TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ys. 2009-10 to 2014-15, therefore, the grounds as well as additional ground raised in IT(SS)A No. 38/RJT/2018 for Assessment Year 2009-10 are reproduced as under:- "1.0 The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [CIT(A)] erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- made on account of alleged unexplained salary received from Gopal Sea Foods. The addition retained is totally unjustified and uncalled for which deserves to be deleted and may kindly be deleted. 3.0 Your Honor's appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal. Additional....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act on 26.08.2009 declaring total income at Rs. 3,15,310/-. Search and seizure action under Section 134(1) of the Act was carried out at the business premises of M/s. Gopal Sea Foods and other concerns/persons of M/s. Gopal group on 03.03.2015. Being an employee of the said group, residential premises of the assessee was also covered in the search. Consequent upon the search, proceedings under Section 153A of the Act was initiated while issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act dated 12.10.2015. During the course of recording statement under Section 132(4) of the Act, the assessee was asked to state the income/emoluments received by him from M/s. Gopal Sea Foods. In response, the assessee has given a vague answer. During the search ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that during the search and seizure operation, the Revenue has not found any incriminating documents or any cogent document or evidence relating to the assessee directly or indirectly. The addition made by the Assessing Officer as relates to unaccounted salary does not sustain in the eyes of law as the salary vouchers which was presented before the Assessing Officer clearly shows the actual salary paid to the assessee which was verifiable from the records of the assessee's bank account and other relevant documents. Merely relying on the stateme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the respondent, the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. Jayaben Ratilal Sorathia (supra) wherein it has been held that while it cannot be disputed that considering section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer can reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year. 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to a question of law, much less, a substantia....