TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 183
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,48,88, 893/- made on account of undisclosed income even though assessee has not furnished any explanation with document ary evidences regarding the figures mentioned against the name of the assessee on loose papers seized during the course of search. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition even though t he onus was on the assessee to prove the notings on the loose paper with documentary evidence. 4. On the facts and circumst ances of t he case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing officer. 5. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing officer may be restored to the above extent. 2. The revenue / assessing officer vide its application dated 12.0.2020 has filed following revised grounds of appeal; 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs.7,60,087/- to Rs.2,60,087/- on account of unexplained cash without appreciating the fact involved in this case that the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see explained that he has sufficient cash balance in his cash book on the date of search. The assessee also furnished the details of cash book. Ongoing through the cash book, the Assessing officer was of the view that only cash balance of Rs. 83,413/- on the date of search was available with the assessee. Accordingly, the difference of Rs. 7,60,087/- (Rs. 8,43,500- 83,413) was treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Ac and added to the income of assessee. The Assessing Officer further also that during the course of search at the residential premises of the assessee, certain loose papers as Annexure-A-2 and A-4 were found and seized. The assessee was asked to explain the source of writing on such seized document. The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee has failed to submit any explanation, accordingly, a show cause notice dated 27/02/2015 was issued to the assessee. In the show cause notice, the Assessing Officer recorded that on the loose paper seized vide Annexure-A-4 at page No. 25 working of Rs. 4.255 crores is mentioned against the name of assessee. Further some working is also at Annexure A-2 at page Nos. 84, 85, 86, 88 and 95 where the entries is mentio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....total of Rs. 4.88 crores is the undisclosed income of assessee. Such loose papers are not the books of account nor the authentic documents having any evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Mere seizure of loose or dump papers would not be "ipso facto" treated as books of account or other documents which is always rebuttable. 4. The assessee also submitted that the Assessing Officer made addition merely on assumption, presumption which is not tenable under the law. No investigation or enquiry during the assessment, contrary to the explanation and the evidence offered by assessee was made but the Assessing Officer just made imagination and estimated the alleged unaccounted income. There is no independent material to corroborate the addition. The Assessing Officer has not proved with evidence as to how the alleged income of Rs. 4.488 crores were earned by the assessee. Except the dump documents, nothing incriminating material was found and seized by the authorised officer at the time of search. As a matter of fact, the notings on the loose papers demonstrate the projection figurative work which has never been materialized or executed. There is no reference of any debt or loan or inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ney of flat booking in M.D. Infra Developers wherein son of assessee is partner who kept the money in his residence for safety purpose. The Assessing Officer has rightfully accepted the fact that the flat booking receipt duly recorded in the books of account of M.D. Infra Developers wherein the Assessing Officer himself treated the amount of cash of Rs. 3,43,500/- as income of M.D. Infra Developers. The Assessing Officer conveniently ignored such fact. The assessee furnished the assessment order of with audited accounts of M/s Shital Textile and M.D. Infra Developer. Based on aforesaid explanation, the assessee submitted that there is no lawful reason to presume that alleged difference of cash of Rs. 7,60,087/- is the unexplained money of the assessee. 6. The ld. CIT(A) on considering the submission of assessee on the addition of Rs. 4.488 crore has held that the Assessing Officer made addition based on loose paper found and seized. The Assessing Officer recorded that page NO. 25 of Annexure-A-4, there is working of Rs. 4.255 crores against which the assessee's name is mentioned. The Assessing Officer also mentioned that on certain page of Annexure-A-2, there are working, and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld that this amount was claimed from savings and now it is claimed as booking amount of M.D. Infra Developers, it is an afterthought. New explanation is contrary to the initial statement. The son of assessee was himself claiming keeping of cash of M.D. Infra Developers of Rs. 2.00 lacs, accordingly, new explanation was rejected. Since only cash balance of Rs. 83,314/- was accepted by Assessing Officer and treated as unexplained, therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 2,60,087/- (Rs.3,43,500 - Rs.83,413) is upheld. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 8. We have heard the submissions of learned Commissioner of Income Tax/ Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue and the learned authorised representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and have also perused the orders of the lower authorities carefully. Ground No. 1 relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 5.00 lacks under section 69. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that during search at the residential premises of the assessee, cash of Rs. 8,43,500/- was found and on perusal of cash book of assessee, it was only cash balance of Rs. 83,413/- on the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also submits that the Assessing Officer made addition merely on assumption, presumption which is not tenable under the law. No investigation or enquiry during the assessment contrary to the explanation and the evidence offered by assessee was made but the Assessing Officer just made imagination and estimated the alleged unaccounted income. The Assessing Officer has not proved with evidence as to how the alleged income of Rs. 4.488 crores were earned by the assessee. Except the dump documents, nothing incriminating material was found and seized by the authorised officer at the time of search. The ld. AR of the assessee also submits that there is no reference of any debt or loan or investment or expenses. These facts were ignored by the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR of the assessee also relied on the decisions i.e. CIT Vs Maulikumar K Shah, CIT Vs Vivek Aggarwal and ACIT Vs Sharad Chaudhary (Supra). 11. Against the Ground No.1, which relates to the addition sustained to the extent of Rs. 2,60,087/- under Section 69A of the Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that he had filed detailed written submission before the Assessing officer vide submission dated 14/3/2015 wherein the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ihbai Patel (2017) 10 ITR OL460 GUJ, • Sheraton Apparels Vs ACIT (2002) 256 ITR 20 Bom, • Nirmal Fashion Private Limited Vs DCIT (2008) 25 SOT 387 Kol - Trib, • ACIT Vs Sharad Chaudhary (2015) 55 taxmann.com 324 (Delhi- Trib), • CIT Vs Anil Bhalla (2010) 322 ITR 191 (Delhi), • Priyanka Chopra Vs DCIT (2018) 94 taxmann.com 122 (Mum-Trib), • ACIT Vs Iayer Export (P) Limited(2017) 88 taxmann.com 620 (Mum-Trib) • Pramod Pandey Vs ACIT (ITA No. 4295/Delhi/2012, • KP Varghese Vs ITO ( 131 ITR 597 SC), • Amar Kumari Surana Vs CIT 226 ITR 344 (Raj) • CIT Vs Denesh jain (HUF) (2013) 352 ITR 629 (Delhi) • Vinodbhai Shamjibhai Ravani Vs DCIT (2017) 79 taxmann.com 237 Guj. 13. The ld AR for the assessee objected against filing of revised grounds of appeal, vide his objections dated 11.07.2022. In the objections the ld AR for the assessee submits that in revised grounds of appeal the revenue has raised new / additional ground that the ld CIT(A) erred in admitting the submissions of the assessee without providing opportunity to the assessing officer. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oking amount of M.D. Infra Developers, it is an afterthought. The ld CIT(A) held that new explanation offered before him, was contrary to the initial statement and that son of assessee was himself claiming keeping of cash of M.D. Infra Developers of Rs. 2.00 lacs, accordingly, new explanation was rejected. Since only cash balance of Rs. 83,314/- was accepted by Assessing Officer and treated as unexplained, therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 2,60,087/- (Rs.3,43,500 - Rs.83,413) was upheld and remaining additions were delated. We find that the ld CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee on appreciation of the statement recorded during the search action, wherein the assessee has firmly stated that the amount of Rs. 5.00 lakhs belong to Shital Textile, wherein he is one of the partners. No contrary facts or evidence was brought to our notice to take other view; therefore, we affirm the order of ld CIT(A) on thi issues. In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is dismissed. 15. Ground No.2 relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 4.488 Crore. We find that the assessing officer made addition of this amount by taking view that that during the course of search at the residential p....