AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 972
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se the Ld. Lower Authority erred in making impugned addition u/s 694 of the Income Tax Act, without considering that it was never established that the assessee-company was found to be the owner of any such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles. 3. Because the LD. Lower Authority has also erred in view of the fact that M/s Tulsiani Construction and Developers (P) Ltd. (second party) has also denied to have made any payment in cash of Rs.15 Lacs. Hence, the addition made solely on the basis of noting on seized page is not backed with corroborative evidence. 4. Because the Ld. Lower Authority has erred in making addition of the same amount of Rs.15,00,000/- in case of M/s Tulsiani Construction and Developers (P) Ltd. which is against the Principle of Law and Equity. 5. Because the Ld. Lower Authority has erred in making addition only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions without having any evidence on record. 6. Because the Ld. Lower Authority also erred in making addition without considering the submission made the appellant and case laws relied upon. 7. Because the Ld. AO has also erred in charging interest u/s 234A of IT Act while computing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee company was centralized. Notices we 153A of the Act of issued and the assesse filed return in response to the same at the total income of Rs.9,340/- Notices u/s 142(2) and 142(1) was issued thereafter by the Ld. AQ and the same were duly complied by the assessee. 3- The Ld. Assessing Officer has completed assessment at an income of Rs.15,09,340/- by making addition of Rs.15,00,000 us 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4- The addition as made by Ld. Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- is solely based on one Print-out taken from the Laptop of Ms. Anne (an employee of the company named Tulsiani Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd.). On the basis of said page, the Ld. Assessing Officer has drawn inference that the assessee company has received Rs.15,00,000/- M/s Tulsiani Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd. in cash against the Property at Block-1 at IT Park-2 for Hotel, which has not been shown in regular books of accounts. 5- The assessee explained during assessment proceedings that no such cash of Rs.15,00,000/- has been received by the assessed during the year under consideration from M/s Tulsiani Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove, the case laws as cited by the La Assessing Officer while passing the order are also distinguishable from the case of the assessee. 13- Further, no valuable article or thing was have been found from the possession of the assessee, only a computer print-out that too was found and seized from the laptop of an employee of other company and not the assessee. Neither the possession nor the ownership of any cash mentioned in the slips has been proved by the department. Therefore, application of the provisions of section 69A for making addition of Rs.15,00,000 is totally incorrect. 14- Aggrieved by the assessment order, appeal is being preferred as per separate grounds of appeal." 6. On the other hand, learned DR has submitted that the seized material contains various entries as it is evident from the copy reproduced by the AO at page no. 2 of the assessment order. The assessee has accepted all other entries which are the receipt through cheques but denied only one entry which is in cash. Therefore, the seized material itself is not disputed by the assessee so far as the other entries are concerned except the cash receipt. The learned DR has relied upon the orders of the autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee has accepted the other entries. Once, the assessee has not disputed the other entries recorded in the seized material then a single entry of Rs. 15 Lac received in cash cannot be denied. The CIT(A) has considered this issue in para 9 to 15 as under:- "9. During the appellate proceedings the appellant submitted that it was a DUMB document and once again submitted that no cash payment was received by transaction. 10. A perusal of assessment order and submission made by the appellant shows that the appellant has not denied the fact that advance was received by it from M/s Tulsiani construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd, and has accepted the payment reflected in the seized document information. The details regarding the payments made through cheques as disclosed in the seized material have been accepted as correct by the. appellant however it has denied the cash payment part of it. 11. It is strange that the appellant has on one hand called the seized material a DUMB document and on the other hand has partly accepted the information disclosed in it. Information disclosed in a document can either be true or false but it is improbable that partly true/false information may be ....