TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act". 2 The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1) Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in confirming order passed by AO for reopening assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. 2) Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as in fact in confirming addition of Rs. 15,87,700/- only on the basis of allegation of third party without any evidences of any short and without considering our submission after cross examination." 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee Shri Mukeshkumar Vrajlal Akabari (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') is an individual carrying on the business of manufacturing and trading in brass items. The assessee filed his return of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issed the assessee's appeal with the following observations: 8.1 It is seen that the appellant sought cross examination of Shri Dharmendra Doshi son of Late Shri Chhotglal V. Doshi on whose statement the reopening was made. The appellant was provided with an opportunity to cross examine the said Dharmendra Doshi during the assessment proceedings. It is claimed by the appellant that the said Dharmendra Doshi had made entries in the diary based on the directions of his late father and the said Dharmendra Doshi had admitted during the cross examination that he did not know the appellant. It is also claimed by the appellant that the said Dharmendra Doshi has not produced any evidence of persons depositing the cash in their accounts. It is cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wala operations, it is not possible for all the records to be maintained in the manner in which the appellant seeks now. In view of the peculiar manner of Hawala operations, the various claims made by the appellant are not acceptable. Therefore, there is a reasonable probability that the said transaction pertains to the appellant based on the entry in the diary and it is also not mandatory under the Income Tax that the evidence should be beyond doubt to assess a transaction. Considering the same, the addition made is upheld and the ground nos. 2 & 3 are dismissed. 5. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that that the said Late Shri Chhotalal V. Doshi who was a Hawala operator has expired and the entire addition was made on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oshi has stated "as have already stated that the amount deposited in said bank account was sales consideration of all businessmen of Jamnagar. I was just providing service to them on commission basis. I don't know about parties who have deposited the amount. Since the said amount represents out of books sales/sale consideration of businessmen of Jamnagar, hence liable to pay taxes on them". The counsel for the assessee relied upon the case of ACIT v. Lata Mangeshkar 97 ITR 696, wherein it was held that entries made in the accounts of third-party regarding payment to the assessee is not sufficient as there is no guarantee that the entries were genuine in absence of any corroborative evidence. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...... Therefore, there is a reasonable probability that the said transaction pertains to the appellant based on the entry in the diary and it is also not mandatory under the Income Tax that the evidence should be beyond doubt to assess a transaction. Considering the same, the addition made is upheld and the ground nos. 2 & 3 are dismissed. Therefore, from the above observations of the Ld. CIT(A) while passing the order, it is evident that the additions were made only on the basis of a "reasonable probability" that the money belonged to the assessee, and no substantive corroborative evidence has been adduced to show that the money belonged to the assessee. 6.1 In the case of Abhay Kumar Bharamgouda Patil [2018] 96 taxmann.com 377 (Panaji - T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... corroborative evidence was found to suggest that assessee had actually received said amount, no addition could be made merely on basis of noting in loose papers found during search proceedings in case of 'D Group' against name of assessee. 6.3 In the case of Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [2010] 128 TTJ 36 (Ahmedabad) (UO), the Ahmedabad Tribunal held that where assessee was alleged to have paid a sum as 'on money' for purchase of flat but no evidence could be brought on record by Revenue to show that in fact assessee had paid 'on-money' to developers, and no document containing signature of assessee or handwriting of assessee to corroborate above making of payment by assessee was found during course of sea....