TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. The learned Departmental representative did not file any objection to the documents filed in the paper book were part of the record of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Therefore, the explanation of the assessee that all the expenditure mentioned in the seized papers are reconciled through regular books of account stands established and proved. Therefore, there is no justification to make or sustain the addition against the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. - I. T. A. Nos. 307, 308, 309, 310, 311 and 312/Chd/2014 - - - Dated:- 22-3-2017 - Bhavnesh Saini (Judicial Member) And Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) For the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed which is part of the assessment order. The assessee owned up the entries recorded in those documents and admitted that they pertain to his business expenditure. At the time of assessment these documents were again confronted to the assessee, he was asked to explain the entries recorded on these documents and reconcile them with the books of account. The assessee explained that these are copies extracted from the assessee's diary which he normally carries along with him during his travelling. The contract sites are spread all across the State and the assessee normally jots down various issues, base cheques issued, client enquiries, estimates orders, banker's queries and various other matters in the same. The actual entries are mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that the entries contained in the seized papers are duly reflected in the regular books of account. The details of the same are highlighted in separate sheets. Copy of the day book, journal vouchers and land account have been filed in support of the same. He has submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer in which the Assessing Officer did not dispute the claim of the assessee. The Assessing Officer merely contended that copy of the account submitted by the assessee do not clearly substantiate his claim. The learned counsel for the assessee prepared a chart on the basis of the seized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer. Even before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee admitted that he is not in a position to explain the contents of the seized documents. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. The order-sheet of the assessment record clearly revealed that the Assessing Officer took assessment only on March 13, 2013 and finally concluded the assessment proceedings on March 15, 2013 and thereafter passed the assessment order on March 22, 2013. Therefore, no sufficient time is given to the assessee to explain the contents of the seized papers. The assessee filed detailed reply before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), copy of which is filed in the paper book in which the assessee specifically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment years 2007-08 to 2011-12) 11. In the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee did not press ground No. 2, the same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. On ground No. 3, the assessee challenged the addition of ₹ 6,71,683 as unexplained expenditure. 12. In remaining assessment years, the assessee challenged the additions of ₹ 15,89,500, ₹ 11,61,450, ₹ 1,43,53,963 and ₹ 2,79,000 as unexplained expenditure. The learned representatives of both the parties submitted that the issue is the same in remaining appeals as has been argued in the assessment year 2006-07 in I. T. A. No. 307/Chd/2014 in which we have set aside the orders of the authorities below and deleted identical addition on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
