9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA No. 8552/M/2010 which is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-39 dated 9.9.2010 pertaining to A.Y. 2005-06. 3. The impugned assessee is a partnership firm. A search was conducted on 8.5.2007 at the residential/business premises of one Mr. Rohira who happens to be a partner in the assessee firm. During the course of search at the premises of Mr. Laxmichand Rohira, some loose papers were found. On analysis of these loose papers, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the cash payment of Rs. 3,44,02,000/- was made for acquisition of shops by the partnership firm. The AO was also of the opinion that the entire cash payments have been made out of books. On the basis of the entries found in the loose papers, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A)-39 Mumbai dated 9.9.2010 pertaining to two different assessees viz., Mr. Ghanshyam L. Bodani & Shri Umesh I. Ishrani for A.Y. 2005-06. As mentioned in the order in the case of the partnership in ITA No. 8552/M/10, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the protective addition from the hands of the partnership firm. Therefore, the additions made in the hands of the partner became substantive addition. 8. Mr. Ghanshyam L. Bodani & Shri Umesh I. Ishrani happened to be partners in the firm M/s. Satnam Sakhi Associates. Hence, the impugned additions deleted from the hands of the partnership firm became substantive additions in the hands of these partners. As per the facts mentioned in ITA No. 8552/M/2010, a search was conducted on 8.5.2007 at the resid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch under section 132, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed- (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person ; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true ; and (iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hira and his family. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 82,56,480/- being 24% of Rs. 3,44,02,000/- in the hands of Shri Umesh I. Ishrani and Rs. 1,23,84,720/- in the hands of Mr. Ghanshyam L. Bodani being 36% of Rs. 3,44,02,000/-. 12.1. When these loose papers were confronted to the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee completely denied of having any knowledge in respect of these loose papers. It was strongly contended that since these papers were not found from the possession of the assessee, no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee. 13. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the impugned seized materials relied upon by the AO. The relevant documents have been exhibited elsewhere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the Income-tax Act, but the broad principles of the law of evidence apply to such proceedings. Further an entry in the books of account maintained in the regular course of business is relevant for purposes of considering the nature and impact of a transaction, but notings on slips of paper or loose sheets of paper cannot fall in this category. Notings on loose sheets of paper are required to be supported/corroborated by other evidence which may include the statement of a person, who admittedly is a party to the notings. A further distinction had to be drawn between slips of paper or loose sheets found from the possession of the assessee and similar documents found from a third person. In case the statement of the third person is recorde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the additions made in the hands of the assessees without bringing any corroborative evidence on record and without there being any enquiry from the seller M/s. Everest Developers, the additions made cannot be sustained as the Revenue has grossly failed in discharging the onus cast upon it for the simple reason that the presumption raised vide provisions of Sec. 132(4A) and 292(C) of the Act do not apply in the case of the assessee . We, therefore, do not find any force in the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Miss Lata Mangeshkar (supra). We, therefore, set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
