was an independent consultant who had entered into an agreement for this purpose with a private software consultancy and that the agreement dated 30.4.2000 was on the record. However, for the later period i.e. after 1.7.2000, the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../-. As you can see from the above, my salary has not increased in four years. In contrast to this, everyone else in C1 has been getting increments every year e.g. Kapil joined in Jan-01 at a Salary of 50K, It is now at 150K which is 300% in 3 years Anil joined in Dec. 02 at a salary of 60K, It is now 116 which is 100% in 1.5 year Kalyan joined in Jul 02 at a salary of 42K It is not at;141K which is 333% in 2 years. People like Kulbhushan, Rajesh Desingu, Samil Sinha, Amrjeet, Bharat have all grown bath inside C-1 India and then by joining better opportunities outside C1 India. The industry average salary increase has been 25% p.a. every year. However; I have not grown at all in the past, four years. I have also been told categorically that any further improvement in designation is not possible. I believe that I have worked extremely hard for the company. I have fought in extreme rough climate where everyone had given up on the company and you were prepared to-write off all your investments. I have made many sacrifices. I have also given up other lucrative offers to make this company a success. Most of the companies, which started alongwith us or even before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Ors. has laid down that: File containing loose sheets of papers are not 'book' and hence entries therein are not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 13. Similarly, the document Annexure A-37 recovered during the course of search in the present case is a dumb document and lead us nowhere. Thus, the Tribunal rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 48 lacs made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income on the basis of seized material. 14. The above being the position, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal. Thus, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to a question of law, much less a substantial question of law, to fall within the limited purview of Section 260-A of the Act, which is confined to entertaining only such appeals against the order which involves a substantial question of law. 15. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is, hereby, dismissed." 11. In CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del.) cited by the assessee, the Court in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in this Court's opinion is inapt because in that case there was other corroborative material for the income tax authorities to link the description of the transactions found in the said innocuous document seized with respect to other material. However, such inference cannot be drawn in this case because there is no other material. On the contrary the AO's acceptance and finalization of the assessment for 2007-08 on the basis of salary income of the assessee, undermines the entire findings with respect to the inferences drawn and the additions made, indicated above. The question of law urged, therefore, is not substantial and is answered against the revenue. 14. So far as the second amount Rs. 41,32,800/- is concerned there cannot be any doubt that the above was sought to be made in respect of the period 1999-2000. Clearly that was beyond the block period and therefore time-barred. That apart the CIT(Appeals) noted that after the remand during the pendency of appellate proceedings, the affidavit relied upon by the assessee in Brij Bhushan Gupta was not adversely commented upon. This being a factual finding the Court finds no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order. 15.....