TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as return filed in response to this notice - Hence, in this case also, the assessment has not abated and therefore on the same basis, the addition made by AO is not sustainable – Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of unsecured loans – Held that:- The AO made addition of ₹ 51,000/- in respect of three unsecured loans of ₹ 15,000/- from Ram Babu, ₹ 18,000/- from Shri Surendra Kumar and ₹ 18,000/- from Rajesh Kumar totaling to ₹ 51,000/- on the basis that the assessee could not file confirmation from these persons - the original return was filed on 06/08/2002 - the assessment for this year has also not abated and the addition made by AO is not sustainable because the same is not on the basis of any incriminating material found in search. Addition of amount estimated as cost of boundary wall – Held that:- The AO asked the assessee to explain the source of investment - the basis of making this addition is also not this that any incriminating material was found during the course of search and the same is on the basis of post search enquiry and in such enquiry also, the facts are not brought on record as to whether the flat was purchased along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t properly explained. Other additions made by Assessing Officer in this year were deleted by CIT(A) and hence, these issues are not before us. In the case of Sandeep Pandey in assessment year 2005-06, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 36,000/- by alleging that there is unexplained cash deposit in bank account. 3. Learned A.R. of the assessee reiterated the same contentions, which were raised before the CIT(A) whereas Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. First we take up the appeal of Anurag Pandey for assessment year 2001-2002 in I.T.A. No.165/Lkw/2012. In this case, only one addition was made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 1,35,110/- by alleging that as per cash flow statement filed by the assessee in course of assessment proceedings for this year, the assessee has shown ₹ 1,35,110/- as brought forward cash balance but the assessee could not produce any direct evidence to prove the availability of cash. The CIT(A) has reproduced the cash flow ststement for assessment year 2000-01 on page No. 3 of his order. In this case, search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in Pand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts in the case of Anurag Pandey and therefore, on the same basis, the addition made by Assessing Officer is not sustainable. We hold accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 8. Now we take up the appeal in the case of Sunil Kumar Pandey for assessment year 2001-02 i.e. I.T.A. No.167/Lkw/2014. In this case also, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 66,801/- on the same basis that the assessee has shown this much opening cash balance in cash flow statement filed by the assessee in course of assessment proceedings. In this case also, it was noted in Para 3 of the Assessing Officer that in response to notice issued u/s 153C, it was submitted by the assessee that original return of income filed on 31/10/2001, may be treated as return filed in response to this notice. Hence, in this case also, the assessment has not abated and therefore, the facts are identical with the facts in the case of Anurag Pandey and therefore, on the same basis, the addition made by Assessing Officer is not sustainable. We hold accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 10. Now we take up the appeal in the case of Sunil Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since no incriminating material was found in search in respect of construction of boundary wall, the addition is not sustainable. The same is deleted by respectfully following the same decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal (supra). 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 14. Now we take up the appeal in the case of Sunil Kumar Pandey for assessment year 2007-08 i.e. I.T.A. No.170/Lkw/2014. In this year, the issue in dispute is regarding addition of ₹ 84,400/- for cash found in course of search and ₹ 40,000/- being advance received from Shri Ram Babu, which is treated by the Assessing Officer as unexplained. In support of the cash found in course of search, the assessee has furnished cash flow statement on the date of search i.e. 18/04/2006 but the Assessing Officer has not accepted the same by stating that this is self-serving document. It is noted by the CIT(A) in Para 5.2 of his order that in the bedroom of Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey and Kalpana Pandey, cash of ₹ 84,400/- was found against cash availability of ₹ 63,389/-. The CIT(A) has confirmed addition of balance amount of ₹ 21,011/- and allowed relief to the exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
