TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1626
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct') assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 20.04.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad (Tribunal) in ITA No. 457/Hyd/20 for the assessment year 2016-17. 3. The appeal has been preferred proposing the following questions as substantial questions of law: "1. The order of the ITAT is erroneous on law and facts of the case? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.6,40,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer based on the incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... referred to hereinafter as 'CIT(A)'). By the appellate order dated 31.01.2020, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the respondent against which the related appeal came to be filed by the respondent before the Tribunal. This appeal was heard along with two other appeals. By the order dated 20.04.2021, Tribunal allowed the ap peal of the respondent. Tribunal held as follows: "10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival arguments. We find no reason to sustain the impugned identical addition of money payment in cash addition in these assessees' hands. It is an admitted fact that learned lower authorities have gone by the alleged loose sheet only allegedly revealing the impugned payments made o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and after search that he was not aware of the company's business affairs. And that the alleged document never mentioned these assessee's names at all as it is not only the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment but even in case of the recipient M/s. Western Construction's assessment order dt.28-12-2018 as well wherein it had been held that the on money amount was attributable to Shri Narendra Kumar Goyal than these twin assessees. Ld. CIT-DR was fair enough in informing the bench that the department has not initiated any action against Shri Narendra Kumar Goyal. That being the case, the Revenue's stand of having strictly gone by the contents of the seized document only to this effect itself is self-contradictory since ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a dumb documents only since not revealing full details about the dates containing lack of further particulars and therefore, ought not to be made basis of an addition. Similar other judicial precedents ACIT Vs. Layer Exports P.Ltd., (2017) [184 TTJ 469] (Mumbai) & ITO Vs. Kranti a seized document seized not either bearing the taxpayer's name or sig nature). Shri Neeraj Goyal Vs. ACIT, ITA No.5951/Del/2017, dt.21-03 2018, (Del) (2012) 23 taxmann.com 269] Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, CIT Vs. S.M. Agarwal, [293 ITR 43], CIT Vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) also echo the very principle. We accordingly hold that the impugned addition of on-money payment made in both these assessees' hands on the basis of ....