Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Sri. C. Ramakrishna

2016 (6) TMI 644 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Addition based on the evidences seized during the course of search - Held that:- It is not in dispute that the basis for the addition made is page 1 of loose papers A/1/MKP seized not from the possession of the assessee but from the office premises of M/s. Mookambika Promoters belonging to the S.Chandrasekhar group of concerns. The learned CIT (Appeals) has observed that the document contains entries suggesting money transactions related to a property deal, between the assessee and Shri.S.Chandr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

failed to substantiate with material evidence his stand that the entries at page 1 of seized material A/1/MKP represent undisclosed advances given by the assessee to Shri.S. Chandrasekhar. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) in deleting the additions made and consequently uphold by ITAT - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA NO. 347/2015 C/W ITA NO. 348/2015 - Dated:- 5-4-2016 - MR. JAYANT PATEL AND MRS. B.V.NAGARATHNA JJ. For the App .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of ₹ 59,81,951 for assessment year 2007-08 made by the Assessing Officer based on the evidences seized during the course of search while at the same time confirming similar addition made for assessment year 2009-10 drawing two different inferences on the same evidence? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aring for the appellants. 3. We may record that the Tribunal while considering the aforesaid aspects at para 7.3 has observed thus: 7.3 We have heard both the learned Departmental Representative for revenue and the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee. It is not in dispute that the basis for the additions made by the Assessing Officer is the seized material at pages 3 to 6 of A/1/MKP; seized from the office premises of M/s. Mookambika Promoters, belonging to the S. Chandrashekar gro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

place. Other than the loose papers pages 3 to 6 of seized material A/1/MKP found and seized from the premises of a firm in which a third person is partner, the Assessing Officer has failed to bring on record any substantive corroborative material evidencing that the transactions in question had actually taken place. As such, in our view, the Assessing Officer has not been able to substantiate or establish with any material evidence his conclusion that the entries in the documents at pages 3 to 6 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the learned Departmental representative for revenue and the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee and perused and carefully considered the material on record. It is not in dispute that the basis for the addition made is page 1 of loose papers A/1/MKP seized not from the possession of the assessee but from the office premises of M/s. Mookambika Promoters belonging to the S.Chandrasekhar group of concerns. The learned CIT (Appeals) has observed that the document contains entries sugg .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rix, we concur with the finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) that the Assessing Officer has failed to substantiate with material evidence his stand that the entries at page 1 of seized material A/1/MKP represent undisclosed advances given by the assessee to Shri.S. Chandrasekhar. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) in deleting the additions made and consequently uphold her decision in the matter. We, accordingly dismiss ground No.2 r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version