TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 749
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss and unwarranted. On the contrary, the AO was right in adding the alleged amounts to the income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-I, Nashik erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,50,000/- by considering that mere denial by the assessee would be sufficient to discharge the onus. 2. A search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act in the Singh and Bhutada Group of cases on 28.06.2007. The assessee was an employee of Singh group of companies, controlled and managed by Shri Amit Digvijay Singh. During the course of examination of seized material in the Singh group of cases, it was found that certain documents apparently belonging to the assessee was seized from the premises searched u/s.132 of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s.153C was issued and served on the assessee on 28.08.2009. The Assessing Officer made various additions out of which addition of Rs. 31,50,000/- made on account of advancing amounts to other person is subject matter before us. We find that the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 31,50,000/- to the total income of assessee for advancing amounts to other person as stated above. 3. Matter was carried before the Fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts and Shri Amit Dayanant Irshid was identified as the close associate of Shri Amit D. Singh during the relevant period, it was held that documents belong to Amit Dayanand Irshid and therefore, the income arising from such transactions as noted on the seized documents was assessed in the hands of the assessee for want of any explanation whatsoever either by filing return u/s 153C or by responding to the draft order dated 24/11/2009 duly served on him by passing order u/s 144 r.w.s. 153C on the basis of materials on records. As the assessee failed to avail of the sufficient opportunisms given to him there was no option but to frame the ex-parte order." 5. In response to the remand report, Ld. Authorised Representative on behalf of the assessee submitted following written submissions: "I am in receipt of the copies of the promissory notes signed by one Mr. Suneel Khosla and Mr. Mandar Kelkar. On careful examination of these copies, it can be noted that, none of them bears my or my mothers signature or any other mark which can be related to me (except the name stated in the text of the document). In my earlier reply, I have already stated that I do not know any such persons. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t does not know either Shri Sunil KD. Kosla or Shri Mandar Kelkar and in the impugned three documents there is no signature of either the appellant or his mother. It was also pleaded that except the appellant's name in one document and the name of his mother in other two documents, coupled with presumption u/s 132(4A), the appellant has nothing to do with these documents. The appellant has clarified that he was not a close associate of Shri Amit Digvijay Singh, instead he was only an employee. Considering the contentious nature of the issue, the AO was directed to examine this issue in the remand proceedings. The AO examined the matter and reported that as Shri Amit Digvijay Singh has denied the ownership of the seized documents and the appellant did not respond to the show cause notice during the assessment proceedings, the impugned addition was made. The AO has not denied the fact of relationship of an employee-employer between the appellant of Shri Amit D. Singh in the remand report. Further, there is no cross examination of any witnesses in this case even though the AO was specifically directed vide para 6 of the Remand Order dated 28/10/2010. The Id. AO, however, has not c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... name the promissory notes were issued. Hence the property in the form of money receivable was to be enjoyed by Shri Amit D. Singh and not by the other persons in whose name the promissory notes were issued. In absence of any corroborative evidence, mere denial of the ownership of the documents by Shri Amit D. Singh, does not constitute rebuttal of presumption u/s 132(4A). Further, the amounts cannot be added in the hands of the appellant on the basis of undated promissory notes without any corroborative evidence. It is settled position of law that if any document is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of search, it may be presumed that such document belongs to such person and that the contents are true. Such presumption however is a rebuttable presumption and relates to a question of fact. The said documents were found from the possession of Shri Amit Digvijay Singh who has denied the knowledge thereof. However, by denying the same before the AO in his own case he has not produced any cogent material to rebut the same. In any case, except the mention of the appellant's and his mother's name on these notes, the Assessing Officer has not brought on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order on account of loan advanced as per promissory notes amounting to Rs. 31,50,000/-. He erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,50,000/- without appreciating the fact that promissory note in question bears the name of assessee and his mother. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. On the other hand, Ld. Authorised Representative supported the order of the CIT(A) on the issue. 8. After going through the above submissions and material on record, we find that the impugned addition of Rs. 31,50,000/- consists of following amounts: i) Promissory note in the name of mother of the appellant Smt. Malini D. Irshid signed by one person viz. Shri Mandar Kelkar - Rs. 9,00,000/- and Rs. 12,50,000/-. (ii) Promissory note in the name of the appellant signed by one Shri Sandeep Khosla - Rs. 10,00,000/-. The evidence with regard to above additions were found from seized material from the premises of Shri Amit Digvijay Singh. During the course of assessment proceedings in the said case, the Assessing Officer examined Shri Amit Digvijay Singh who rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been executed or attested." 9. It is undisputed that these documents were seized from the possession of Shri Amit Digvijay Singh who had denied the knowledge thereof and disassociated himself by saving that these belong to the assessee, who was an employee of Shri Amit D. Singh at relevant point of the time. The said Shri Amit D. Singh was in a position whereby who could dictate the assessee at relevant point of time. As discussed in para 4 of the Assessing Officer's remand report dated 07/02/2011, said Shri Amit D. Singh has stated in his reply to the Assessing Officer that promissory notes given in his name and in the name of other persons, including Mrs. Malini D. Irshid, mother of the assessee, issued by Shri Mandar Kelkar remained with him as no payment was directly received from the said person who had business transactions with Shri Amit D. Singh. Thus Shri Amit D. Singh has accepted that (i) he has business transactions with Shri Mandar Kelkar; (ii) The promissory notes were in the possession of Shri Amit D. Singh as no payment was dire....