9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 153A of the Act. As the issues involve are common, for the sake of convenience, we dispose of these appeals by way of this consolidated order. 2. Facts in brief: There was search and seizure action u/s 132(1) carried out by DDIT (Inv.) Unit-III(2), Mumbai on10-8-2006 in the case of M/s Rohan Group including Directors of different associated and sister companies and in assessee's case. The assessee and his family members were found to have no withdrawals for household expenses during the period A.Y. 2002-03 to A.Y. 2004-05 and for the period A.Y. 2001-02, the withdrawal was very low at ₹ 1,65,000/-, for A.Y. 2005-06, it was ₹ 1,20,000/-, for A.Y.06-07 it was ₹ 1,95,000/-, for A.Y. 2007- 08, it was ₹ 1,65,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the CIT(Appeals) that, the addition in question made by the AO was an adhoc addition which was arbitrary. His case is that there is no material was found during the course of search warranting addition in an order passed u/s 143(3) read with section 153A. He filed an order of the Mumbai I-Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 6192 to 6198/Mum/2009 for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08, order dated 30th July, 2010 and submitted that in the case of the assessee's brother Mr. Jitendra N. Mehta, the Tribunal retained an addition of ₹ 1.5 lakhs for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 and that it retained an addition of ₹ 2 lakhs for the assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05 and that for the assessment years 2005-06 to 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... variation in the drawings for the assessment year 2005-06 and the other assessment years. No doubt in the case of the assessee's brother the Tribunal has sustained certain amounts. After considering these amounts, we are of the considered opinion that the addition in question sustained by the CIT(Appeals) for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 have to be sustained. The appeals for all these three years are hereby dismissed. 5. Coming to the assessment year 2005-06, the drawings are ₹ 40.92 lakhs approximately and hence substantial. It calls for no further addition in that year. Hence grounds of appeal for the assessment year 2005-06 are allowed. 6. There is one more ground of appeal for the assessment year 2003-04. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived from Shri Chetan Shah was also similar, the A.O. was justified to treat the said loan as bogus on the basis of evidence found during the course of search. Accordingly, the addition made at ₹ 1,00,000/- on account of bogus loan as unexplained is hereby confirmed. This ground of appeal for A.Y. 03-04 is dismissed." 7. In our opinion, the conclusions drawn by the revenue authorities are devoid of merit. There is no basis to hold that Shri Chetan Shah is a tainted party. Addition cannot be justified on the ground that the assessee had offered certain other accounts as bogus loans. The issue should have been investigated by the AO before addition. In view of the above discussion, we allow this ground for the assessment year 2003-04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
