TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 652
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the 'Act') dated 16.03.2014 framed by DCIT(Central)-I, Indore. 3. Revenue had raised following grounds of appeal; "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 1,70,77,904/- on account of unaccounted income from undisclosed source without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the A.O during assessment proceedings". 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is engaged in the business as commodity broker. Return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 was filed on 30.09.2013 declaring income of Rs. 49,55,360/-. Notices u/s 143(2) was issued on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before us. Revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of addition of Rs. 1,70,77,904/- which was made by Ld. A.O treating the sum as unaccounted income from undisclosed sources. This addition made by the Ld.A.O have its nexus from page No.62 of LPS-B1/5 found during the course of search in which amount of Rs. 1,70,77,904/- was appearing. These documents was seized from the office premises of the assessee and it was obligatory on the part of the assessee to explain at the time of search but the assessee failed at that point of time. Even though the assessee contended before the Ld. A.O during the course of assessment proceedings that the alleged amount relates to the fixed deposit receipts of Canara Bank but the same were not accepted by the Lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4.2 The appellant has submitted in the appeal proceedings that the seized page no. 62 of LPS-B 1 /5 is a dumb document and no cognizance can be taken unless it has correlation of the undisclosed income of the appellant. Further, no questions were asked during the search regarding the said page. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. S .M Agarwal (293 ITR 43) and Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lata Mangeshwar (96 ITR 696) (Born.). 4.3 First and foremost, the issue of evidentiary value of the seized page no.62 of LPS-B1/5 is being dealt with. It is seen that on the said seized documents dates from 21/06/2012 to 03/07/2012 are mentioned in the first column. In the next 10 columns 10 enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Commission in the SOF that the bottom row entries against 10 "entities of'<the group are reflecting sales consideration of off market share sales and amounts received as calls in arrears for share application money in PIPL. It was admitted that the amounts mentioned on this seized paper below the respective entities relate to sale of shares for which necessary affidavits were filed. 4.3.3 From the above, it is clear that the appellant and the group has accepted the entries in the first 11 columns of the seized document page no.. 62 of LPS-B1/5. Also the amount matches with the deposits in the bank accounts during the said period of the different entities mentioned in the seized document. Therefore, it is clear that page no. 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has submitted the copies of the fixed deposits with Canara Bank. It is seen that the appellant company is having two FDRs with Canara Bank, Mumbai Stock and Commodity Exchange Branch for Rs. 50,00,000/- each which were issued on 21/03/2012. Further, there is an entry in the Canara Bank, Siyaganj Branch, Indore on 14/07/2012 on account of pre-mature redemption of FDR of Rs. 70,00,000/-. The appellant has submitted that Rs. 77,904/- is on account of accrued interest of these FDRs. 6. In view of the appellant's submissions arid the evidence placed on record it is held that tie appellant company has explained the entry of Rs. 1,70,77,904/- and therefore, addition on this account is not justifiable. Therefore, the addition of Rs. l,....