TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders all dated 21.08.2017 passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi qua the Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 on the identical grounds inter alia that :- "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO which is illegal being against the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of IT Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the addition (Rs.5,31,217/- each in AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 and Rs. 3,09,876/- in AY 2014-15) on account of alleged interest income on the basis of a seized document which is dumb/bald. 3. The Ld. CIT(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned, unnamed & dumb document showing hypothetical figure for 13 years which has no relation with the assessee or his group, AO proceeded to conclude that from the seized document, it is proved that the assessee has given a loan of Rs. 12,00,000/- in the FY 2000-01 and thus received the total amount of Rs. 29,51,207/- and calculated the interest thereon @ 18% amounting to Rs. 5,31,217/- each in AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 and made addition thereof in the total income of the assessee. AO made addition on account of undisclosed interest income of Rs. 3,09,876/- @ 18% on principal amount of Rs. 29,51,207/- in AY 2014-15. AO made addition of Rs. 84,000/- each in AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 on account of notional rent of one property @ 10% ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he residence of the assessee which is extracted for ready perusal as under :- 31.10.01 12,00,000 - 31.10.02 2,16,000 14,16,000 31.10.03 2,54,880 16,70,880 31.10.04 3,00,758 19,71,638 31.10.05 3,54,895 23,26,533 31.10.07 4,18,775 27,45,308 31.10.08 4,94,155 32,39,463 31.10.09 5,83,103 38,22,566 31.10.10 6,88,061 45,10,627 31.10.11 8,11,912 53,22,539 31.10.12 9,58,057 62,80,696 31.10.13 11,30,525 74,11,221 8. It is also not in dispute that AO has invoked the provisions contained u/s 292C that there is a presumption that the contents of the documents are true. It is also not in dispute that AO on the basis of aforesaid document seized during the search and seizure operatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment in question and the case of the assessee falls within the deeming provisions of section 292C of the Act as the assessee has not denied the seizure of document from his residence and further contended that the AO/CIT (A) have rightly held that even this rate of interest of 18% is commensurate with the prevailing market rate and have relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Courts in Dayachand vs. CIT - (2001) 117 taxmann 438 (Delhi), CIT vs. Nagesh Kumar Aggarwal - (2011) 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi), Mahabir Prasad Rungta vs. CIT (2014) 43 taxmann.com 328 & Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. vs. ACIT - (2017) 79 taxmann.com 325 (Kerala). 11. Bare perusal of the document in question marked as A-1, extracted in the preceding paras, found and se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....03.2007 till 31.10.2013 interest figures continued the same i.e. Rs. 5,31,217/-. 14. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in AY 2008-09 (supra) has deleted the addition for AY 2008-09 made on the basis of same seized document A-1 on the ground that alleged interest income cannot be attributed to the assessee on the basis of dumb document. 15. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that addition made on the basis of unnamed, unsigned, undated, vague and ambiguous document without any further corroboration is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Moreover, AO has not brought on record any material to prove that the assessee was in conscious possession of document in question. 16. Furt....