TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of search u/s 132 – Held that:- As the CIT(A) has concluded that promissory note in question is in the same language and form, as was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Himalaya Distributors (2008 (12) TMI 272 - ITAT PUNE-B) and, therefore, he concluded that having regard to the material in question, Sec 69D could not be invoked, since the documents found were not ‘hundis’. The assessee representative has not referred to any material which would require us to depart from the aforesaid findings. Issue decides against revenue - ITA No. 631/PN/11 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2012 - SHRI G.S. PANNU AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JJ. Appellant by : Shri Y K Bhaskar Respondent by : Shri Sunil Ganoo ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, A.M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts in question as mandated under section 250(4) of the Act. After considering the Remand report of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the credits in question stood explained and there did not remain any ground for retaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer by invoking section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the addition of Rs 15 lakhs was deleted. 5. Against the aforesaid, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition based on the additional evidence which was hitherto not produced before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. 6. On the other hand, the learned Representative for the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer dated 18.2.2011, a copy of which was filed before us, reveals that both the creditors are income-tax assessees and that in the course of such enquiry copies of the relevant bank pass books evidencing advancing of monies to the assessee, and also copies of respective Income-tax returns were also furnished before the Assessing Officer. No adverse comments on such documents have been made by the Assessing Officer in his report to the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) and therefore, in our view, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) made no mistake in deleting the addition made in the assessment order based on the remand report. Even before us, there is no material or cogent reasoning made out by the Revenue with regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rried out. Certain documents pertaining to the assessee were also found in the search on the basis of which the Assessing Officer has held that the assessee raised loans of Rs 5,00,000/- and Rs 5,000/- in contravention of the provisions of section 69D of the Act and, therefore, such an amount has been deemed to be the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer noticed that two separate promissory notes/hundi of Rs 5,00,000/- and Rs 5,000/- were found and a bearer cheque of Rs 5,00,000/- of the assessee was also found in the course of search on Shri Shriram H Soni. It was, therefore, concluded by the Assessing Officer that such loan transactions were in contravention of section 69D of the Act and therefore the same was assessed to tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o been placed on a decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Paranjothi Salt Co. 211 ITR 141 (Mad) in holding that the documents in question did not satisfy the requirements of a hundi and, therefore, section 69D was not applicable. 11. Against the aforesaid, the learned Departmental Representative, appearing for the Revenue, vehemently pointed out that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in deleting the addition, inasmuch as the promissory notes found in the course of search on Shri Shriram H Soni as also bearer cheque of the assessee found with Shri Shriram H Soni showed that the assessee had indeed borrowed loans in cash from Shri Shriram H Soni. Under these circumstances, the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of two separate promissory notes/hundis, which were found as a result of a search on one Shri Shriram H Soni. In fact, in the concluding part of para 5(iii) of the assessment order, after referring to the provisions of section 69D of the Act, the Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee has borrowed the money in cash from Mr Soni and handed over the bearer cheque as security for repayment. As per the provisions if the amount borrowed or repaid otherwise than account payee cheque, the borrowed or repaid money is to be treated as deemed income In view of this, the amount borrowed by assessee in cash from Mr Soni is treated as deemed income of the assessee for A.Y 2004-05. It is quite clear from the aforesaid that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
