TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 877
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... return of income on 15.11.2008, in response to notice under section 153A of the Act, declaring income of Rs. 9,03,940/-. The assessment was concluded under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2008, wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 1,11,72,827/-. For A.Y. 2007-08 the assessee in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act submitted vide letter dated 01.12.2008, that the return of income filed for A.Y. 2007-08 on 31.10.2008, be treated as filed in response to the said notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessment was subsequently completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2008 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 28,53,431/-. 2.2 Aggrieved by the orders of assessment for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 dated 31.12.2008, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A)-1, Thane. The learned CIT(A) disposed off both the appeals for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 vide separate orders dated 30.10.2009 allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Revenue, being aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A)-1, Thane, has preferred appeals for both assessment years 2006-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....real monetary transactions. 03. On the facts & circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Thane failed to appreciate the fact that Shri Narendra Jain, partner had admitted to striking out the three entries himself, thereby confirming that he was well aware about the transactions contained therein. 04. On the facts & circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Thane failed to appreciate the fact that on top of these three entries "cash" is written clearly show that transactions are cash receipts which was not recorded in the books of accounts. 07. The Appellant craves leave to add, after delete any of the above grounds of Appeal." 6. Grounds 1 to 4 of A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 - Proportionate Addition on account of undisclosed cash receipts on sale of Kellambakkam land - Rs. 54,63,230/- & Rs. 9,17,200/- respectively 6.1 In these similar ground raised by Revenue on this issue (supra), the Revenue assails the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the additions on account of cash receipts on sale of Kellambakkam land of Rs. 54,63,230/- for A.Y. 2006-07 and Rs. 9,17,200/- for A.Y. 2007-08. It is contended that the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... including the judicial pronouncements cited and placed reliance on. The facts of matter as emanate from the record are that in the course of search in the assessee's case on 21.02.2007, a diary was seized which reflected certain entries based on which the AO made the impugned additions of Rs. 54,63,230/- for A.Y. 2006-07 and Rs. 9,17,200/- for A.Y. 2007-08. It is seen that in the context of the said seized diary, that a statement was recorded from Shri Narendra Jain, relevant portion of which from Q. 11 to Q.20 is extracted in the impugned order. The AO on an appreciation of the entries in the seized diary was of the view that the entries represented income of the assessee and issued a show cause notice calling for the assessee's explanation in the matter. The AO rejected the explanations put forth by the assessee and proceeded to make proportionate additions to the income of the assessee out of the entries totalling Rs. 63,80,430/-, i.e. Rs. 54,63,230/- for A.Y. 2006-07 and Rs. 9,17,200/- for A.Y. 2007-08. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid additions for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 as being unwarranted and unjustified as he was of the view that the adver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 9,17,200/- for A.Y. 2007- 08, in the case of hand are factually unsustainable since the said scored out entries on the right side of the diary are not in the handwriting of Shri Narendra Jain (partner of the appellant firm) who has disowned knowledge of their context and that they were recorded by Shri Kartik, a former employee of the assessee firm who was not examined by the AO. In these factual circumstances and placing reliance on the decisions of the ITAT, Pune Bench in Prabhat Chandra S. Jain (supra) and ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of S.K. Gupta (supra), in support of the proposition that additions made on the basis of papers found in the course of search without bringing any corroborative evidence is not factually sustainable, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) in holding that the additions of Rs. 54,63,230/- in A.Y. 2006-07 and Rs. 9,17,230/- in A.Y. 2007-08 are unwarranted and unjustified. We hold as direct accordingly. Consequently, grounds 1 to 4 of Revenue appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 and grounds 1 to 4 in A.Y. 2007-08 are dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 5 to 7 (for A.Y. 2006-07 only) 7.1 In these grounds, the Revenue assails the learned CIT(A) in allowing the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which Rs. 5.70 lakhs was paid to the assessee in October, 2007 and that the balance remained payable to the assessee. After affording the assessee an opportunity to cross examine Shri Nazar at 2.00 p.m. at the office of ADIT (Inv.), Chennai on 31.12.2008, the AO rejected the explanation put forth by the assessee to the show cause notice and treated the entire sum of Rs. 36,81,818/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added the same to the assessee's income for A.Y. 2006-07. 7.2.2 Before us the assessee put forth various explanations as to why the addition of Rs. 36,81,818/- under section 68 of the Act should not be upheld. It was also submitted that the assessee firm credited the sum of Rs. 26.40 lakhs, being cash received from Shri Nazar in its books of account on 06.04.2006. In these circumstances, it is contended that this amount of Rs. 26.40 lakhs, being credited as income in the profit and loss account of the assessee for the year ending 31.03.2007, it constituted income of the assessee for A.Y. 2007-08 and therefore the AO ought to have deducted this amount of Rs. 26.40 lakhs while making the addition of Rs. 36,81,818/- for A.Y. 2006-07, as the same in....