TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o as 'the Act') vide his order dated 28-12-2007 for the assessment years 1991-92 & 1992- 93. 2. As the issues involved are identical in nature, they are taken together and these appeals are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience 3. Shri Subash Agarwal the Learned AR argued on behalf assessee and Shri Sanjit Kr. Das, JCIT, the Learned DR argued on behalf of the revenue. ITA No.239/Kol/09 A.Y 1992-93 (by the assessee): 4. During the course of hearing before us the ld.AR for the assessee has stated that he would like to withdraw the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1992-93 in ITA No. 239/Kol/09. The ld.DR has not raised any objection to this proposition of the ld.AR of for the assessee. Hence, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ca of the said seized documents containing the same loan transaction was found in the premises of assessee's brother, Shri Nandalal Agarwal vide seized document Reference LF/17. The said seized document in LF/17 is kept in page 58 of the paper book filed by the assessee. Both the assessee as well as assessee's brother were assessed by the same ld.AO. The ld.AO while completing the assessment of Shri Nandlal Agarwal (assessee's brother) u/s 143(3) of the Act on 25-02-1994 made an addition of Rs. 8 lakhs towards loan advanced by him ( the assessee herein) as unexplained investment among other additions. Hence, there is a clear finding that assessee has only received a loan of Rs. 8 lakhs from his brother. Admittedly, this loan transaction of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i in the case of S.P. Goel Vs. DCIT reported in (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum.)(TM) in support of his contention, wherein it was held as under:- "During the course of search of the premises, certain documents were seized, consisting of 10 loose sheets. Out of this, one sheet of paper was marked which contained certain handwritings by the assessee. The said handwriting was on the loose diary sheet of November 1992 and a sum of Rs. 6o lakhs had been entered as cash against 26-9-1992. Certain expenses also were noted in the form of silver utensils, gold ornaments and miscellaneous expenses, etc. The Assessing Officer called for the explanation and it was submitted that the same was in the nature of planning for purchase of gold ornaments and silver ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proof to reject the explanation offered by the assessee. In the present case, it was a mere loose in which the assessee confirmed that the entry was in his own handwriting. The loose paper in itself has got no intrinsic value. It does not represent negotiable instrument which can be exchanged for a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs. Therefore, the above decision did not have direct application on the facts of the present case. When it was a mere entry on a loose sheet of paper and if the assessee claimed that it was only a planning, not supported by actual cash, then there had to be circumstantial evidences to support that this entry really represented cash of Rs. 60 lakhs. There was no such evidence found by the revenue in the form of extra cash, jew....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed documents. The three essential ingredients of Section 68 of the Act are namely:- a) Identity of the creditor - it is proved beyond doubt as the ld.AO himself agrees that the money has been given by the assessee's brother to the assessee in the assessment order of the assessee's brother. b) Genuineness of the transaction- it is proved beyond doubt from the contents of the seized documents available in pages 57-58 of the assessee's paper book, which are not disputed by the revenue. c) Creditworthiness of the creditor- this is proved beyond doubt as ld.AO himself had assessed an income of more than of Rs. 80 lakhs in the hands of the assessee's brother in his own assessement vide assessment u/s. 143(3) dated 25-02-1994. 8.3 We ho....