TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed by the ld. AO u/s 153A), particularly when during the course of appellant proceedings, the assessee had categorically pointed out that the Panchnama was not drawn in his name. The ld. CIT(A) had simply mentioned that this ground is general in nature and therefore, it is not been adjudicated separately and treated as dismissed. 2. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the ld. CIT(A) had erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.44,00,000/-, which was made by the ld. AO on the ground that there were contradictions in the explanation given by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and the explanation given by the assessee's wife -Mrs. Anju Jakhmola during the course of search & seizure oper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....w.s. 143(3) without obtaining mandatory approval of the Joint Commissioner u/s 1530 is illegal and thus order deserves to be quashed. IV. That the addition of Rs.32,79,468/- made by the AO without any reference to any incriminating material seized during the course of search upon any person is illegal and unjustified and deserves to be deleted. V. That the only basis of the sole addition made in the Assessment Order is part disallowance of depreciation, which as clearly stated by the AO at paragraph no. 3 of the Assessment Order, is perusal of Balance Sheet. Thus, addition has no relevance or nexus with any material seized during the course of search upon any person and, therefore, deserves to be deleted. 4. That....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts of the case are that a search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 09.10.2013 on the premises of the assessee comprising Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd Group of cases. The lockers covered u/s 132 operation were locker no. 9014, Axis Bank, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and locker no.09, Allahabad Bank, Sector - 44, Noida. In view of search operation, the group cases were centralized to Central Circle, Noida. The jurisdiction order u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in this case, was passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi - 22, New Delhi communicated vide F.No. Pr. CIT-22/1/Centralization/2015-16/1194 dated 06.08.2015. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 18.08.2015. The assessee f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at from the above discussion, it is quite clear that the assessee is changing the stand. That moreover it is also worthwhile to mention that the case of M/s Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. is also assessed to tax in this Circle and there is no evidence on record in support of claim of assessee. Hence, AO held that in these circumstances, the submission of Shri Harish Kumar that the said money belongs to the company cannot be believed and in view of this an addition of Rs.44,00,000/- is being added to the income of the assessee. 5. Upon assessee's appeal, ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition as under:- "5.1 The undersigned has carefully gone through the assessment order, written submission filed as well as verbal argument of the ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant used to keep cash with him or deposit to companies cash book. 5. In absence of any debit note/credit note, if appellant used to deal with cash of company then how appellant kept the record of cash with him. All above questions remained unanswered at the end of the appellant. Further, during the course. of search Ms. Anju Jakhmola in her statement has stated that cash of Rs.14,00,000/- belongs to her and remaining Rs.30,00,000/- belongs to the appellant. However, no evidence could be submitted to substantiate her claim. Therefore, undersigned is of the opinion that the cash found and seized is nothing but undisclosed income of the appellant. Therefore, addition made by AO is confirmed and grounds of appeal are dismi....