TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reby in case of search and seizure, contents of seized material are presumed to be true unless rebutted by the party claiming contrary. Onus of rebutting presumption - In present case, since seized documents were found from possession and control of the assessee during the search in his case, a presumption u/s 292C had to be drawn that the said documents belonged to the assessee and the contents thereof were true unless disproved by cogent evidence. The onus to prove that what was apparent from these books was not real was on the party which claimed it to be so. Thus, the onus was on the Department, to bring on record some acceptable evidence to prove that what was stated in the seized documents did not depict the actual state of affairs. The AO and CIT(A) failed to discharge such onus by bringing on record some cogent evidence to disprove notings in the seized papers. Documents seized are Dumb Documents or Not? - In the present case, to give a finding that the documents are dumb and such a finding can be reviewed on the ground that there is no evidence to support it or it is perverse. Hence, we consider documents found from the possession of the assessee was real and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not in appeal against deletion of addition by CIT(A). Hence, he is not interested in adjudication of these three appeals and is not pressing the same. As the learned counsel for the assessee, on instructions of assessee, has not pressed these three appeals due to no revenue implication, same are dismissed as not pressed. 3. Effective interconnected issues in IT(SS)A Nos. 4, 6 and 7/Kol/2011 for asst. yrs. 2006-07 to 2008-09 of assessee's appeal are against orders of CIT(A) confirming actions of AO as under : (i) Rejection of books of account, revised balance sheet and P L a/c for asst. yrs. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09; (ii) Rejection of entries of seized documents marked as RM-1 to RM-4 by misinterpreting the provisions of s. 292C of the Act; (iii) Confirming additions to the extent of ₹ 6,90,00,000 and ₹ 90,00,000 in asst. yrs. 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively on account of undisclosed investment in property at Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata disregarding the fact that the source of investment is explained on the basis of entries made in RM-1 and RM-2, the seized documents, whereby the claim made by assessee regarding sale of paintings at ₹ 7.25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised is regarding making fresh addition of ₹ 18.60 crores, as against undisclosed cash receipt added by AO at ₹ 19,07,35,000, on account of alleged undisclosed investment in shares of different companies. The assessee has raised following grounds : 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the noting recorded in the seized documents marked as RM-1 and RM-2 by misinterpreting the provisions of s. 292C of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby in rejecting the revised balance sheets and P L a/cs for the earlier years filed during the course of the assessment proceedings. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of books of account of the assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant about the exempted receipt of ₹ 19,07,35,000 declared on account of sales of diamond and gold duly recorded in the above-mentioned seized documents, and thereby in confirming the addition of ₹ 18,60,00,000 on account of alleged of undisclosed investment in shares of different compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008-09 7,99,56,044 21,03,87,469 8,20,71,149 30,30,60,059 Subsequently, notices under ss. 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued. AO issued show-cause notice to the assessee dt. 22nd Dec, 2009 and assessee replied vide submissions dt. 28th Dec., 2009. Reply of the assessee is reproduced in the assessment order which is again reproduced from the assessment order for the sake of clarity of facts, as under : (20) The documents were maintained by the assessee for his own use and therefore there was no reason or occasion to record transactions in a false manner. (21) The exercise book is a books of account and is being disbelieved without any cogent reasons, whereas noting made in loose sheets are being treated as correct in some case and incorrect in some cases. (22) RM-1 and RM-2 are one and the same and RM-2 is a bound exercise notebook and is therefore to be treated as books of account. (23) The said documents contain not just noting in respect of unaccounted transactions but also noting in respect of transact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see and recordings in RM-1 and RM-2 have to be treated as correct and no other interpretation can be alleged to the said noting without bringing any material on record to show that the recordings therein are not correct. In respect of RM/5, the assessee's contentions that the Department forced the assessee to write down the documents are not reasonable since there is no evidence. The issue has been raised for the first time now after about 22 months from the date of search. There is also nothing to show that the assessee was asked to sign on the dotted lines as alleged. As regards on-money, the receipts have been admitted and accordingly included in the return by the company, M/s. Fort Projects (P) Ltd. in asst. yr. 2008-09. As regards harassment, nothing is apparent from the statements or any other facts on record. Any question asked or show-cause issued in some matters cannot be said to be harassment. However, the claim that the records of on-money received pertains to the company and that it has nothing to do with the assessee is apparently reasonable. 7. The AO in view of documents RM-1 and RM-2 assessed the income of assessee by giving following finding : It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25 lakhs and huge cash in crores of rupees remaining as on the date of search, but no such things or cash were found. The assessee has not furnished any details about the diamonds which would have remained I hand. Besides, it has not been established that the same materials allegedly purchased earlier long back were sold later in different years. The details available in original records before search does not reflect any such status of the assessee or any such practice/activities in paintings, gold and diamond. For example, the original balance sheet as on 31st March, 2002 filed along with the return under s. 139 for the asst. yr. 2002-03 does not reflect any paintings or any piece of diamond. It only reflects gold coins costing ₹ 1,950, jewellery costing ₹ 1,58,687 and silver utensils costing ₹ 7,020. The original opening capital balance as on 1st April, 2001 was only ₹ 34,88,739.29. No accounts or papers relating to any transactions of similar nature as noted in the seized documents concerned have been found although search and seizure operations were conducted in the residence of the assessee and survey was conducted in the office premises of the group c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons for personal appearance for recording his statements wilfully being afraid of coming out of truth/actual/true state fairs, and as such, it is accordingly held that the alleged amounts on account of sales of gold, diamond and paintings as per seized documents are, in reality incomes of the assessee from other undisclosed sources, but noted/written as sale considerations of gold, diamond and paintings, to wilfully evade taxes and to defraud the Revenue and also to explain out the unrecorded cash payments towards investments, viz . on-money payments for purchase of land as per seized documents and introduction of bogus share capital in different group companies through entry operator and as admitted by the assessee vide the statements recorded. As regards presumption under s. 292C of the Act regarding contents of seized documents etc. as true, the presumption is rebuttable, and in view of the facts and circumstances and reasons discussed in the earlier paras, the said presumption stand rebutted. In view of the above, the submissions of the assessee regarding RM-1 and RM-2 etc. are held not reasonable and hence rejected. Incidentally, a question may arise why a part relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. It has been further pointed that neither any supporting document or evidence in support of the noting were found during the course of search nor the same was furnished during the assessment proceedings. It has also been specified that no stock of diamond or gold as per noting were found during the course of search. It has also been observed that the hand written RM-2 is a recently prepared accounts as same ink has been used for making entry for different years. Accordingly it has been held that the claim of the appellant that the receipts of ₹ 7,25,00,000 in question is from sale of paintings purchased during financial years 1993-94 to 1995-96 was rejected and the amount in question was added as income from undisclosed sources. 4.3 Now the issue to be decided that whether as per provision of s. 292C introduced by the Finance Act, 2007 with retrospective effect from 1st Oct., 1975 the AO has to presume that whatever is recorded in the seized document is deemed to be true and the assessment has to be completed solely on the basis of the said document. Sec. 292C reads as under : '292C. Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... according to the circumstances of the case. Hence section 292C is not for the benefit of the assessee. In other words the assessee cannot escape the legal responsibility to explain with documentary proof the expenditure or deduction claimed or investment shown in the return. In the case under consideration the assessee has claimed to have earned non-taxable capital gain. Hence onus is on the assessee to prove it to be true. The submission of the appellant that the onus is on the AO to prove that the noting in the RM-1 is not correct is illogical. The details and the basis of the transaction recorded in the seized document is the personal knowledge of the assessee. Hence, unless he provides the necessary details and supporting evidences relating to the transactions, the AO cannot proceed to prove or disprove it. Moreover in the case under consideration the AO has given enough circumstantial evidence to rebut the claim made by the assessee. Moreover the Hon'ble Tribunal, Kolkata in the case of Nirmal Fashions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2009] 123 TTJ (Kol.) 180/[2009] 23 DTR (Kol.)(Trib.) 386/[2008] 25 SOT 387has held that the provision of s. 292C is only a deeming provision. The presu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the seized documents are required to be read as a whole i.e. accepted or rejected as a whole. Since the genuineness of the transaction recorded in RM-1 and RM-2 has been rejected, no further presumption can be made of the nature of receipt recorded in the said document. Accordingly no addition can be made only by taking into account the unaccounted receipts recorded in the said document. 4.8 However in p. 4 of the assessment order it has been mentioned by the AO that certain details of out unrecorded cash payment on account of acquisition of Salt Lake property was found and impounded during the course of survey in the business premises of the assessee (GB 12). Further the seized record RM-4 confirms that certain dispute regarding the said property is pending before the Civil Judge Court, Barasat. During the course search the appellant admitted that he has made unaccounted payment to S.R. Bagga and in the revised balance sheet for the financial year 2005-06 the same has been calculated at ₹ 6,00,90,000 and incorporated in the declared investment. The same was also confirmed from the order dt. 25th May, 2009 of the Civil Judge, Barasat in title suit No. 2007. Hence it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AO will revise the order accordingly. 9. Similarly, CIT(A) also confirmed the action of AO in asst. yr. 2008-09 by giving following finding in paras 4.7 and 4.8 : 4.7 Since it has been held that the document in question is a dumb document, hence no presumption can be made on the basis of noting and jottings made therein. Accordingly it is held that the AO has rightly rejected the revised balance sheet and P L a/c prepared on the basis of seized document RM-1 and RM-2. Further, since, it is a settled legal position that the seized documents are required to be read as a whole i.e. accepted or rejected as a whole. Since the genuineness of the transaction recorded in RM-1 and RM-2 has been rejected, no further presumption can be made of the nature of receipt recorded in the said document. Accordingly no addition can be made only by taking into account the unaccounted receipts recorded in the said document. 4.8 However it is an undisputed fact that ₹ 18,60,00,000 has been invested by the appellant during the year under consideration on purchase of share capital of M/s Rajahat Housing (P) Ltd. (Rs. 8,80,000,00), M/s Rajahat Builders (P) Ltd. (Rs. 9,60,000,00 and M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nil 1997-98 1998-99 Diamond (12 ct 52 ct) 110.40 Nil Nil 1998-99 1999-2000 Diamond (125 ct) 110.40 Nil Nil 1999-2000 2000-01 Nil Nil Nil Nil 2000-01 2001-02 Diamond (12 ct 45 ct) Nil 174.5 Nil 2001-02 to 2004-05 2002-03 to 2005-06 Nil Nil Nil Nil 2005-06 2006-07 Painting Nil 725.00 620.90 to Surya Prakash Bagla for property at BP Sector-V Others ₹ 29.00 Total 649.90 2006-07 2007-08 Nil Nil Nil 90.00 to S.P. Bagla for above 2007-08 2008-09 Painting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purview of s. 153A of the Act but sales made falls within the time period covered under s. 153A of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee failed to furnish the details or names of persons from whom or to whom purchases/sales of gold, diamonds and paintings were made and further assessee could not give any evidence of supporting documents in respect of sales made. The AO tried to negate the claim of cash generated on sales utilization out of books cash payments for investment in lands, share application-money etc. which have been reflected by the assessee in his revised balance sheet filed along with returns of income in response to notice under s. 153A of the Act. It means that the allegation of AO that assessee was involved in real estate business where on-money receipt was rampant and receipts were nothing but on-money receipts noted in the guise of sale consideration of gold and diamonds to defraud Revenue and to explain away receipt as cash payments towards investments. But we find that the AO accepted as it is other entries pertaining to undisclosed investments made in property etc. and entries disclosed in the regular books and account of assessee maintained in regular c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness of purchase and sale of this items outside the books of account i.e. unaccounted purchase and sales. According to the CIT(A) RM-2 was not a day to day account prepared by the assessee but written in one operation of writing and he rejected the contention of assessee that the seized papers were to be considered as true without calling for any other supporting evidence. According to CIT(A), since assessee had not furnished evidence to prove the contents of RM-1 and RM-2 as true, the same were held as dumb documents and, therefore, the revised balance sheets and P L a/c prepared by assessee on the basis of RM-1 and RM-2 were held to be rightly rejected by AO. The CIT(A) held that seized documents were required to be read as a whole and has to be accepted or rejected as a whole. According to CIT(A) since genuineness of transactions recorded in RM-1 and RM-2 has not been proved, no further presumption could be made on the nature of receipt or expenditure recorded in RM-1 and RM-2. The CIT(A) also noted that certain own recorded cash payments for acquisition of Salt Lake property was found and impounded from the business premises of the assessee during the course of survey under s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed accounts prepared on the basis of entries in RM-1 and RM-2. The CIT(A) since rejected RM-1 and RM-2, inflow, outflow of cash, shown therein was also rejected. He made fresh addition on account of unexplained investment in property made on the basis of entries in GB-12 found from the business premises of the assessee and on account of investment made in shares of different companies as narrated above even from the audited balance sheet of such companies. Here, we want to mention one important aspect that the AO made additions which were deleted by the CIT(A), apart from challenging the deletion of ₹ 35 lakhs, balance additions are not subject-matter of challenge by Revenue before us. 12. We find that Revenue during the course of search on the residential premises of assessee on 28th Feb., 2008, under s. 132 of the Act, found and inventorised documents as RM-1 and RM-2. Whether these documents are to be treated as true or not is now to be decided first. We find that CIT(A) as well as AO has invoked provision of s. 292C of the Act for not accepting these documents RM-1 and RM-2. The main contention of the Revenue authorities is that under s. 292C of the Act the words used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (a) or cl. (b) or cl. (c), as the case may be, of sub-s. (1) of s. 132A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under s. 132. 13. We find that in the instant case search and seizure operation under s. 132(1) of the Act was conducted in the Fort Group of cases, including assessee on 28th Feb., 2008 and from the residential premises of the assessee i.e. Ballygunge Park, Kolkata-19, cash, jewellery, silver utensils and various documents marked as annexure RM-1 to RM-5 was found and seized. On the basis of these seized documents marked as RM-1 to RM-5, assessee was asked to make disclosure of ₹ 9.02 crores in respect to on-money receipts of Fort Projects (P) Ltd., a private limited company in which assessee is one of the directors. We find that the assessee's statement during the course of search in respect of notings in various seized documents recorded were accepted under s. 132(4) of the Act. In the course of statement recorded under s. 132(4) of the Act on 14th March, 2008, assessee made disclosure of ₹ 7.70 crores on the basis of noting in RM-1 on account of capital gain arising on sale of diamonds and gold in ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portant documents. For the purpose of assessment for the asst. yrs. 1981-82 and 1982-83 three documents were found to be relevant by the AO and they were marked as PRM-1, PRM-7 and PRM-13 at the time of search and seizure, which were seized from the residential premises namely, 'Ranganatha Nilaya'. The statement of J.J. Bakale was recorded at the time of search. P.R. Metrani was away to Rajasthan on a business tour. He was examined after his return to Hubli on 13th July, 1982. He denied the possession of PRM-1, PRM-13 and PRM-14. He also defied that these papers contain any writing made by him. The assessing authority made a summary adjudication order under s. 132(5) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). He made certain additions and retained the assets seized. Notice under s. 139(2) dt. 17th Sept., 1982 for the asst. yr. 1982-83 was served on the assessee on 21st Sept., 1982. The appellant declared a total income of ₹ 46,200 and a net agricultural income of ₹ 6,000. Notices under ss. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on several dates. The appellant appeared before the authorities on several dates and assessment came to be completed. The following ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Pushkar Narain Sarraf v. CIT [1990] 86 CTR (All.) 110/[1990] 183 ITR 388, on the scope of s. 132(4A) held that the presumptions under s. 132(4A) are confine to the framing of the order under s. 132(5) only and are not available for framing the regular assessment. The Tribunal accepted the appeals, set aside the orders passed by the CIT(A) as well as the assessing authority except to the extent of addition of ₹ 2,62,100. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for both the asst. yrs. 1981-82 and 1982-83 for the opinion of the High Court : (1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the presumption under sub-s. (4A) of s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961, is only for the limited purpose of passing an order under sub-s. (5) of the said section? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the documents seized from the residential premises of the assessee HUF were not of the said HUF and the entries therein did not pertain to it, particularly when the Tribunal itself has accepted that the entries in the said documents culminating in addition of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er s. 132. Otherwise it may not be possible to do so. The object of introduction of s. 132 is to prevent the evasion of tax, i.e., to unearth hidden or undisclosed income or property and bring it to assessment. It is not merely an information of undisclosed income but also to seize money, bullion, etc., representing the undisclosed income and to retain them for the purposes of realization of taxes, penalties etc. Search and seizure is a serious invasion into the privacy of the person. Sec. 132 which is a complete code by itself provides that the money, bullion or the books of account etc. should not be retained unnecessarily and that the provisional assessment made under s. 132 for the purpose of retention of the books is passed within a specified time in accordance with law. It provides that the books of account, money and bullion which are not required are not retained unnecessarily thereby causing harassment to the person concerned. In order to see that the assessment order is framed within the time frame provided under s. 132, the Legislature provided for a rebuttable presumption to be raised against the person from whose possession and control the books of account, money, bull ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount or other documents. This clearly spells out the intention of the Legislature that wherever the Legislature intended to continue the presumption under sub-s. (4A) of s. 132, it has provided so. It has not been provided that the presumption available under s. 132(4A) would be available for framing the regular assessment under s. 143 as well. This is also evident from the fact that whereas the Legislature under s. 132(4) has provided that the books of account, money, bullion, jewellery and other valuable articles or things and any statement made by such person during examination may thereafter be used as evidence in any other proceedings under the Act it has not provided so under sub-s. (4A) of s. 132. It does not provide that the presumption under s. 132(4A) would be available while framing the regular assessment or for that matter under any other proceeding under the Act except under s. 278D. Sec. 132 being a complete code in itself cannot intrude into any other provision of the Act. Similarly, other provisions of the Act cannot interfere with the scheme or the working of s. 132 or its provisions. The presumption under s. 132(4A) is available only in regard to the proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y bringing on record some cogent evidence to disprove notings in the seized papers. On the contrary, CIT(A) and AO tried to shift onus of proving entries in seized books/papers on the assessee in contradiction to provisions of s. 292C of the Act. We are of the view that seized documents RM-1 and RM-2 clearly depicting the purchase and sale of gold, diamonds and paintings and investment of the sale proceeds in property and shares had to be accepted as such unless some evidence or material was brought on record by the Revenue to show that what was stated in the seized documents was not correct. CIT(A)'s opinion that onus was on the assessee to prove that what was stated in the seized documents was true. Such an interpretation would render the deeming provisions of s. 292C otiose and presumption as to the correctness of seized documents is automatic under s. 292C of the Act unless the contrary is proved and as such, the assessee was not legally required to substantiate the seized documents with supporting evidence. Where the statute provides a deeming provision, what is prescribed is to be deemed without seeking corroborative evidence. We find from a bare perusal of RM-1 and RM-2, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld or paintings actually represented 'on-money' or some other form of undisclosed receipt and in the absence of cogent evidence express noting in the seized documents could not be arbitrarily disregarded and no additions could be made solely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Even seized documents could not be outrightly rejected as dumb documents without disproving the same. It is also a fact that seized papers were findings of search operations carried out by the Department and not papers submitted by the assessee suo motu in course of normal assessment which required substantiation. These papers were part of Department's evidence unearthed as a result of search carried out by the Department, and thus, the same were to be taken at face value unless contrary is proved. The said papers were not meant for production before the Department but for personal information of the assessee and as such, could not have been untrue or fabricated. Therefore, it was highly illogical on the part of the Department to assume that the said papers had been purposely prepared by the assessee to defraud the Department. As regards CIT(A)'s contention that no stock of gold, diamond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted investment in property and rejecting the other set of seized documents marked RM-1 and RM-2 containing both the details of investment in property as well as explaining the source thereof. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that since RM-1 and RM-2 were found from the possession and control of the appellant in course of search conducted in the assessee's own case, presumption under s. 292C could more aptly be drawn in respect of RM-1 and RM-2 rather than documents impounded in course of survey in group case, i.e. GB-12. 17. In view of above facts, it is clear that the documents seized during the course of search from the possession of assessee are true till it is proved otherwise by cogent evidence. The onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. Here, in the present case, Department claimed that documents inventorised RM-1 to RM-4 are dumb documents and for this Revenue has no basis whatsoever. To give a finding that the documents are dumb and such a finding can be reviewed on the ground that there is no evidence to support it or it is perverse. Further, when a conclusion has been reached on an appreciation of a number of facts, whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaining the investment in shares. Accordingly, on the same reasoning, we delete the addition of unexplained investment in shares amounting to ₹ 18.60 crores for asst. yr. 2008-09. This issue of assessee's appeal is also allowed. 19. The next issue in IT(SS)A No. 4/Kol/2011 raised by assessee by way of additional ground is as regards the disallowance of interest paid to M/s. Floor Walls. For this, the assessee has raised the following additional grounds : 1. That the learned CIT(A) omitted to consider the additional ground filed by the appellant in regard to disallowance of interest of ₹ 2,93,366 paid to M/s Floor Walls by the appellant for asst. yr. 2006-07. 2. That the AO erred in disallowing interest on capital of ₹ 2,93,366 paid to M/s Floors Walls alleging that the same was in the nature of interest on loan and remained unsubstantiated despite the fact that the genuineness of the same was proved from the facts and evidence on record. 20. At the outset, the learned CIT-Departmental Representative fairly agreed that this can be admitted and adjudicated upon as the facts are available in the records of the Department. Hence, we admit this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the entries in seized documents marked RM-1 and RM-2, the assessee had surplus cash balance of ₹ 6,28,53,906 on the date of search i.e. 28th Feb., 2008 and ₹ 6,08,43,906 on 31st March, 2008. In support of the above, assessee enclosed cash account which is at p. 164 of the assessee's paper book. 24. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the entire cash of ₹ 50,61,250 found in course of search on 28th Feb., 2008 stood adequately explained, since total undisclosed income arising from the seized documents were already offered for taxation by assessee and cash found in course of search stood explained from the entries recorded in seized documents, no separate addition can be made in respect to cash found. We have already accepted the seized document RM-1 and RM-2 as genuine documents explaining away the entries, the cash explained by assessee cannot be treated unexplained. Accordingly, this issue of assessee's appeal is allowed. 25. The next issue in Revenue's appeal in IT(SS)A No. 10/Kol/2011 is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of undisclosed income made by AO on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
