TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h. Vineet Beriwala or Sh. SS Beriwala during the year, the assumption of payment of cash derived from alleged paper seized cannot be supported. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has also recorded the findings on legal aspect of the case also, inasmuch as the alleged paper was not found from the possession of assessee and there was no corroborating evidence to show that the said papers seized from third party belong to the assessee. He has also relied on several decisions of Hon'ble Higher courts. The Revenue has not brought any material on record contrary to the findings reached by the ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue - ITA 336/2017 - - - Dated:- 24-5-2017 - S. MURALIDHAR CHANDER SHEKHAR JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -A-1 consisting of 109 pages. The description in the assessment order of the notings in this particular page are as under: Page No.105-107 is under the heading Steps for implementing understanding reached on 11.04.2006 and pending position as on 11.04.2006 arising from family settlement of 12.09.2005 between the family members. At item no. 7, on page 106, it is mentioned that PB will pay cash to VB/SSB @ ₹ 50,00,000/- per week at least to complete by 31st May. Page No.107 contain details of pending actions of the family settlement reached between three groups of Beriwala family, It has been mentioned in item no. 15 that payments till date PB - SSB -- 1.25, PB - VB- 6.0850. In light of the above documents, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it would be evident to note that the pages are loose, hand written, ruled sheet of paper which are actually rough documents. These pages have not been signed by any of thy; members of the family i.e. Shri Shyam Sunder Beriwala, Shri Puneet Beriwala or Shri Vineet Beriwala. If we carefully analyse the jottings on these pages it would be noticed that there was a negotiation going on which was not final. This is evident from the fact that on all the pages there were many corrections, scribbling, striking off the points at various places has been done. Moreover, if we observe on page 107, it would be noticed that against PB --- SSB , some figure was written which has been struck off and again re-written as 1 .25 . This also confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 1-109) the appellant in his submission has inter-alia stated that these pages mainly related to the deeds of family settlement of Beriwala group at different point of time. Referring to page no 106 it is stated that this page contains an action plan as it records understanding reached on 11.04.06 . That against point no. 7 on this page it is written that PB will pay cash to VB/SSB@ 50,00,000/- per week at least to complete by 31st May. That this paper appears to be written on 11.04.06 and that negotiation for family settlement were going on since April., 2005 and many drafts papers were prepared, but due to one or other reason the settlement among the family members did not materialize. Referring to page 1 07 the appellant has submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notings made on unsigned, rough paper which does not clearly reveal that the assessee has earned income. That accordingly no reliance can be placed on such dumb document. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 and it has been submitted that the addition made by the AO without any corroboration of the seized rough papers based on any direct/circumstantial evidence is not in accordance with law and therefore may be deleted. The contents of the documents have been gone through which are cryptic in nature. Even the deciphering of the figure of 1.25 and 6.0850 into ₹ 1.2.5Crores and ₹ 6.0850 Crores is based on assumption. Moreover no dates are recorded against thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found in search or post search investigation to substantiate the fact that the appellant has made unaccounted cash payment for ₹ 7,33,50,000/- to Sh.Vineet Beriwala or Sh. SS Beriwala during the year. 9. The Revenue then took up the matter in appeal in ITAT which concurred with the view expressed by the CIT(A). It was concluded by the ITAT in para-9 of the impugned order as under: 9. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the entire material available on record and we find that there is no corroborating evidence on record to justify the payment of ₹ 7,33,50,000/- by the assessee to other family group. No statement has been recorded of the person (s) from whose possession these documents were found. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
