9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 3,37,58,800/- made by the A.O. on account of undisclosed payment received on sale of land on the basis of seized documents. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and in circumstances of the case in not considering the facts as brought on by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order which are based on various evidences found and seized during the course of action u/s.132 of the Act and are corroborative evidences if considered altogether. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a search action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in the Asian Group of cases on 07.02.2008. Pursuant to the search operations, a notice u/s. 153A was issued on 16.07.2008 requiring the assessee to file return of income. Return was filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the AO either to Shri Kalidas Patel or to Shri Bharatbhai Patel regarding this page. I was informed by the Addl. CIT having jurisdiction over Himmatnagar and Bharat Patel that no action has been taken in the case of Shri Bharatbhai Patel in respect of the entries in the said page. In the statement recorded under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, Shri Kalidas Patel nowhere admitted that he had received Rs. 3.43 crores from the appellant towards the sale of the land at Kankrol Himmatnagar. As stated earlier, the seized documents on which the AO has placed reliance were found from the possession of a third party and nowhere the name of the appellant is appearing in such papers. In my view, without any evidence that the appellant has paid Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making the addition on the basis of this paper in the hands of the appellant. I, therefore, have no hesitation in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,37,58,800/-. 5. Aggrieved by this, the revenue is before us. 6. The ld. D.R. strongly supported the findings of the A.O. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We find that ground 1 of revenue's appeal as mentioned elsewhere is misplaced in as much as it refers to the additions on account of undisclosed payment received on sale of land whereas the facts show that the assessee has in fact purchased the impugned land. 8. Be as it may, the undispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
