TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng three substantive grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,88,30,489/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed investment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 66,88,489/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed income. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 58,69,600/- made by the AO on account of unaccounted cash. 3. Brief facts of the case are that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried on 26.02.2009 in case of Shri Ram....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income as per his statement of Rs. 9,69,600/- on account of unaccounted cash. 7. The order of the ld AO was challenged before the ld CIT(A) who deleted the addition and therefore, the ld AO is in appeal before us. 8. Despite notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On earlier 10 occasions the assessee did not appear. On this occasion, notice was served to the assessee and therefore, we proceed to decide the issue on the merits of the case as per information available on record. 9. The ld DR vehemently relied on the order of the ld AO. 10. We have carefully considered the contentions of ld DR and perused the orders of the lower authorities. 11. The first ground of appeal is with respect to addition of Rs. 1,88,30,489/- in the ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The ld CIT(A) has dealt with the whole issue in para 6 of this order at page No. 50 to 52. The main reason for deleting the addition was that overall disclosure was given on estimated basis and on actual subsequent analysis, it has been found to be on the lower side than what was disclosed. . The ld AO did not investigate that as there is any furher income over and above the income disclosed sum by the assessee in his return of income such addition could not have been made. The ld DR could not show any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A). We also find Mr. Rajiv Gupta disclosed Rs. 10 crores in the hands of the assessee which was found to be actually only Rs. 9,33,11,511/- which was disclosed by the assessee in his return of income. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 10 Crores has been declared on behalf of the assessee. The AO is of the view that the assessee has backtracked from his disclosure of Rs. 10 Crores and has made a disclosure in the returned income for only Rs. 9,33,11,511/-and accordingly, the difference of Rs. 66,48,489/- has been added to income in para 5.13 to the assessment order. As against this the substance of the assessee's argument is that the initial disclosure of Rs. 50 Crores in various hands by Sh. Rajeev Gupta included the normal income of the group and not over and above the normal income. In this connection attention has been invited to the statement of Sh. Rajeev Gupta dated 27.02.09 and his subsequent letter to the ADIT on 05.06.09. It has also been argued by the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count of income representing documents seized during course of search. Thus it is case where the statement on oath made at the time of search, though by the close associate of the assessee Sh. Rajeev Gupta, has been reflected in his return of income. It is also correct that the disclosure of Rs. 10 Crore made by Sh. Rajeev Gupta on behalf of the assessee vide letter written to the ADIT was inclusive of the normal income. Moreover, alternatively even if the assessee goes back on his disclosure for a certain amount, the onus shifts on the AO to investigate and substantiate the difference between the disclosure and the returned income and that the difference cannot straightaway be added to income. Moreover, the disclosure was given on a rough ....