TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not bind the assessee is, in the opinion of this Court, correct. The text of Section 132(4), clarifies that the presumption arises in the case of the searched party. In case the statements by the party whose premises are searched, or to be attributed to a third party – as in the case of the assessee, there has to be a connect or corroboration. Clearly, there was none in the present case. On thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is with respect to the deletions ordered by the CIT(A) and affirmed by the ITAT. 2. The facts necessary for this case are that a search assessment was completed in respect of M/s Rajdarbar Group whose premises were subjected to search and seizure proceedings under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the Act ). The assessee s contention before the Revenue authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to or lead to adverse consequences as far as the assessee was concerned. It was further held that there was no corroborative material to connect those statements to the assessee s assessments. The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A) s views and also cited a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573. 3. We have considered the materials on record. 4. The CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
