TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Act, 1961 in short the Act . 2. The relevant facts qua ITA No.1047/Mds/2011 are that the assessee is a contractor who filed his return on 4.2.2005 declaring income of G.53,122/-. Thereafter, a search under sec.132 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in short the Ac was carried out by the Department on one Shri R. Viswanathan and other related persons on 23.8.2006 which led to search of the assessee s residential house. During the search some incriminating evidence was allegedly found from the assessee s premises. Thereafter, a notice under sec.153 of the Act was served on the assessee on 21.6.2007. In response, the assessee filed his return of income as follows:- Asst. Year Date of Filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by assessee and his wife) was as follows :- Asst. Year Subramani Inbajothi Total Value 2003-04 2,73,300 - 2,73,300 2004-05 2,73,300 2,73,300 2005-06 2,73,300 2,50,000 5,23,100 2006-07 6,73,300 2,50,000 9,23,300 2007-08 6,73,300 7,13,390 13,86,690 Total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee s wife) and prayed for acceptance of the appeal. 8. The Departmental Representative, on the other hand has strongly supported the order of the CIT(Appeals) and prayed for rejection of the appeal. 9. In view of the submission of both the parties, the moot question before us is whether the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the Assessing Officer s finding regarding unexplained investment in the case of assessee? 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration of the matter and have also gone through the findings in question as well as case law referred to. It is evident that the assessee had submitted the cost of construction (supra) which commenced in the Asst. Year 2003-04 and continued upto Asst. Year 2007-08. The main reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me across certain jottings mentioning some unexplained payments by the assessee. Consequently, a notice under sec.153A of the Act was served on the assessee. In response to the same, the assessee filed return of income of G.1,40,620/- on 12.8.2008. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued another notice regarding inadequate drawings, unexplained payments and bogus credit proposing addition of G.1,51,000/-, G.1,71,350 and G.6,21,564/- respectively. The assessee contested the same. However, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 30.12.2008 made the above said additions and computed the assessee s income as G.18,04,004/-. 12. In the case of alleged unexplained payments made by the assessee of G.2,90,000/- alleged to have been made to vario ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r acceptance of the appeal. 15. The Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, has supported the order of the CIT(Appeals) and prayed for rejection of the appeal. 16. In view of the arguments raised by both the parties, the sole issue before us which arises for consideration is as to whether the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the addition of G.2,90,000/- in the shape of unexplained payments? 17. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and also perused the necessary findings as well as case law cited before us. It transpires that the basis of addition ie. unexplained payments is the jottings recovered by the Department in the course of search proceedings which are available before u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mployee of the Assessee. The employee and a Director of the company were questioned. Both explained the position as to how the slips had been written and the stand of the assessee was that they did not represent payment of wages during the year in question but were for the earlier year. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation and made an addition. The Comissioner(Appeals) as well as the Tribunal partly set aside the addition. It was held that even though the explanation of the assessee that the loose papers did not relate to payment of wages during the year in question may not be accepted, in absence of any other material, the loose sheets by itself were not enough to make addition as per the estimate of the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
