TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue in its appeal are as under: "1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-II, Kanpur, has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,13,40,000/- on account of undisclosed income u/s 69A, without appreciating the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur, has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the fact that the assessee was a supplier of catechu to RMD Gutkha Group and that Sohan Raj Mehta was the C & F agent of this group and that this fact itself raised the presumption that the name Pawan Agarwal, appearing in the chits seized from Sohan Raj Mehta, which had been signed by Shri Prakash Dh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of income tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur was correct both on law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,13,40,000.00 made on account of undisclosed income which action of deletion was taken after appreciating the facts; evidence on records as well as in accordance with provisions of law. 2. That ld. Commissioner of income tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur was very much correct in holding that there was no evidence that Mr. Pawan Agarwal, as allegedly mention in the chits, is assessee only. 3. That ld. Commissioner of income tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur was correct in holding that in absence of case made out by the department that the transaction in chits belong to assessee, addition could not be upheld and in holding that the action o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s found, has not been brought on record showing that he has stated that the name mentioned in the seized paper is that of the present assessee. He also submitted that in course of last hearing i.e. on 10/12/2014, last opportunity was granted by the Tribunal to the Revenue for producing the assessment record and the folder of the relevant evidence on the next date of hearing. The evidence required by the Tribunal was this which is said to have been received by the Assessing Officer of the assessee from M/s Dhariwal Industries Ltd. based on which the addition was made in the hands of the assessee. He submitted that even on the present date, no such document or evidence has been produced before the Tribunal and therefore, adverse inference sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plated by the assessing officer. However, the assessing officer did not provide the copies of those statements. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer did not throw any light on any inquiry/ investigation carried out by him that could justify the additions made by him. That assessee has vehemently stated that the department has not proved that the identity of Shri Pawan Agarwal with the assessee and no slip, letter, document etc. showing any relationship of assessee with Shri Shobhan Raj Mehta were not found from the possession of Shri Shobhan Raj Metha. The A.O has required assessee's copy of accounts in the books of M/s. Dhariwal Industries, Pune and this was found verified from the assessee's books of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yond the belief of presumption on the information supplied by the ADIT(Inv.)-III, Kanpur, further evidences are not found to corroborate the additions. (iii) Cross-examination of Shri Shobhan Raj Mehta was not allowed. (iv) The assessee firm had strongly denied having any financial and business transactions with Mr. Shobhan Raj Mehta. In view of these factual exigencies, it is held that the addition made by the AO, without any corroborative evidence, was unjustified and accordingly deleted. Accordingly, ground No. 3 to 7 raised by appellant are allowed." 5.1 From the above Para from the order of CIT(A), we find that a categorical finding has been given by him that statement of Shri Shobhan Raj Mehta was not given to the assessee....