TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 2,52,00,000/- after ignoring the supporting evidences as well as statement recorded of various persons for the impugned cash payment. 2.1 The necessary facts are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged in the business of construction of residential and commercial complex. The AO during the assessment proceeding, based on documents impounded, bearing No. A/S/SCDCC/2016-17, during survey conducted at SCDCC Bank dated 27/12/2016 held that the assessee has made cash payment to the company viz. Global Star Realtors Private Limited in connection with the development of various projects. This cash payment was made wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant, the said transactions cannot be held to be made by the appellant. The AO has failed to prove any inflow/outflow of the on money mentioned in the loose sheets. 4.17 The appellant relies on the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) VS Union of India ITS-5012SC-2017-n}, (2017) 245 Taxman 214 (SC), (2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC) wherein it was held that: Loose paper-sheets "irrelevant, inadmissible" evidence; Rejects investigation plea in Sahara/Birla case - SC dismisses petition filed by Shanti Bhushan & Prashant Bhushan, seeking constitution of Special Investigation Team, directing investigation of ` the allegedly incriminating material seized in CBI/tax department ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y evidentiary value to the pen drive, hard disk, computer loose papers, computer printouts; SC concludes "... it would not be legally justified, safe, just and proper to direct investigation, keeping in view principles laid down in the cases of Bhajan Lal and V. C. Shukla. " 4.18 The appellant also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Principal CIT,Central III Vs. Krutika Land (P) Ltd. 103 taxmann.corn 9 (SC) wherein it was held that: Where seized documents were not in the name of the assessee, no action could be undertaken in case of assessee under sec. 153C and further entire decision being based on huge amounts revealed from seized documents, not being supported by actual cash pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6-2017 as well as in the case of Mr. M.N. Rajendra Kumar, wherein I found that, both the appellate authorities have deleted the similar additions made and allowed the appeal in favour of the appellants, which are binding on me. Therefore, after going through the assessment order and facts of the case and the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and jurisdictional I'I'AT Bench the addition made by the AO cannot be sustained. Hence, in view of the above discussions the addition made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,52,00,000/- is hereby deleted. Ground no. 1 to 4 are accordingly allowed." 4. Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. The ld. DR before us contended t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vil) No.505 of 2015 dated 2.7.2018 [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) wherein it observed that "the entries in the loose papers/sheets are not "books of accounts" and has no evidentiary value u/s 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the writ petition filed by Common Cause, a registered society, refused to give nod to investigate against the Sahara and Birla Groups in the alleged payoff scandal. The factual setting of the case are that, a search was conducted by the CBI in the premises of Birla Groups, as a result of which, certain incriminating materials and an amount of Rs. 25 crores were recovered. CBI referred the matter to Income Tax . Department. In another search, the IT department recovered certain incriminati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of Income Tax. Analysing the veracity of the evidences procured from the companies, the Supreme Court, relied upon the ratio laid in V.C. Shukla case and observed that the entries in loose sheets of papers are not in the form of "Books of Accounts" and has held that such entries in loose papers/sheets are irrelevant and not admissible u/s 34 of Indian Evidence Act, and that only where the entries are in the Books of Accounts regularly kept depending on the nature of the occupation, those are admissible. Being so, the addition towards the unaccounted cash payment is not based on any positive materials, hence the addition is deleted in all these assessment years. Accordingly, addition made in these AYs towards earning of alleged unaccounte....