AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 692
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the CIT (A), has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the Revenue is that Respondent filed his income return (ITR) for AY 2002-03 declaring an income of Rs. 2,91,670/- comprising of income from salary from M/s Jagat Agro Commodities (P) Ltd., income from House Property and Capital Gains. On 15th December, 2004, a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta. During the course of search, various incriminating documents/diaries/loose papers were found and seized. During post search proceedings, statements on oath were recorded of Sh. B.M.Gupta, his son Sh. Rajeev Gupta and accountant Sh. Ram Avtar Singhal. The search ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lding jurisdiction to undertake action under Section 153C/148 of the Act against the respondent. 5. On 19th March, 2008, on being satisfied with the said information furnished by DCIT, Central Circle-19, the concerned AO initiated action under Section 148. Therefore, in response to said notice, the respondent stated that his previously filed ITR be accepted in compliance to the said notice. The AO observed that the ITR so relied upon by the respondent did not disclose any transaction of cash loans with Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta group and the same was contrary to the evidence unearthed during the search. On this basis, show cause notices were issued to the respondent under Section 142(1) of the Act granting him opportunities to appear before the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agement in "hundi" business stood proven and unchallenged by the respondent. It is further argued that the cash advances from the respondent by Sh.Brij Mohan Gupta in the subject year were expressly recorded in the seized documents which formed a part of regular books of the business and no better evidentiary and documentary proof could be expected from such transactions. 8. At the outset, it is noticed that on 20th December, 2017, this Court recorded the submissions of the learned counsel for the Revenue and directed the learned counsel to produce subsequent order made by the AO after fresh determination in lieu of remand made in the case of the Ashok Prasad Gupta (supra). The said order reads as under: "CM No.46522/2017 (exemption) E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de by the AO after fresh determination, in view of the remand made in Ashok Prasad Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on 13.09.2012. 4. List on 26.02.2018." 9. Since December, 2017, the Revenue has failed to place on record the said order. Today, once again time is being sought to produce the said order. However, having regard to the fact that more than two years have lapsed and the Revenue has failed to place the order on record, we have proceeded to hear the matter on merits. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent, submits that at the time of issuance of the notice by this court, since the respondent was not represented, it could not bring to the notice of this Court that in Commissioner of Income Tax-X v. Mahabir Prasa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rson may write the name of any person at his sweet will, in such circumstances assessee cannot be put to any liability on the action of the third person, the same has to be corroborated by the Revenue which has not been done in the present case. In the circumstances and facts of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the additions so made by the AO. Accordingly, all the grounds of the Revenue are dismissed." 12. In case of the Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahabir Prasad Gupta (supra), this Court has examined the facts and concluded that the concurrent finding of the facts cannot be disturbed as there was no material which could justify the assessment order. The relevant portion of the....