TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition of Rs. 5,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follow: The assessee is an important public figure. For the assessment year 2011-2012, the return of income was filed on 31.07.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 5,41,570. There was a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T.Act in the corporate office of M/s.RNS Infrastructure Limited (in short "RNSIL") on 16.02.2012. During the course of search, certain incriminating materials were seized including deleted data retrieved from seized computer server by using forensic tools. According to the A.O., the deleted data represents systemic and comprehensive day to day recordings including "sundry payments". This "sundry payment", according to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of reopening of assessment as well as on merits. It was contended that the statement of Vice President (Finance), RNSIL was relied on for making addition of Rs. 5 lakh and despite specific request, the assessee was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The CIT(A), during the course of appellate proceedings, directed the A.O. to provide all the copies of documents that was seized as well as an opportunity to cross examine VP (Finance), RNSIL. Accordingly, the A.O. as per the directions of the CIT(A), allowed the assessee's representative for inspection of incriminating material on the basis of which the assessment was completed and also provided an opportunity to cross examine the witness, whose statement has been relied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the addition of Rs. 5 lakh has been made in the case of the assessee only on the basis of diary noting, statement of VP (Finance), RNSIL, and data retrieved by using forensic tools from seized computer server (data was deleted and the same was retrieved by using forensic tools). The assessee had contended that the details of seizure and the harsh value report were not available with the A.O. at the time of assessment. It was stated that the same was not made available to the assessee nor his representative. It was further submitted that the A.O. has not brought out any nexus between the payment of Rs. 5 lakh with that of the assessee. One of the evidences which is purported against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is also submitted that in the statement recorded on 16/02/2012 during search, Sh.Sunil Sahasrabudhe has only explained / given details about some material found during search and has not made any specific admission. As such the claim that the same is obtained by force is not tenable. In that statement, what he had deposed is the fact that the expenditure under the head "sundry" is unaccounted and as no question on the break up details of sundry expenditure was asked, the possibility of the name of the appellant appearing in any of the answers does not arise. (emphasis supplied) PADMAMEENAKSHI Joint.Commissioner of Income-tax Range-1(3), Bengaluru." 7.1 From the aforesaid facts, it is very clear that there is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.5 - MLA Tarikere Rs. 27 lakhs upto 31.07.2010. However, it does not specify date on which it was paid or who has paid. It is not possible to any person to say conclusively that it is relating to these assessment years being the absence of date of payment. Further it is only diary jottings not supported by corroborated material or any independent evidence. In other words, there should be a material on record to show that there is an undisclosed income on the basis of material on hand with the Assessing Officer and guess work is not possible. The Assessing Officer shall have the basis for assuming that there was a payment by RNSIL to the assessee which was not disclosed to the Department. The unsubstantiated diary jottings cannot be consid....