TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2007 disclosing total income of Rs. 20,78,558/-. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed that certain documents were found and seized from the residential premises of the assessee at the time of search. As per Annexure-2 & Annexure-8 several documents pertaining to various payments and various receipts on account of Byculla Residence were found. On being questioned by the Assessing Officer, it was explained that the papers which relate to Byculla account mainly relates to various estimates or the money received or spent on various projects of Omaxe. It was explained that since the assessee was in charge of the various projects, some of the interior decorator who had earlier worked in any Moti Mahal approached him for doing the work in Omaxe relating to interior furnishing and have submitted various plans, estimates and details of their earlier work done in Moti Mahal and other places. It was explained that the same is part of working papers or left out papers of various times while working with the Omaxe and it completely relates to the Omaxe. It was explained that the assessee being a senior person in the organization as a Director Finance level....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the total income of the assessee and determined the income at Rs. 43,71,558/-. 4. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal :- "1. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in upholding the assessment order which is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in holding that the assessing officer has given reasonable opportunity before making addition. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in not ignoring the correspondence of Ld. AO with M/s Omaxe Constructions Ltd. which was used against the appellant though the same was never confronted to the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of the seized document. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,02,000/- on account of the seized document. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence in Byculla nor this document indicates that payments were received by the assessee. Further, the document was not in the handwriting of the assessee and it does not indicate the identification of the recipient by way of name, address, phone no. and PAN etc. Further, the document does not bear anybody's signature. He submitted that this is a rough paper on which receipt of some payments have been jotted down. He submitted that similar addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of some rough documents in the case of assessee during the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and the Tribunal vide ITA No.3031/Del/2012 and ITA No.3032/Del/2012 order dated 29.07.2016 has deleted all such additions. 10. Relying on various decisions, he submitted that if an income not earned by assessee is to be assessed in the hands of the assessee, the burden to establish that such income is chargeable to tax is on the Assessing Officer. For the purpose of resorting to the deeming provisions, dumb documents or documents with no certainty have no evidentiary value. Further, uncorroborated loose papers cannot be taken as the sole basis for determination of undisclosed income. He also re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the assessee that the papers do not belong to the assessee and they pertain to the Omaxe Plaza of which the assessee is Director Finance. It is his submission that the assessee does not own any property at Byculla and the papers do not contain his name or his signature nor these papers are in his own handwriting. It is also his submission that page 56 of Annexure-2 dated 04.03.2002 pertains to assessment year 2005-06 and does not pertain to this assessment year. It is also his submission that identical addition was deleted by the Tribunal in assessee's own case which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 14. We find merit in the above submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee. We find identical addition was made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of such loose papers found from his premises in assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under :- "4. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the AO and affirmed by the CIT (A) on the basis of suspicion, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the following reasons :- i. that the first document lying at page 1 of the paper book on the basis of which addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been made is categoric enough to disclose that one K.L. Bhatia, S/o Lal Chand Bhatia has taken interest free loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the assessee which has been traced to the cheque no.268868 having been paid by M/s. BHA Associates Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Landmark Estate Pvt. Ltd. being the sale proceeds for purchase of shop in New Friends Colony; ii. that the AO as well as CIT (A) have rejected the contention merely on the ground that the cheque number given by the assessee is 26888 whereas cheque no relied upon by assessee is 268868. To our mind, this is a typographical error in writing the cheque number which should have been verified by the AO from the debit credit entries maintained by the respective banks. So, this addition is not sustainable; iii. that addition of Rs. 40,85,000/- on the basis of loose document, available at page 3 of the paper book pertaining to AY 2003-04, is an estimate of house const....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO has made addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- qua AY 2004-05 as unexplained expenditure u/s 69 of the Act on the basis of paper/document, available at page 1 of the paper book -B. Bare perusal of the paper shows that the same does not bear the name of the assessee nor it is in the handwriting of assessee nor does it explain the purpose of making and receiving payment. Merely on the basis of this document, addition cannot be made as the same is not substantiated with any evidence; ix. that the AO has made another addition of Rs. 3,31,450/- on the basis of a seized document, available at page 2 of the paper book-B. Perusal of the document, available at page 2 of Paper Book - B, apparently shows that the document contains the figure of Rs. 50,000/- stated to have received as rent but again this document is bereft of name of the recipient, description of the rented property and as to who is the payee of the amount in question. Strangely enough, on the basis of seized document/paper showing the amount of Rs. 50,000/- the addition of Rs. 3,31,450/- has been made by the AO on the basis of whims and fancies and thereafter the ld. CIT (A) have further perpetuated the error committed by AO....