AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17/Del//2012. 2. A search and seizure action was conducted on 12.12.2006 at the business and residential premises of Shri S.K. Gupta along with other concerns. Similar search action was conducted in respect of companies and other business entities which were controlled by him or owned by him or different individuals connected with him. The assessee was one such individual. He was issued with notice under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 24.10.2008. The assessee had filed return of income on 5.11.2008 showing `1,82,556/-. In further proceedings under Section 143 (3) read with Section 153A, it was asked to respond to a questionnaire dated 7.11.2008 in regard to the transactions concerning his family members and concerns with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly Sh. S.K.Gupta states that no money has been received or paid by him relatable to the annexures shown. The other objection of the Ld. CIT DR that the questions put forth in the cross-examination specifically question 14 & 15 were also vague. We find that the arguments of the Ld. AR that these are the extracts of the statement of Sh.S.K.Gupta recorded at the time of the search are correct and the Ld. CIT DR is mistaken in her arguments to contend that the questions No-14 & 15 extracted in the impugned order are vague questions put forth during the cross examination. It is seen that the assessee in both the years has filed a Paper Books running into 71 pages and 87 pages respectively and none of the parties have considered it necessary or e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ips were pleased to observe in the facts of that case that the statement at best could arouse suspicion but suspicion could not take place of proof and in the absence of proof, the statement was discarded. We also find that the order of the Coordinate Bench dated 07.02.2013 relied upon by the assessee in DCIT vs Yashpal Narendra Kumar in ITA NO-5340 to 5342/De1/2012 also supports the case of the assessee fully. The Co-ordinate Bench therein held that addition on the basis of statement of the third party without any corroborative evidence is not tenable." 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that given the nature of the materials seized from Shri S.K. Gupta, findings of the AO with regard to the addition under Section 69 were warran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the three companies or business concerns whose monies were supposed to have been reflected in the handwritten ledgers (Bondwell Insurance Brokers, E-Synergy Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. and Paradigm Advertising) were all concerns in which the assessee's family members or relatives were alleged to have been interested. The CIT (A) after considering these materials and elaborately discussing the submissions, held as follows:- "2.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the arguments of the appellant and the position of law. The AO has made the impugned addition on the basis of documents found and seized from Shri S. K Gupta, a third party. His primary reasoning is that in these papers there are intelligible narrations signifying pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration on 13/02/2006 as well as the Cross- examination statement of Shri S. K. Gupta dated 05/04/2011 which was forwarded by the AO without any comments vide his remand report dated 02.11.2011 in respect of A.Y.2007-08. It is seen from these statements that Shri .S. K. Gupta has denied having authored the impugned seized material and has also denied that they are part of his books of accounts. He has also denied having made any cash transactions with the appellant or his family members or entities owned by them and has also denied having received any commission for the alleged accommodation entries given to such entities belonging to the appellant or his family members." Thereafter the CIT (A) extracted the relevant parts of the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n from whose possession and control the documents are found and it is not available in respect of a third party. Even in the case of such a person from whose possession and control any incriminating document is found, the presumption u/s 132(4A)/292C is a rebuttable one. Since in the case of the appellant, no corroborative documents or evidence has been found from the control or possession of the appellant, I hold that the legal presumption as incorporated u/s 132(4A)/292C will not be available to the Assessing Officer in the appellant's case. 2.3.2. Further, the appellant has also denied the contents of the impugned seized documents and the person from whom the impugned documents were seized has also stated during cross-examin....