TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 1073
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The only common issue in all these appeals except the amount involved is estimation of profit at 10% on unaccounted turnover. Sine facts are identical, we will deal with the facts relating to asst. year 2001-02 (ITA No.493/Hyd/2011). 4. Briefly the facts are, the assessee a partnership firm is engaged in business of trading in sanitary wares and plastic tanks. A search and seizure operation was conducted in group cases of the assessee on 12-9-2006. Simultaneously, a survey operation was conducted in the assessee's business premises u/s 133A of the Act. Subsequently a notice u/s 153C was issued to the assessee calling for return of income. In response to the notice issued the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2001-02 admitting total income of Rs. 35,796.91. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that as per the inventory of stock found at the time of survey operation on 12- 9-2006, the value of stock was Rs. 32,35,248/-. However, certain loose slips containing noting of receipts found at the residence of Anil Kumar Agarwal, a partner of the assessee firm revealed unaccounted turnover of the assessee firm for the assessment y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ission of the assessee however was not convinced with the same and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing that as the assessee has not been able to substantiate its case with necessary evidences and books of accounts, there is no illegality in the addition made. 7. The learned AR reiterating the submissions made before the department authorities contended that the additions having been made purely on the basis of loose sheets which do not have any evidentiary value, cannot be sustained. It was submitted that the loose sheets only contain rough figures and rough statement such as goods, cash account, cash sales, numbers of certain traders etc. The loose papers by themselves lead to no conclusion and hence estimation of turnover on the basis of such loose sheets is invalid. In support of such contention, the learned AR placed reliance on the following decisions:- i) M/s. All Cargo Global Logistics Limited vs. DCIT (ITA Nos 5018 to 5022 and 5099/Hyd/10 dated 6/7/2012). ii) Atul Kumar Jain vs. DCIT(64 TTJ 786) 8. The leaned AR submitted that presumption u/s 132(4A) is available to revenue only for the limited purpose of search and seizur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....context, the learned AR also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in case of ECI Engg., & Construction Co. Limited (ITA No.2048/Hy/11 dt./ 4-5-2012.). 9. Finally, the learned AR contended that any income added in the hands of the firm on account of unexplained/unaccounted turnover should be allowed to be telescoped in the hands of the partner. In support of such contention, he relied upon a decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in case of Sri Ravinder Kumar (ITA Nos. 387 to 389/Hyd/12 dt. 17-6-2013.) 10. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly supporting the view expressed by the revenue authorities submitted that as the loose slips were seized from the possession of the Managing Partner Sri Anil Kumar Agarwal and as they revealed unaccounted transaction of the assessee firm, the addition made is justified. 11. We have heard the parties, perused the orders of the revenue authorities as well as other material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon by the learned AR. It is not disputed that during the search and seizure operation, certain documents were found in the possession of Sri Anil Kumar Agarwal who happens to be the partner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on lower side. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Sales-tax vs. H.M.Esufali H.M. Abdulali ( 90 ITR 271), while estimating the profit, some amount of guess work is necessary. However, the estimation made should be reasonable and must have reasonable nexus with the materials on record. In the present case, when the assessee has admittedly not produced its books of accounts before the revenue authorities, there is no option left with them but to estimate the profit of the assessee. However, profit has to be estimated applying a reasonable rate. In the present case search has taken place on 12-9-2006 i.e., in financial year 2006-07 relevant to the asst. Year 2007-08. Therefore, taking it as a base we direct the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit on unaccounted turnover at double the rate of the average net profit declared by the assessee for the asst. Year 2007-08 and the preceding two assessment years i.e., asst. year 2005-06 and 2006-07. Further, the Assessing Officer must ensure that there cannot be inclusion of disclosed turnover while estimating profit from undisclosed turnover as per the seized material. In other words, turnover alre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loose sheets for 365 days is not legal and sales already reflected in the return of income should be excluded. It was further contended that the working out of the unaccounted purchases is also not correct as the net profit ought to have been estimated at 0.96% of the undisclosed turnover. Further, the department cannot make addition on one side by taking the percentage of profit and again for unaccounted purchases. The Assessing Officer however without accepting the explanation of the assessee added the amount of Rs. 1,61,33,902/- to the income of the assessee. Being aggrieved of such addition, the assessee challenged the same in the appeal preferred before the CIT (A). 19. Before the CIT (A), it was submitted by the assessee that the Assessing Officer should not have made any addition on account of peak purchases as the Assessing Officer has artificially worked out the purchases for each financial year making out the peak purchases of Rs. 1,61,33,902. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer by making out the total unaccounted sales at Rs. 2,02,50,912/- has reduced the net gross profit amounting to Rs. 41,17,010/-. It was submitted by the assessee that the additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... That being the case, it is not reasonable on the part of the Assessing Officer to make additions on account of unaccounted purchases on the basis of the same entries as found recorded in the seized documents. Therefore, the finding of the CIT (A) in this regard appears to be just and reasonable. The learned DR could not advance any convincing argument to enable us to take a contrary view. In aforesaid view of the matter, we are inclined to uphold the order of the CIT (A) on this issue by determining the grounds raised. 21. In the result, department appeal is dismissed. ITA No. 921/Hyd/11 Anil Kumar Agarwal (By assessee) 22. The only issue in this appeal which is also a common issue in other appeals of the assessee, is with regard to the addition of unaccounted interest income. 23. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is an individual. A search and seizure operation was conducted in case of Jai Balaji group cases on12-9-2006. The assessee is a partner of Jai Balaji Sanitary Stores in whose case a survey was conducted simultaneously. As alleged by the department, during the search and seizure operations conducted, certain slips/documents were found and seized from the pos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he slips/seized documents is interest charged against the sales shown on credit basis and accordingly upheld the addition. 25. The learned AR submitted before us that the loose slips on the basis of which the Assessing Officer has made the addition has no evidentiary value. Further, the CIT (A) having held that assessee has not made any money lending business, the question of earning interest from money lending would not arise. The AR submitted that the Assessing Officer himself has stated that the entries appearing in the loose sheets pertaining to Jai Balaji Sanitary Stores, that being the case, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. It was submitted that as the Assessing Officer has already treated the entries appearing in the loose sheets as undisclosed income of Jai Balaji Sanitary Stores adding the same in the hands of the assessee would result in double taxation of the same income. 26. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT (A). 27. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. As is evident from the finding of the Assessing Officer on the basis of entries made in the loose sheets ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer . 28. In ground No.6 to 8, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 4,60,000/- as unexplained investment. Briefly, the facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had entered into agreement for purchase of land at Nanakramguda, Serilingampally, RR District from Gulab Singh & others. Further, revenue stamped receipts by Gulab Singh and others were also found and seized in token of receipt of cash from the assessee towards sales consideration as per the agreement of sale dated 18- 6-2001. The total amount as per the receipts is Rs. 4,60,000/-. When asked to explain the assessee submitted that though he had entered into agreement of sale but when he found that the property is a government land, the deal was cancelled and the amount was received back. The Assessing Officer however, mentioning that the assessee has not been able to produce any evidence to show that he has received back the amount and he has failed to prove source of such investment, treated the amount of Rs. 4,60,000/- as unexplained investment for the year under consideration and added it to the income of the assessee. The assessee challenged the addition before the CIT (A). The CIT (A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he time of search and seizure operation also indicated the same fact. When the Assessing Officer raised the query with regard to the payment of Rs. 2,10,000/- as per the MOU and GPA, the assessee explained that he was to enter into agreement with Smt. Chandrakala for purchase of the land for which he has paid the advance of Rs. 2,10,000/-. However, subsequently when he came to know that the land in question is a government land, he cancelled the agreement and the advance was returned back to him. It was therefore submitted that the amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- need not be added. The Assessing Officer however stated that though the assessee might have received back the amount on cancellation of the agreement but the assessee has not been able to explain the source for the amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- invested by him. He further observed that the assessee had failed to establish that the amount in question has been recorded in the books of accounts. He therefore treated the amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- as unexplained investment and added it to the income of the assessee. 34. On appeal, the CIT (A) also confirmed such addition. 35. The learned AR submitted before us that the amount was adva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....escoping at the hands of the partner, then no addition can be made of the amount in dispute. Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. ITA No.1156/Hyd/11 (By assessee) 38. The sole issue raised in this appeal is similar and identical to the issue decided by us in ITA No.921/Hyd/11. Following the same, we direct the assessing officer to delete the addition. ITA No.1157/Hyd/11 (by assessee) 39. First issue relating to addition of Rs. 29,11,350/- raised in this appeal is similar and identical to the issue decided by us in ITA No.921/Hyd/11. Following the same, we direct the assessing officer to delete the addition. 40. The next issue is with regard to the addition of Rs. 10,75,000/- as unexplained investment. 41. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer while examining the seized material marked as A/Hima/Res/13 found that the assessee has given loan of Rs. 10 lakh on 21-4- 2003 at the rate of 9.25% per month to Sai Raghavendra construction represented by Sri M. Janardhan. The assessee has initially denied that neither he has entered into any such transaction or he has paid any advance. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es/POI/9 which is a deed dt.12-3-2004 on a stamp paper executed by Sri Harish Kumar Goud indicated advancing loan of Rs. 8 lakh by the assessee. as per the said deed, land belonging to Sri Harish Kumar Goud was mortgaged. In response to the query made by the Assessing Officer the assessee stated that the assessee has actually paid Rs. 2 lakh to the person concerned in the year 1997-98 to purchase his property. However due to some family problems, the deal could not go through and Sri Goud also did not pay back the money. Therefore, the assessee was forced to settle the amount by making him to execute the sale deed and return back the amount of Rs. 10 lakh along with compensation amounting to Rs. 8 lakh. However, Sri Goud due to his bad financial position could return back only Rs. 2 lakh which was paid by the assessee to him. It was submitted that the assessee never purchased the property in question. In this context, he produced Encumbrance Certificate. The Assessing Officer however believing the explanation of the assessee added the amount of Rs. 8 lakh. The CIT (A) also confirmed such addition by holding that the assessee has failed to explain the source of the loan advance of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paid an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards his share in the property. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee has not established any nexus between the savings bank account and the investment made. He therefore treated the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as undisclosed investment and added it to the income of the assessee. The addition made was challenged in appeal before the CIT (A). 49. The CIT (A) confirmed the addition by stating that the assessee has failed to explain satisfactorily the source of investment. 50. The learned AR submitted before us that the amount of Rs. 2.50 lakh was paid out of cash available with the assessee and other members of the group. In this context, he referred to the statement showing cash available with the family members and statement showing peak cash payment. 51. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the CIT (A). 52. We have heard the parties and perused the orders of the revenue as well as relevant material on record. This issue is similar to the issue raised in ITA No.1155/Hyd/11. Following our decision given therein in paragraph-37, we remit this matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the deal never went through and the assessee came to know that the property in question is a government property having many problems. It was submitted that the agreement was executed by the assessee only for the purpose of attracting second buyer and for making quick profit and also for the purpose of obtaining bank loan. It is further evident that assessee has also produced Encumbrance Certificate to show the property was not transferred to the assessee. Therefore, only on the basis of the so called receipts, the Assessing Officer could not have made the addition. When the assessee has disputed the seized material by stating that they are forged document created for the purpose of attracting prospective buyers and earning profit, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to make further enquiry with the concerned persons, who are supposed to have received the amount in question to ascertain the truth as to whether the payment is actually made by the assessee or not. Without conducting any enquiry, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition. Therefore, we are of the view that the addition having been made without proper evidence cannot be sustained. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich are the subject matter of challenge in ground No. G and I are also similar to tthis issue . Therefore, following our decision therein, we also remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh. 59. The next issue is with regard to the addition of Rs. 6 lakh as unexplained investment. Facts relating to the issue are during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has entered into memorandum of understanding dated 12-8-2005,( seized during the search and seizure operation) with Samavesam of Telugu Baptist Churches (STBC) for the development of the property bearing bungalow No.51 with house No.9-1-170 to 177 comprising of 4600 sq. yards. The document further revealed that the assessee had paid an amount of Rs. 2.50 lakhs each through separate DDs dated 12-8-2005 drawn on AP Mahesh Co-operative Bank, Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad and one lakh in cash. Thus, the total amount paid is Rs. 5 lakh. When called upon by the Assessing Officer to explain the source, the assessee stated that the property in question belonging to STBC was to be taken by the assessee and his wife Smt. Deepa Agarwal for which the pay order of Rs. 5 lakh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same transaction, hence it cannot be added again separately. The CIT (A) however confirmed the addition. 64. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. It is the contention of the assessee that this amount of Rs. 5 lakh has been added twice considering the transaction to be two separate transactions. On perusal of the discussion made by the Assessing Officer in para-(g) at page-7 of the assessment order and in para (e) at page-9 of the assessment order, it appears that the investment of Rs. 5 lakh relates to the same transaction. Further, it is very much evident from the computation of income that though the Assessing Officer has considered the amount of Rs. 5 lakh for addition on two occasions but he has made specific discussion with regard to the addition of Rs. 5 lakh only once in para (g) at page-14 of the order. So far as the second addition of Rs. 5 lakh, there is absolutely no discussion by the Assessing Officer. The CIT (A) has also failed to verify the factual aspect of the issue as to whether two separate additions of Rs. 5 lakh relates to the same transaction. In absence of any clarification on this issue either from the assessee or from the dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s proved from the cash flow statement as well as balance-sheet wherein the transaction have been reflected. It is not clear from the order of the department authorities whether they have examined the cash availability as shown in the cash flow statement and balance-sheet. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the matter requires to be examined afresh by the Assessing Officer who must verify the cash availability with the assessee and thereafter decide the issue. The Assessing Officer must afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the matter. 71. The next issue is with regard to the addition of Rs. 33,42,500/- being unexplained cash found at the time of search. As noted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, at the time of search and seizure operation on 12-9-2006 cash of Rs. 33.42,500/- was found out of which an amount of Rs. 32 lakhs was seized. In course of search operations, the assessee made declarations u/s 132(4) of an amount of Rs. 50 lakh. In the course of search operations, when the assessee was asked to explain about the cash found, he explained that out of the cash found Rs. 4 lakh belongs to his father in law. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessing Officer has made the addition by simply observing that the assessee has failed to offer a reasonable explanation with regard to the availability of cash with different family members and also the fact that as per section 132(4A) of the Act, cash as found has to be presumed as belonging to the assessee. It is the contention of the assessee that the cash found has been adequately explained in the cash flow statement submitted before the lower authorities which are not at all been verified. On a perusal of the CIT (A)'s order we find that the observation made by the CIT (A) is cryptic and bereft of any reason. It is not forthcoming from the order of the Assessing Officer or CIT (A) whether the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee has been examined. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion, without properly examining cash flow statement of the assessee and other family members, it is not proper to add the entire amount of cash found at the time of search at the hands of the assessee considering the fact that not only some amount of cash maybe belonging to the family members are also there but it is also quite possible that there may be some cash available re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earing of appeal before the CIT (A), it was submitted by the assessee that the seized materials contain sales of sanitary ware and ceramic tiles. The Assessing Officer has added the said sales after making adjustment of Rs. 27,65,000/-. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has worked out unaccounted purchases out of these sales of sanitary ware and ceramic tiles and in the same manner worked out the peak unaccounted purchases in the case of the assessee for asst. year 2001-02 to 2007-08 and has made separate addition on account of alleged undisclosed purchases. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer had taken the alleged unaccounted sales and after reducing estimated GP there from had worked out the purchases and has made addition by estimating the profit in such unaccounted sales in case of Jai Balaji Sanitary Stores, a partnership firm. However, the Assessing Officer has again considered the same figures as amounts given by the assessee for money lending and treated as unexplained investment in the case of the assessee. It was therefore contended by the assessee that the Assessing Officer has treated the same sales which are worked out from loose sheets for the pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew that the same additions can not be brought in appellant's case. 4.3. Having verified the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and this gorund of appeal is allowed accordingly." The learned DR submitted before us that the seized material clearly indicate that the assessee is engaged in money lending business as they clearly disclose interest received by the assessee. 79. The learned AR, on the other hand, submitted that the addition is made on the basis of entries appearing in the loose sheets seized at the time of search which are taken as undisclosed sales made in the assessment of partnership firm M/s Jai Balaji Sanitary Stores and hence the same amount cannot be considered to be the assesee's investment in money lending business and added to the income of the assessed. The learned AR submitted that the entries made in the seized document actually represent sales made to various traders doing business in sanitary ware, hence they cannot be treated as assessee's investment in money lending business. 80. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. As can be seen the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee):- 83. ITA No.496/Hyd/11- The first issue in the present appeal is with regard to addition of an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs on account of unexplained investment. 84. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is an individual. Pursuant to the search and seizure operation conducted in case of Jai Balaji Sanitary Stores on 12-9-2006 a notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee calling upon her to file the return of income for the impugned assessment year. In response to such notice, the assessee filed a return of income on 19-11-2008 declaring total income of Rs. 1,59,833/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on verifying the seized material found that as per the agreement of sale dated 22-11-2005 the assessee entered into an agreement with one Sri D. Manmohan towards purchase of house property at door No.1-2-332/ 2 to 8 at Gaganmahal Road, Hyderabad. As per the agreement an amount of Rs. 5 lakh was paid by the assessee through cheque No.389173 dated 22-11-2005 drawn on AP Mahesh Co-op. Bank, Hyderabad. Similarly, some other documents seized relating to the aforesaid transaction revealed that the assessee had paid total amount of Rs. 40 lakh towards t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal sale deed, the learned AR tried to establish that the signatures differ. The learned AR also referred to an affidavit, copy of which is at page58 42 of the paper book wherein it was stated by D. Manmohan that he has not received any amount from the assessee towards sale of property at Gaganmahal. The learned AR also referred to the bank statement of AP Mahesh Co.op. Urban Bank in the name of the assessee to substantiate its claim that no cheque mentioned in the agreement of sale was ever en-cashed. Thus, it was contended that the addition made is without any basis. 88. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the revenue authorities. 89. We have heard the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities as well as other material on record. As can be seen the addition of Rs. 15 lakh has been made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT (A) solely on the basis of seized material i.e., agreement of sale dated 22-11-2005. However, as would be evident from the assessment order, during the assessment proceedings itself the assessee had disputed the authenticity of the agreement of sale by claiming that the said document was neither signed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... originally the property was proposed to be sold for Rs. 72,35,500/- out of which an amount of Rs. 25 lakh was received in cash towards advance. It was stated by her that at the time of registration of the property, the assessee and her husband Sri Anil Kishore Agarwal have insisted for reduction in sale price of the said property due to loss of 100 sq. yards of land for proposed road widening by the MCH. Accordingly on mutual consent the sale price was reduced to Rs. 55 lakh and the registration was made after receipt of the amount of Rs. 55 lakh with an oral agreement that the amount of Rs. 25 lakh received in cash would be returned back to the assessee after the cheques were en-cashed. It was also stated by Smt Sukanya that after the registration was done for a consideration of Rs. 55 lakh, the amount of Rs. 25 lakh was returned back to the assessee on 6-9-2005 which was also acknowledged by the assessee. 91. The Assessing Officer being of the opinion that the assessee has failed to explain the source of Rs. 25 lakh given to Smt. D. Sukanya proposed to treat the same as unexplained investment of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. Assessee submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of Rs. 25 lakh towards advance to Smt. Sukanya. So far as purchase of the property is concerned, there cannot be any dispute with regard to the same. The only dispute, as it appears, is with regard to the source of Rs. 25 lakh paid in cash to Smt. D. Sukanya. As it appears, the capital account and the balance-sheet as well as other related document have not been examined either by the Assessing Officer or by the CIT (A) before making the addition. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are inclined to remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall decide the same afresh after considering all facts and materials on record and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 95. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO.497/Hyd/11:- 96. The only issue in the present appeal is with regard to the addition of Rs. 25 lakh as unexplained investment towards purchase of a property belonging to Sri D. Manmohan at Gaganmahal. This issue is identical to the issue raised in ground No.1 of ITA No.496/Hyd/11. Following our decision while deciding th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a residential area and not commercial area as reported by approved valuer. Further, referring to the permission dated 8-6-2001 of Grampanchayat, a copy of which is at page-7 of the paper book, it was submitted that it is purely a residential house. The assessee also referred to the Electricity Bill and municipal tax receipt to impress upon the fact that the property in question is a residential house. 101. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record as well as orders of the revenue authorities on this issue. It is the contention of the learned AR that not only the property is situated at residential areas but the construction has been made for residential purpose only. Therefore, the finding of the departmental authorities that it is a commercial property is without any basis. In support of such contention, the learned AR has relied upon a decision of co-ordinate bench in case of Sri M.V.Subramanyeswara Reddy (HUF) and others ( ITA Nos. 1014- 1022/Hyd/09 dated 27-12-2011) and in the case of Shyamlal Tandon vs. ITO (ITA No.1774/Hyd/2012). On a perusal of the proposed residential lay out plan and proposed residential plan, copies of which have been placed in pape....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the property. However, subsequently on enquiry when Sri Anil Kishore Agarwal came to know the property in question is a government land, he cancelled the deal and demanded for returning back the advance given. It was thus submitted that the transaction relating to the property in question does not relate to the assessee. The Assessing Officer however disbelieving the explanation of the assessee made the addition by stating that the unsigned receipts were issued by the sellers to the assessee and not to the assessee's husband Sri Anil Kishore Agarwal. The CIT (A) also confirmed the addition by approving the view of the Assessing Officer. 104. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. As can be seen from the assessment stage itself the assessee has claimed that the transaction relating to the property in question does not belong to her. It is also a fact that the as per the Assessing Officer's own finding, the seized material are unsigned receipts. Therefore, it is not understood how the receipts which are not signed can be considered to be relating to the assessee when there are no other materials to suggest that the assessee has paid the amount of Rs. 1,30,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... available on record was of the view that the assessee after adjustment towards working capital has only received an amount of Rs. 4 lakh. He therefore held that only an amount of Rs. 4 lakh can be assessed at the hands of the assessee and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the balance amount of Rs. 4 lakh. The leaned AR submitted before us that the assessee had contributed the amount in question towards capital in M/s Jai Balaji Polymers. On the dissolution of the partnership firm, he has only received back his capital. Hence, no income has accrued o the assessee. In this context, the learned AR referred to the order of the co-ordinate Bench in case of Sri Raj K. Agarwal in ITA No.1692/Hyd/2010 dated 12-1-2012. 109. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the departmental authorities. 110. We have heard the submission of the parties and perused the material on record. As can be seen from the statement of Sri C. Srinivasa Reddy the amount of Rs. 4 lakh was paid to the present assessee on dissolution of t he partnership, towards 50% share held by Raj Kumar Agarwal. It is to be noted here, while disposing of the appeal filed by the departm....