Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 27 - HC - Income TaxAddition u/s 69A - survey action under Section 133A - Addition based on loose paper in search - AO came to a conclusion that 'Parvez Sir' mentioned in the loose paper found in the premises of Alliance Hotel was the Respondent and added the amount to the income of Respondent under Section 69A - HELD THAT:- The paper showing the name of 'Parvez Sir' was found in the premises of Alliance Hotel during the course of survey / search action of one Alliance Hotel and not from Respondent. The contents of the papers found were also not in the handwriting of Respondent. Mr. Kashan Ghaswala, partner of Alliance Hotel, has stated that 'Parvez Sir' mentioned in the paper found was not the Respondent. Even Respondent has categorically stated that he is not the 'Parvez Sir' mentioned in the papers found from the premises of Alliance Hotel. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 69A of the Act because addition upon conjectures and surmises without any evidence to dispute the explanation offered by the Assessee cannot be made. There should have been some money found with the Assessee. There is no concrete evidence which has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to establish that the entry 'Parvez Sir' in the impounded paper establishes the fact that it refers to Respondent. The Assessing Officer has made the addition only on the surmise that the impounded papers were containing entries which are dated 15/11/2006 whereas Respondent retired from the firm on 14/11/2006. In our view, the CIT(A) as well as ITAT were justified in coming to a conclusion that the Revenue could not establish the nexus between these documents with Respondent and that the Assessing Officer also has not made any efforts whatsoever to indicate that 'Parvez Sir' noted in the documents are really referring to Respondent. ITAT has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect principles to the given facts - No substantial question of law.
|