TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 941
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of expenditure not recorded in books of account. In term of explanation to section 69 C it could not have been allowed as a deduction. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,53,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash payment which was made on the basis of documents seized during the course of search and seizure operation after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. That Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs 3,53,00,000/- on account of undisclosed income determined on the basis of documents which was seized during the course of search and accordingly constructed on evidence in term of section 292C of the I.T. Act which has been introduced by Finance Act, 2007 and was accordingly not considered in the case relied up by CIT(A). 5. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deriving analogy from section 158BC of the Act in the present case which is an amount u/s 153C of the I.T. Act. The CIT(A) has ignored the ratio of decision of R.K. Arora in Appeal no. 56 of 2011 in the case of CIT(Central) Kanpur Vs Raj Kumar Aro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,35,28,400/- as entered m the name of 'Mr.Talwar Ji' on page no. 52 of the same annexure. The assessee was confronted with the entries on this document and asked to explain the nature and detail of such entries. In compliance the assessee stated, inter-alia, that 'the entries are only numbers and cannot be related to rupees therefore it is not correct to say that any transaction has taken place through this document.' The reply furnished by the assessee is vague and not acceptable. The cash deposit of Rs. 526/- (page. 56 of LP-8) can be correlated with the seized paper (page no. 52 of LP-8) where i is written that the funds received from S Govil (another name mentioned on the said document) was Rs. 5,26,00,000/-. Definitely the figures appearing on page 56 can be read with page no. 52 and 56 of the seized document (LP-8). Copies of the impugned pages numbering 5 & 56 of Annexure LP-8 are being enclosed with this order for convenience of reference as pages numbers 4 to 8 of this order. At page number 55 of the said Annexure debit side contains details in balance sheet form and mentions, inter-alia, investment of Rs. 3,00,20,000/- in a concern namely 'MMPL' which is acronym for M/S M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... into the above stated facts the addition of Rs. 200000/- is hereby deleted. 3 This ground of appeal is allowed. FINDING for Ground No.4 I have perused the facts stated above in the assessee's submission as well as facts stated in the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs. 3,53,00,000/- considering it to be undisclosed income. The assessee is a director/partner of various company and partnership firms and his sources of income are from salary, profit from various partnership firms, during the year under consideration. During the search and seizure operation, certain loose papers and documents were found and seized from the residential premises of the assessee. The assessee appellant submitted that the said loose papers of Page 52 to 56 contains certain rough notings in respect of proposal to invest in Gagan Resource Pvt. Ltd. which were never executed/materialized by the assessee and the appellant has not made any investment in it. The Assessing Officer rejected the submissions of the assessee by observing as under '"..During the course of search u/s 132 of the IT. Act at residential premises' ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see or any of his family members or their business concerns, moreover no financial transaction has taken place through such document as contented by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer did not raise any specific query regarding the same in the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the relevant assessment year. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had asked for the explanation from the assessee and the assessee replied that these documents appear to be some rough working papers and there is no payment, much less of Rs. 3,53,00,000/-, made by the appellant nor is there any reference of any payment made by the assessee. The said document was just a working sheet as the assessee was planning to invest in the company named Gagan Resources Pvt. Ltd. and was making some rough estimates The said document does not bear any name or any signature of the assessee or any representative of the assessee. It does not mention any date or year due to which it relates as such there is no justification of making addition in the year under appeal, more so when search taken place on 14-09-2010. The crux of the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve matched this entry from the books of accounts of the assessee or books of accounts of assesseés business concerns but he did not verify. Service Tax Paid Rs. 1,143,046/- the Assessing Officer should have verified this entry from the Service Tax Department or from the assessees books of accounts or books of accounts of his business concerns which has not been done. All these entries are dated 28-04-2009 which relates to A.Y. 2010-11 not related to A.Y. 2009-10. This paper is dated 28-04-2009 i.e. A. Yr.2010-11 and not A. Yr. 2009-10. For UCO Bank Rs. 827000/-, Banks-Rs. 8149010/- these entries from the Banks the Assessing Officer should matched these entries with banks of the assessee or his business concerns but he did not verify these. Debtors mentioned are Super Iron & Steel Rs. 399897/-, Prem Polymers Rs. 792614/-, Balajee Minerals Rs. 122907/-, Land Mark Rs. 395398/- Rs. Pankaj Ispat Rs. 937952/-, Shiv Real Ispat Rs. 127201/-, SR INGOT Rs. 54371/-. The assessee business is not related to Ispat and Polymers neither they are appearing in his family concerns or their books of accounts. The Assessing Officer also did not enquire about t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not sufficient enough for making additions. This is a block assessment case and the additions if any should be based only material an evidence detected as a result of search. Assessee case is also supported by ITAT Pune Appellate Bench case of Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal Pune vs TRO in ITA No. 334 date of order 30-05- 2014 According to us, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified in the facts and circumstances vis-a-vis of the assessee. As discussed earlier, during the course of search in the case of Dhariwal Group, the only documents found on the basis of which the addition u/s 69A has been made in the case of the assessee are in the form of two loose papers wherein amounts of Rs. 4.80 Crores and Rs. 30 lacs were noted against the name "Mr. Pradeep Runwal". Apart from this, no evidence has been found to suggest that the assessee had actually received the said amount or that the assessee had entered into any transaction with Dhariwal Group. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the assessee has previous business relations with the Dhariwal Group. In the absence of any documentary evidence to suggest the same, it could not be pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterial or corroborative evidences to come to these conclusions. The reasons given by the A.O. in this regard are without any basis and support. Nothing was shown by the Assessing Officer that there was any other material co related to the seized documents. The Assessing Officer has drawn inferences and presupposes relying on surmises and conjectures. .." As these transaction itself never took place, there would be no question of investment and, hence no question of any unexplained income. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,53,00,000/- based on this dumb document is hereby deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. FINDING for Ground No.5 Sufficient opportunity was given by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceeding on dated 04-03-2013 and 15-03-2013 and also by me during appellate proceeding, hence, assessee should have no grievance." (3) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue placed reliance on the aforesaid assessment order dated 31.03.2013. (4) We have heard both sides. We have perused t....