TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the part addition of Rs. 13,50,000/- out of Rs. 27 Lacs instead of deleting the whole amount of addition. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and practicing as an architect. There was a survey under the provisions of section 133A of the Act at the premises of the assessee. During survey, among the documents seized, a document marked as page 5 of annexure A-1 was seized. In this document, it was found that the assessee has worked in various projects of his clients against which the fees were collected from them in cash as well as in ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not the income of the assessee. The assessee in support of his contention filed the confirmation of all the parties to the AO during the assessment proceedings. But there was no enquiry conducted by the AO to disprove the contention of the assessee. 3.3 The assessee also submitted that seized document was neither written in his handwriting or on his letterhead nor signed by him. As such seized paper was written by the staff of the assessee for making various calculations depicting the fee to be received and the expenses to be incurred on behalf of the parties. Accordingly, the receipt of Rs.27 Lacs does not represent the income of the assessee. 3.4 At the time of survey, there was not found any cash more than the cash recorded in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings of Iron Triangle Ltd. under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act has made the addition to the total income vide order dated 1-6-2018. Furthermore, Iron Triangle Ltd. did not challenge the impugned addition. Thus it was contended by the learned AR that the further addition in the hands of the assessee for the same amount of Rs.5 lakhs will lead to the double addition. Accordingly, it was prayed by the learned AR to delete the addition by Rs.5 lakhs. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The facts of the case have already been elaborated in the preceding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferent things and therefore there cannot be established any nexus for allowing or disallowing the expenses. 7.2 In view of the above, we are of the view that prayer made by the learned AR for the assessee at the time of hearing is not acceptable. Therefore, we reject the same. 7.3 Moving further, we note that the assessee is under the obligation to explain the entries found in the seized documents. It is for the reason that as per the provision of section 292C(1) of the Act it is presumed that the documents found during survey from the premises of the assessee belongs to the assessee and its contents are also correct. The relevant extract of the provisions of section reads as under: Presumption as to assets, books of account,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r alia, provides that where any books of account or other documents are found in possession or control of any person in the course of search undersection 132 or survey undersection 133A, it may be presumed that such books or documents belong to such person. Undisputedly, such presumption is rebuttable. 7.5 In this regard we also find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Lalitha Jewellery Mart (P) Ltd vs. DCIT, 115 taxmann.com 369, where it was held as under: Further, both undersection 132(4A) and section292C(1), there is only a presumption. However, such presumptions are rebuttable if adequate explanations are given. Therefore, it was not proper on the part of the DIT Kolkata to exercise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a professional director in Shamken Multifab Ltd. and used to handle various projects of the said company. The CIT (A) rejected the above explanation. Since the said document had been seized from the residence of Assessee, the CIT (A) drew a presumption under section 292C of the Act was that it belonged to him. Further, the CIT(A) proceeded to hold that Rs. 49 lakhs constituted the unexplained income of the Assessee since the Assessee had not submitted any evidence like a confirmation letter or any other document to show that expenditure related to any project of the aforementioned company. 5. The ITAT in the impugned order noted that the said document "does not indicate if it pertains to the assessee nor the address and location of....