TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 755
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t by: Shri Kamal Mangal "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs made by the AO on the basis of the statement of the assessee recorded during the course of survey u/s.133A. 2. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 22.05.2007 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 27,63,342/-. The return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short "the Act"). The case was selected for scrutiny. Therefore, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition in accordance with law. 5. Keeping in view of the argument advanced by the learned representative of the parties and perused the record carefully, it is observed that the Assessing Officer added the additional income of Rs. 50,00,000/- on the basis of the statement recorded on 13.12.2006. However to make more crystal clear the question and answer of the assessee as well as the authority is hereby produced below:- Q.No.12. As per the registers maintained it is seen you have collected Rs. 49,88,625/- from IPD. What will be your approximate receipts for the year and what will be your net income. Ans. Considering the upward trend in business the IPD collection will be approximately....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment order, it is seen that there was no discrepancy found in the accounts maintained by the appellant either during the survey u/s.133A of the I.T.Act or during the assessment proceedings. 2.9Further, it is seen that the appellant has written a letter dated 15.01.2007 (which is received by the A.O. on 29.01.2007) and it is extracted below: "Please refer to the survey conducted u/s.133A at our premises on 13.12.2006. At the time of survey, our Partner, Dr. Venkateshwar Moorthy, had, on behalf of the firm, administered a statement on oath. In the statement, it was indicated that the total income of the firm for the A.Y.2006-07 relevant to the A.Y.2007-08 would be approximately Rs. 50 lacs. Since we are to pay advance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er question and the tax liability so computed has been paid by way of advance tax as under: 1. Cheque no.201119 dated 15.12.2006 for Rs. 2 lacs drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd. 2. Cheque no.202137 dated 15.12.2006 for Rs. 2.10 lacs drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd. In view of the above, the firm's tax liability would be restricted to Rs. 6 lacs with respect to the second installment of advance tax and Rs. 3 lacs for the third installment due in March 2007 and not Rs. 10 lacs and Rs. 5 lacs, respectively, for which the cheques have been submitted. Therefore, out of Rs. 10 lacs of the second installment, we request you to consider the balance of Rs. 4 lacs (the amount in excess of the advance tax liability of Rs. 6 lacs) as towards ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... survey u/s.133A of the I.T.Act or during the assessment proceedings. In view of this, I hold that the addition of Rs. 50 lacs made in the assessment is purely on the basis of surmise and suspicion and not based on any valid evidence. The addition made which is not supported by valid evidence cannot be sustained. In view of this I direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 50 lacs. 6. On appraisal of the finding of the CIT(A), it is quite clear that the assessee declared his approximate income for the A.Y.2007-08 to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The P & L Account of the assessee speaks about the profit to the tune of Rs. 54,83,851/- which is quite near to the assessment assessed by the assessee while making his statement. No discrepanc....