2017 (1) TMI 1401

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,80,00,000/-." 3. Facts of the case in brief are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was conducted on 24.09.2009 in the case of M/s Mamram Group of cases which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of Tin Plates, running banquet hall and construction & sale of commercial complexes/building. The AO made the impugned addition on the basis of statement of Sh. Ram Kishan Gupta by observing as under: S. No. Name of the Person Amount Surrendered (Rs.) 1 Ram Kishan Gupta 2.00 Cr. 2 Sanjay Gupta 2.50 Cr. 3 Kamla Garg 4.25 Cr. 4 Renu Gupta 0.25 Cr. 5 Symphony Celebrators....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s Babushaka Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, who belongs to the same group to which the assessee belongs and the addition made therein was also based on similar facts (copy of the said order was furnished which is placed on record). 6. In her rival submissions the ld. CIT DR although supported the order of the AO but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it appears that the impugned addition was made by the AO solely on the basis of statement of Sh. Ram Kishan Gupta. On a similar issue in the case of ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi Vs M/s Babushaka P....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e and as such failure of the Revenue authorities, addition cannot be made without any basis for A.Y 2010- 11. Even during assessment proceedings the AO either at the post search stage or during assessment proceedings could not bring any cogent material t show that such undisclosed income under such head has been surrendered for A.Y 2010-11. Thus we are unable to see any ambiguity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the order and hence we uphold the same. Before we part with the order, we make it clear that our findings and observations recorded in this order are based upon the facts of A.Y 2010-11. The AO has made the addition in A.Y 2010-11 in respect of some alleged discrepancies in A.Y 2009-10. In our opinion if there....