TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 3285/Del/2013 (A.Y. 2007-08). 2. The grounds raised by the Department in ITA No. 3285/Del/2013 (A.Y. 2007-08) read as under:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by the AO on account of document i.e. computer printout found and seized from the premises of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda during the course of search. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting this addition and ignoring the facts that Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda is a business associate of the assessee, i.e. Sh. Jaswant Singh Chawla and the assessee's name has been written in abb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome at Rs. 1,13,75,600/- by making an addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of entry recorded in the documents seized from the residence of one Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda during the search, vide his order dated 30.12.2011 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Against the aforesaid assessment order dated 30.12.2011 of the Assessing Officer, Asseessee appealed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who vide impugned order 11.3.2013 has partly allowed the appeal of the assesee by deleting the addition of Rs. 1 crore. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 11.3.2013, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing Ld. Departmental Representative has relied upon the order of the Assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entioned that the search was also conducted on the assessee premises too and in the assessment order passed under section 153A/143(3) it was seen that AO has not/ made any addition on the basis of any unaccounted /undisclosed investment/expenditure and therefore the addition now made in the order under section 148/143(3) on the basis of the entry recorded on the basis. of computer printout found from the premises of Sh. Sandeep Kinda, is therefore based on the presumption of the AO and it is unsupported by any cogent or incriminating evidence. 8.2 We are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly noted that it is a well decided proposition that the AD cannot rely upon and presume against the assessee on the basis of any document found as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....andeep Singh Khinda. 8.4 Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that it is a trite law and principle of jurisprudence, as is pronounced by the Supreme Court of India at judgment reported at Chuharmal 172 ITR 250 (SC) that section 110 of the Evidence Act lays down that a salutary principle of common law jurisprudence is that where a person was found in possession of anything the onus to prove that he was not owner was on that person and it was held that this principle is equally applicable to taxation proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961. As such, applying the said principle it is clear that seized document found from the possession of Sh Kinda, belong to th....