2025 (4) TMI 267

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ddition of Rs. 1 crore made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) as unexplained expenditure in the hands of the respondent-assessee on a protective basis. The appeal relates to assessment year 2020-21. 2. The assessee filed his Return of Income (RoI) for the year under consideration declaring a total income at Rs. 28,76,970/-. A search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Middleman/Businessman group of cases on 23.09.2021 in which various premises including that of the respondent-assessee was covered. Subsequently, the case of assessee was centralized with the Central Circle, Mumbai. A notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the respondent on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shri Shailendra Rathi and his purported admission during recording of statement cannot be used against the respondent. It is submitted that no incriminating evidence of any nature was recovered from the premises of the respondent. 5. The learned CIT(A) by the impugned order has deleted the addition. Hence, this appeal. The respondent has filed a Cross Objection seeking deletion of the addition. 6. We have heard parties. Perused record. 7. It is submitted by the learned DR that the Whatsapp conversation recovered from Shri Shailendra Rathi, which he admitted during the course of his statement, is in the nature of corroboration, which is sufficient for making the addition. He submitted that the learned CIT(A) was in error in deleting....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red him the detail of the angadiya Shri Vinod (9370511116) to coordinate with him for the payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000 in cash on 02.03.2020. Shri Nilesh told me to instruct Shri Vinod to call him on what's App only." 10. Admittedly, no opportunity of cross examination was granted to the assessee to cross examine Shri Shailendra Rathi. The assessee has in his statement denied having entered into any such transaction. He has even stated that he does not know any person by name Shri Vinod. A bare perusal of the statement as reproduced above would indicate that the payment 'was to be made'. Thus, even going by the statement, it cannot be said that the payment was actually made by assessee in cash to Shri Shailendra Rathi. As noticed earlier, ....