AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....up concerns/companies/family members on 28.03.2011. Notice u/s 153C was issued to the assessee. The assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 7,35,920/-. During the course of survey operation u/s 133A of the I.T. Act at the business premises no. 10174, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi documents marked as annexure A-3 was found/impounded. On page no. 6 of annexure A-3, it is seen that Rs. 33 lakhs rent security received in cash during the year. The assessee was asked to furnish details of rent security amounting to Rs. 33 lakhs received in cash during the year. The assessee filed the reply, wherein it was submitted that the said document does not pertain to the undersigned rather it pertains to M/s Chak De Hospitality Pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vinder Singh, who was looking after administrative work was recorded on 26.03.2013, wherein he has confirmed that he had taken premises from Tripti Hotel on rent during August 2008 to March 2011. As regarding rent security, he has stated that he had also paid a rent security of Rs. 21 lakhs and advance payment of Rs. 16,08,716/- to the assessee related to tenancy of this Hotel premises, which had not been returned back to them from Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kanodia. As regards page no. 6 of annexure A-3 impounded, he has stated that presently he was not able to explain this and will explain it later on. He was not involved in the financial matter, though his signature appeared on the document. The AO, accordingly, noted that M/s Chak De Hospitality ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny hand written notings along with computer printout of the rent details of Hotel Tripti clearly indicate that the document belonged to the assessee. In the document the details of rent are noted which indicate that the document belonged to the assessee and not to the tenant. Since, assessee did not explain the same document, therefore, rent of Rs. 5.25 lacs was taken and the addition in principle was confirmed but deduction u/s 24(a) @ 30% was allowed thus, addition to the extent of Rs. 23,10,000/- was confirmed as against addition of Rs. 33 lakhs. 4. The assessee in the present appeal has challenged the initiation of the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act and claimed that same are not valid and bad in law, liable to be quashed. The assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the details of security rent filed at page 25 of the PB. The assessee explained that the said document did not belong to her rather it pertains to M/s Chak De Hospitality Private Limited which was the tenant at the said place. It is not clarified by the AO in the assessment order as to from whose exclusive possession the said document was found during the course of survey. The assessee filed details of rental income along with copy of the rent agreement and explained that the impounded paper is signed by Sh. Ravinder Singh who is the Director of M/s Chak De Hospitality Private Limited and independent inquiry could be made from him directly. The AO recorded statement of Shri Ravinder Singh on 26.03.2013. Copy of which is filed at page 55 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) was not justified to hold impounded documents belong to the assessee. Sh. Ravinder Singh did not confirm if the tenant company has paid cash of Rs. 33 lakhs to the assessee as rent security or advance rent. The AO, even as per the impounded document mentioned in the assessment order that the impounded document shows Rs. 33 lakhs rent security received in cash during the year but the AO did not affirm that the alleged amount of Rs. 33 lakhs in cash have been received by the assessee. Even the tenant has not confirmed to have paid any cash of Rs. 33 lakhs to the assessee. Therefore, no credence could be given to the seized/impounded paper because it did not contain any specific thing against the assessee. The seized document is not reliab....