2014 (12) TMI 1168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inquiry that Shri. Malik of Kannauj was not the same Shri Abdul Malik, MD of M/s S.M.D. Ayub Md. Yaqub (Perfumers) Pvt. Ltd., Ashok Nagar, Kannauj, whereas the AO has material in possession that Shri Malik is Shri Abdul Malik, MD of M/s S.M.D. Ayub Md. Yaqub (Perfumers) Pvt. Ltd., Ashok Nagar, Kannauj as Shri Malik was clearly referred as C/o M/s S.M.D. Ayub Md. Yaqub (Perfumers) Pvt. Ltd., Ashok Nagar Kannauj in the information received from Investigation Wing. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in annulling the assessment order without appreciating the fact that the A O had sufficient reasons in his possession to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s to the assessee- company was found during the course of search. Only dumb documents were found in which there was a debit entry of Rs. 50 lakhks in the name of Malik Kannauj. Even in the statement of Shri. Sohanraj Gupta, there was no mention of the Director of the assessee-company, Shri. Abdul Malik. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) came to the conclusion that in the absence of any evidence involving the assessee to the alleged receipt of Rs. 50 lakhs, reopening in the hands of the assessee under section 147 of the Act is not proper and he accordingly annulled the assessment. 4. Aggrieved the Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and reiterated its contentions. During the course of hearing, a specific query was raised from the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Further, in his statement under oath before the ADIT(lnv), Kanpur, Shri Abdul Malik, the M.D. of the appellant company had denied such transaction. In these circumstances, I fail to understand as to how, the A.O. formed the belief that the entry in the name of "Malik Kannauj" (as appearing in the seized document) referred to Shri 'Malik, M.D. of the appellant company. Further, even for argument sake if "Malik Kannauj" indeed referred to Shri Abdul Malik, the M.D. of the appellant company, there was no evidence/material on record which could link that payment to the assessee company. Just because the ADIT (Inv), Kanpur had informed the A.O. that the entry of paymen of Rs. 50 Lakhs (as mentioned in the seized document) to one "Malik Kann....