9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee is an individual. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 was conducted on 29-1-2009 in case of the assessee as well as in case of M/s Sunder Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., wherein the assessee is a director. Search operation was also conducted in case of another group company M/s Sunder Steels Ltd. During the search certain loose sheets were seized wherein there were certain notings. In response to the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 29-11-2010 declaring total income of Rs.39,86,400/-. On the basis of the notings made on the loose sheets seized at the time of search operation, the AO came to a conclusion that the assessee had incurred sundry expenditure of Rs.48,90,000/-. The AO observing that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kedia. The CIT (A) after examining the seized material and the depositions of the assessee and Jitender Kedia came to a conclusion that the AO has made the addition on estimate basis and assumptions without referring to the specific information in the seized material or any other material. The operative portion from the order of the CIT (A) as contained in para 5.7 is extracted hereunder for convenience:- "5.7 As could be seen from the assessment order, no basis was given by the AO for making the addition of Rs.48,90,000/-. On further reference, the AO in his remand report has simply mentioned the seized material which was relied upon, without indicating any basis for such quantification of amount of Rs.48,90,000/-. It is also not known th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the addition so made is not sustainable and stands deleted." 5. The ld. DR submitted that the seized materials revealed that an amount of Rs.3,18,90,000/- are due to the assessee from Jitender Kedia and against which he had received only Rs.2.70 crores. Thus, the balance of Rs.49.80 lakhs was added to the income as there was no satisfactory explanation from the assessee. 6. The ld. AR supporting the conclusion of the CIT (A) submitted that the AO has added the amount only on estimate basis without having any connection with the seized material. The ld. AR submitted that M/s Padmavati Ispat a partnership firm wherein the assessee was a partner had executed a lease deed with M/s Kedia Alloys (P) Ltd., for taking in lease the factory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot revealed how and on what basis he has come to his conclusion. It is only in course of hearing before us the ld. DR has explained that the amount of Rs.49,80,000 is the difference between the amount of Rs.3,18,90,000 due to the assessee as per the noting of the seized material and the amount of Rs.2,70,00,000/- received by the assessee from Jitender Kedia as per his own admission. However, in our view such ad hoc additions cannot be made only on the basis of notings made in some loose sheets found during search. It is incumbent upon the AO to bring other cogent and corroborative evidence on record to establish that the notings in loose sheets actually represent undisclosed income of the assessee. The assessee as well as Sri Jitender Kedia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
