TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 2045
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in law in holding that the appellant has not discharged the onus of offering suitable explanation. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and withdraw any grounds before or during the course of appellate proceedings. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the original return in this case was filed on 20.1.2010 declaring an income of Rs. 10,97,600/- which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. A search and seizure action was conducted in this case u/s. 132(1) of the Act on 7.3.2014. Return u/s. 153A of the Act was filed on 9.10.2015 declaring the same income as filed originally. The AO has made the addition of Rs. 5,31,217/- on account of alleged interest income on the basis of a seized document and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 16,38,570/- vide his order dated 29.2.2016 passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Against the said assessment order dated 29.2.2016, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 21.8.2017 has affirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, assessee appealed before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court, Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court and the Hon'ble Kerala High Court wherein the appeal was decided in favour of the Revenue. - Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Daya Chand vs. CIT (2001) 117 Taxman 438 (Delhi) - Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagesh Kumar Aggarwala (2011) 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi) - Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad Rungta vs. CIT (2014) 43 taxmann.com 328 - Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2017) 79 taxmann.com 325 (Kerala). 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order and the case laws cited by both the parties. I find that the case laws cited by the Ld. DR are not on exactly the similar and identical facts of the present case, but the case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee is exactly on the identical and similar facts as involved in the present case, hence, the issues involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision dated 29.7.2016 of the ITAT, 'F' Bench, New Delhi in the case of Praveen Juneja passed in ITA Nos. 3031-3032/Del/2012 (AYrs. 2003-04 & 2004-05) wherein the Tribunal has ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ws that documents seized during search and seizure apparently goes to prove that the assessments in these cases have been made by the AO and affirmed by the CIT (A) on the basis of suspicion, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the following reasons :- i. that the first document lying at page 1 of the paper book on the basis of which addition of Rs.5,00,000/- has been made is categoric enough to disclose that one K.L. Bhatia, S/o Lal Chand Bhatia has taken interest free loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the assessee which has been traced to the cheque no.268868 having been paid by M/s. BHA Associates Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Landmark Estate Pvt. Ltd. being the sale proceeds for purchase of shop in New Friends Colony; ii. that the AO as well as CIT (A) have rejected the contention merely on the ground that the cheque number given by the assessee is 26888 whereas cheque no relied upon by assessee is 268868. To our mind, this is a typographical error in writing the cheque number which should have been verified by the AO from the debit credit entries maintained by the respective banks. So, this addition is not sustainable; iii. that addition of Rs.40,85,000/- on the basis of loo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions without collecting any corroborative evidence; viii. that the AO has made addition of Rs.1,00,000/- qua AY 2004-05 as unexplained expenditure u/s 69 of the Act on the basis of paper/document, available at page 1 of the paper book -B. Bare perusal of the paper shows that the same does not bear the name of the assessee nor it is in the handwriting of assessee nor does it explain the purpose of making and receiving payment. Merely on the basis of this document, addition cannot be made as the same is not substantiated with any evidence; ix. that the AO has made another addition of Rs.3,31,450/- on the basis of a seized document, available at page 2 of the paper book-B. Perusal of the document, available at page 2 of Paper Book - B, apparently shows that the document contains the figure of Rs.50,000/- stated to have received as rent but again this document is bereft of name of the recipient, description of the rented property and as to who is the payee of the amount in question. Strangely enough, on the basis of seized document/paper showing the amount of Rs.50,000/- the addition of Rs.3,31,450/- has been made by the AO on the basis of whims and fancies and thereafter the ....