TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rounds inter alia that :- "1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) I, New Delhi, for the reasons stated in the impugned order, erred in law in upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-7, New Delhi, in confirming the addition made in the assessment u/s 69A of the Act, by a sum of Rs. 70,00,000/-. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(appeals) while upholding the order of the learned AO failed to consider and appreciate the evidence filed being copy of the cash book for the period 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2007 which was filed before him at his behest, to establish that the cash in hand existed even as at 31st March 2007. 2. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income of the assessee being undisclosed income. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) who has dismissed the appeal vide impugned order. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Undisputed facts of this case inter alia are that the premises searched by the revenue authorities on 12.09.2007 was being used by 8/10, group companies, having same address; that the statement recorded during the search operation have been burnt in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. Rs.25,00,000/- New Era Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd Rs.15,00,000/- Augite Estate Pvt. Ltd. Rs.15,00,000/- Ostrich Estate Pvt. Ltd Rs.15,00,000/- Total : Rs.70,00,000/- The contention of the assessee was considered and but found not sustainable in as much as none of the companies could produce the cash book at the time of search from where the above amount seized could have been verified. In the event of the assessee failing to justify the source of the above cash, an amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- was seized. In is a settle principle of law that in case the assessee fails to give any evidence regarding the source of any asset found at its premise during the search despite giving it sufficient opportun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o scope to interfere into the findings returned by the AO/ld.CIT (A) for the following reasons :- (i) that no plausible explanation has come on record during the assessment proceedings or thereafter as to why the cash book, subsequently relied upon by the assessee, has not been produced before the AO particularly when the assessee company along with its sister concern was operating from the aforesaid office; (ii) that even otherwise it is not the case of the assessee that some of its record was lying in some other office restraining him not to produce the same before the AO; (iii) that there is no explanation as to why the summarized statement of cash deposit made by the assessee company during the period 01.04.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of M/s. Ostrich Estate Pvt. Ltd., amounts of Rs. 8,00,000/- and Rs. 4,50,000/- shown at page 94 of the paper book as on 10.07.2006 and 01.08.2006 respectively and it is difficult to believe that the cash has been kept for a period of more than one year without any further explanation; (ix) that auditing balance sheet of M/s. Moonlight Continental (P) Ltd. for the year ending 2006-07 on 15.09.2007 after one month of the search and seizure in this case itself goes to prove that the record has been prepared anti-dated to create evidence. Similar is the case of M/s. New Era Impex (India) (P) Ltd. M/s. Augite Estate (P) Ltd. and M/s. Ostrich Estate (P) Ltd; (x) that even perusal of the balance of all the companies in question....