TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 2. Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that a search u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was conducted in the premises of Gopal Zarda group, including the assessee, on 15.01.2009. Consequently, a notice dated 30.07.2009 u/s 153A of the Act was served upon the assessee. In response, the assessee filed return declaring income of ₹ 12,76,890/- on 16.04.2010. The original return in this case was filed on 05.11.2008 declaring income of ₹ 12,62,699/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the submission made by the appellant. The primary objection taken by the appellant, to the addition for ₹ 74 lacs, relates to the year of taxability of this amount. In this connection the appellant has filed the photo copy of cheques paid for ₹ 51 lacs as well as the flat buyer agreement between the assessee and Nipun Builders and Developers P. Ltd. , which is dated 20.4.2006. The copy of possession letter issued by Nipun Builders and developers is also dated 20.4.2006. Thus, the argument made by the appellant is that in the facts of his case the date of investment has to relate to assessment year 2006-07, which would fall in assessment year 2007-08. The appellant had also filed the copy of sale deed which is dated 13.10.08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... once it is received from the valuation cell. On this issue the submission of the appellant is that there has been no document seized during search which could corroborate payment of money other than ₹ 51 lacs on 20.4.2006 and therefore the addition for ₹ 74 lacs made without any evidence or proof or the valuation report as required u/s 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, may be deleted. On a consideration of the above facts and the legal position as emerging from the decisions relied upon by the appellant it is seen that the addition made for ₹ 74 lacs is purely based on estimate and conjecture and there is no substance in the estimate made by the AO, who in any case is not authorized to make any estimate under the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he preceding year and not in the year under consideration. In these circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that there was no basis for making addition of ₹ 74 lacs in the year under consideration, the assessee having not made any investment in the year under consideration nor any such evidence was found during the search . Since the addition of ₹ 74 lacs was purely on estimate basis while even copy of DVO report was not placed before the ld. CIT(A), the latter deleted the addition. The ld. DR appearing before us did not reply as to whether or not copy of DVO report had been received nor placed before us any material, controverting the aforesaid findings of facts recorded by the learned CIT(A) so as to enable us to take a differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
