TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , I.T.A. No.4022/Mum/2014, I.T.A. No.8552/Mum/2010, I.T.A. No.507/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 14-10-2015 - SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee: Dr. K. Shivaram Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav For The Revenue : Shri Manjunatha R. Swamy Shri Premanand J. ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: These captioned appeals were heard together as they relate to the same set of facts in issues and are therefore decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. We will first take up ITA 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard the rival contentions and after perusal of the orders of the authorities below as mentioned elsewhere, the addition have been made on protective basis to safeguard the interest of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the additions cannot be made in the hands of the partnership firm and therefore the additions were deleted. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 7. ITA Nos. 8793/M/10 507/M/2011 are the appeals by the assessee against two separate orders of the Ld. CIT(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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch 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 purports to have been so executed or attested. Sec. 292(C) (1) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed- (i) that such books of account, other documents, mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd not at the premises of Mr. Ghanshyam L. Bodani Shri Umesh I. Ishrani. The scanned copy of the relevant loose paper used against the assessees by the AO is attached as Annexure-I 11. The entire addition has been made on the analysis of the loose paper as exhibited at page-34 of the Paper Book is attached as Annexure-II 12. On the analysis of the aforementioned papers, the AO came to the conclusion that cash payment amounting to ₹ 3,44,02,000/- have been made out of which 24% share is of Shri Umesh I. Ishrani and his family, 36% is of Mr. Ghanshyam L. Bodani and his family and the balance of 40% is of Shri Laxmichand Rohira and his family. Accordingly, the AO made addition of ₹ 82,56,480/- being 24% of ₹ 3,44,02,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seller of the shops and that is M/s. Everest Developer. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the entries found in the loose sheet have not been corroborated by the Revenue by any cogent material evidence on record. On identical set of facts, it would not be out of place to refer to the decision of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench in the case of Amarjit Singh Baskhi HUF Vs ACIT 263 8ITR 75 (Del.)(Trib.) wherein the majority view held as under : Held, per R.M. Mehta (Vice President) and R.K. Gupta (Judicial Member) (Sikander Khan (Accountant Member) (dissenting) that the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are not strictly applicable to the proceedings under the Income-tax Act, but the broad principles of the law of evidence apply to such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocument which had been signed both by him and by the assessee contained only projections and purported figures in respect of the property in question. In other words, the entire addition in the hands of the assessee was based on the document found, but there was no evidence to support the Revenue s case that a huge figure whatever be its quantum over and above the figure booked in the records and accounts changed hands between the parties. No addition could therefore be made to the income of the assessee. 15. Considering the peculiar facts of the case that the impugned loose papers were found from the premises of a third party, in our considered opinion, the additions made in the hands of the assessees without bringing any corroborati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
