TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 24.87 lacs being unaccounted income received from Red Chillies without appreciating the fact that the addition has been made on the basis of documents seized during the search from the premises of Personal Secretary of the assessee in which receipt of $ 240000 was recorded out of which the assessee furnished explanation as to how transaction of $ 185930 are recorded in her books of accounts but was unable to discharge her onus of explaining the remaining transaction of $ 54070? (v) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1.45 lacs being unaccounted income received from London Speaker Bureau for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same as that of the agreement entered with Red Chillies. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added the difference receipts of Rs. 24,87,220/- and treated as unaccounted income of the assessee. 4. Against the above order, the Revenue appealed before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. Considering the assessee's submission, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that this addition has been made only on the basis of jotting on loose sheets seized during the search action. That the Assessing Officer has also not brought anything on record to substantiate such addition. That no agreement with Red Chillies International Ltd. was found during search. That only an unsigned payment schedule of USD 2,30,000 was found f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccounts supported by receipts in bank statements. We further note that in the copy of the loose sheet, where notings from Red Chillies was there, we find that there were entries of USD 50,000 and also entry for US $4070 with narration PA tax. 8. However, the Assessing Officer has rejected this contention on the ground that no evidence has been provided that the consideration received is the same as that of the agreement entered with Red Chillies. Here we find that it is not the case of the Revenue, the difference amount which has been explained to be included in the head of unidentified parties is of any different amount. Hence, if the receipt shows unidentified parties and the same is exactly agreeing with the difference between the rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pealed before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 11. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that the assessee has submitted that she has received only US $25,000 for the event and has also offered the same for tax. He also noted the assessee's submission that no agreement was found during search. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the addition by the Assessing Officer was based on the loose sheet found during search and on the same reasoning and as in earlier ground dealt above she deleted the addition. 12. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 13. We have heard both the ld. Counsel and perused the records. We find that it is the contention of the assessee that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idence or any letter whereby she has demanded the balance amount to be paid. It is quite unbelievable that in an international performance engagement, the assessee will be paid only half the amount after the performance and she will not make any presentation or submission for realization of the same. Hence, in our considered opinion that addition is based upon cogent material and the assessee has not been able to dislodge the same. 15. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has deleted the addition on irrelevant reasoning. The addition has not been made on jotting in a loose sheet. Rather, it is based upon a full fledged engagement letter, the veracity of which has not been doubted. Furthermore, the case laws referred by the ld. Co....