9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the ITAT was in error in upholding the deletion by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] of the addition of Rs. 7,33,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of the undisclosed income? 4. A search was carried out in the Vipul Group of cases under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 1st June 2006. On the same day, the residence of the Assessee was also searched. It is stated that during the course of the search the Assessee had surrendered additional income of Rs. 1,01,05,976/- for the AY in question. Notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the Assessee on 20th March, 2017. 5. In making an addition of Rs. 7,33,50,000/- to the income of the Assessee by the assessment order dated 30th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount of Rs. 7.33 crores has been paid which becomes evident in light of overall facts, emerging from the seized documents and the assessment records". 7. In the order dated 12th December, 2011 allowing the Assessee's appeal, the CIT (A) noted the following submissions on behalf of the Assessee in regard to the same document as under: "From the above it is apparent that, the seized material contained only a proposal as is evident from the period i.e. 01.04.2006 to 12.09.2006 during which the proposal had to be implemented by the family. However, the said proposal was never acted upon by the family and no such alleged payment of Rs. 7,33,50,000/- has been made by the assessee. Moreover, none of the documents so seized were signed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other reason the settlement among family members did not materialize and meetings between the family kept on taking place. Such draft papers were prepared by one of their consultant who jotted down the steps to be implemented. However, search took place on different premises of the family members of the group and therefore, the conclusion to the understanding could not be brought. The search took place on 01.06.2006 and no cash pertaining to any of the intended transactions was detected. Moreover these papers were seized in the absence of Sh. S.S.Beriwala and Vinit Beriwala and no questions were asked to them about these papers. Also, this action plan does not convey that the assessee had given any cash payment to Sh. S.S.Beriwala or Vinit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting of pending portion arising from family settlement. The appellant has further argued that no source and no availability is reflected from where the payments could have been made in cash. That these papers are only draft papers where jottings have been made relating to steps to be implemented. Referring to page 104 the submission is that this page is regarding Division of assets Beriwala Group as on 31.03.05 and in the three columns the assets under the control of Shri SS Beriwala, Punit Beriwala and Vinit Beriwala have been mentioned. That the statement on this page reveals that there is no availability of funds because the asset allocation does not allocate any liquid funds in any of these groups stated in the settlement papers. It ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments are found/seized and therefore the issue of confronting/cross examination to the appellant does not arise, which was a basic legal requirement. Moreover there has been no addition to income in hands of either Sh. Vineet Beriwala or Sh. SS Beriwala for A.Y.2006-07 (based on the above narrative), copy of assessment order for which has been enclosed. Further there is no record of any cash for Rs. 7,33,50,000/- or a lesser amount found at any of the premises of Sh. Vineet Beriwala or Sh. SS Beriwala , nor any details of any investment/ expenditure having been made out of this supposed amount of Rs. 7,33,50,000/- found in search on Sh. Vineet Beriwala or Sh. SS Beriwala. It is relevant to note that the search has been conducted on 01.06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Sh. SS Beriwala. Thus there being no corroborative evidence found in search or post search investigation to substantiate the fact that the appellant has made unaccounted cash payment for Rs. 7,33,50,000/- to Sh. Vineet Beriwala or Sh. SS Beriwala during the year, the assumption of payment of cash derived from alleged paper seized cannot be supported. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has also recorded the findings on legal aspect of the case also, inasmuch as the alleged paper was not found from the possession of assessee and there was no corroborating evidence to show that the said papers seized from third party belong to the assessee. He has also relied on several decisions of Hon'ble Higher cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
