TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the absence of satisfactory explanation the addition was made - In the absence of any evidence on merits from the side of the assessee, the order of the CIT(A) upheld – Decided against Assessee. Unaccounted transactions as undisclosed sales and purchase - Search made u/s 132 of the Act – Incriminating documents found during search – Held that:- The amount as reflected in AS-21 of Rs.4,69,000/- and an amount as appeared at AS-24 of Rs.42,000/- did not belong to the assessee - the entries on that paper did not relate to the assessee rather no name of the assessee had appeared at any place on this document marked as AS-21 which was not recovered from the assessee but from the premises - the treasury receipt marked as AS-24 did not belong t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the extent of Rs.3,94,439/- out of entries and related transactions as found in the impounded documents and materials treating the same as unaccounted transactions. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and law and deserves to be deleted. 04. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and interpretation of law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have deleted the addition made by the Learned assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.3,94,439/- out of entries and related transactions as found in the impounded documents and materials treating the same as unaccounted transactions. 05. The appellant craves to add, amend, modify o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority, learned CIT(A) has granted part relief as follows:- "12(b). For A.Y. 2003-04: The Assessing Officer has made addition for Rs.5,39,439/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.1,35,000/- + Rs.2,68,376/- + Rs.1,26,063/-). The appellant has himself voluntarily disclosed a sum of Rs.3,15,563/- in the return of income as per page 27 of paper book filed during the appellate proceedings. This contains Rs.90,000/- relating to entries appearing in Annexure AS-15, page 5 to 15 pertaining to this year (which was added by the AO in A.Y. 2002-03). The amount of Rs.10,000/- added by the A.O. at AS-15, page 5 to 15, is disclosed by the appellant himself hence, deleted. The amount of Rs.1,35,000/- (Annexure A1, page 46), is disclosed by the appellant himself in return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is contrary to the facts and prejudicial to the appellant. 02. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the disallowances made by the Learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are contrary to law and based on erroneous understanding of the facts. 03. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and interpretation of law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making addition to the extent of Rs.6,17,662/- out of entries and related transactions as found in the impounded documents and materials treating the same as unaccounted transactions. The action of the Learned Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents are found unless he proves otherwise. The appellant has not explained to whom this paper belongs hence as per section 132(4), it belongs to the appellant himself. Further, the amount of Rs.4,47,253/- (A1/21), is regarding investment in bungalows and the appellant has not filed evidence that it is recorded in the books. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is justified in making the addition of Rs.11,09,753/-." 8.1 This year is as well covered by search under Section 132 dated 27.12.2006, it was found that there were documents indicating unrecorded sales and unrecorded purchases. Certain loose papers were impounded from the premises of M/s. Krishna Paper Products and from the premises of Sri Dileep Kumar Gujarati. The AO has listed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from the assessee but from the premises of Krishna Paper Products. Likewise, the treasury receipt marked as AS-24 did not belong to the assessee but it was related to some other party, namely, M/s. Royal Enterprises. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances in respect of these two papers, we hereby hold that the assessee's vehement contention has some force, therefore, deserves relief only in respect of these two additions. For rest of the documents, the same have been proved to be connected to the assessee, hence, no interference is required in respect of those additions. 12. In the result, we hereby hold that out of the total addition of Rs.11,09,753/-, the assessee is entitled for a relief of Rs.5,11,000/- (Rs.4,69,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
