AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 699
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation u/s 132(1) was conducted on 26/04/2006 in the luggage of seat No. 23A of Sahara Air Lines flight No. S2-133 occupied by Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta at Pune. It was found that he had cash of Rs. 25.37 lac out of which Rs. 25 lac was seized. In his statement recorded at the time of search, he stated that he was employee at Pune. It was found that he had cash of Rs. 25.37 lac out of which Rs. 25 lac was seized. In his statement recorded at the time of search, he stated that he was employee of M/s K. M. Sugar Mills Ltd., Faizabad having its registered office at 11, Moti Bhawan, 52/1, Collectorganj, Kanpur, as the cash belongs to M/s K. M. Sugar Mills Ltd. which he was carrying for the purpose of the business. M/s K. M. Sugar Mills Ltd. has a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that all the copies of the vouchers obtained by the survey party on 27/04/2006 that they are written by only one person except the voucher dated 25/04/2006 for Rs. 25 lac through which cash payment of Rs. 25 lac under the seizure has been claimed to have been made through cashier to Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta. He was of the view that the style of writing alphabet "P" appears different than all other vouchers. He also noted that there was no control number of the vouchers and the vouchers seems to have been planted. The Assessing Officer ultimately treating the vouchers to be questionable documents, made the addition of Rs. 25,40,000/- in the hands of the company. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) on the basis of en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... company could have made the payment of freight at Latur. The Assessing Officer observed that the goods supervisor, Sangali furnished the details of payments made against freight charges against sugar transported from Latur. The Assessing Officer on the basis of these details observed that out of the total freight amount of Rs. 24,15,708/- paid at Latur, the amount of Rs. 23,75,195/- has been paid by demand draft and those DDs have been drawn much before 25/04/2006. This clearly shows that the assessee has to make the payment to the railway department through DD out of the cash withdrawn. This also proves that the assessee has made the payment for sugar transported from Latur between 01/04/2005 to 24/04/2006. Thus, there are contradiction i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the Assessing Officer made the addition in respect of the share application money but he has not made any specific query in the notices issued u/s 142(1) dated 15/12/2008. The assessee vide his letter dated 14/08/2009, the copy of which is available at pages 49 & 50 of the paper book regarding furnishing of annual information report for the financial year 2006-07, submitted the details of total value of transaction amounting to Rs. 1,15,20,000/-. The assessee company submitted the copy of the resolution passed in extraordinary general meeting of the members held on 05/05/2006 whereby shares were to be issued at a premium of Rs. 62/- per share to the following companies: 1. M/s Heritage Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 2. M/s Millenniu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts were received from M/s Heritage Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (i) Copy of application form and letter (ii) Balance sheet as at 31/03/2007 (iii) Copy of the acknowledgement for e-filing of the IT return for assessment year 2007-08 (iv) Extract from master data on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, downloaded in 2015 which shows "Active" status of the applicant company. (v) Copy of confirmation issued by the Applicant company for receipt of refund of application money 4.1 Thus, it was contended that these documents were filed before the CIT(A) who has admitted the evidence and called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made the following comments: "In support of share application ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2 The CIT(A) confronted the said remand report to the assessee who submitted the rejoinder. In the rejoinder, the assessee has clearly stated that from the report of the Assessing Officer, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer has not raised any query in respect of the share application during the course of assessment proceedings and therefore, the additional evidence filed by the assessee must be admitted. The Assessing Officer further submitted before the CIT(A) that the information was called for from both the share applicants and the letter were sent at the address given by the assessee which have returned unserved with the remark in the case of M/s Heritage Commodities Pvt. Ltd. "insufficient address" and in the case of M/s Millen....