TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d direct deletion of addition made in the hands of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee - IT (SS) A No. 272/LKW/2017 - - - Dated:- 22-3-2018 - Shri. T.S. Kapoor, Accountant Member And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Judicial Member Appellant by : Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. A. K. Singh, CIT (DR) ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, J.M: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur dated 20/3/2017. 2. The grounds of appeal in this case are as appearing on record. The assessee has raised both legal grounds and grounds on merit. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. of the assessee pleaded to take grounds on merit and grievance with regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. In the written submission before the ld. CIT(A), assessee stated as follows:- 1. That there was a search seizure operation was carried out in Tiiak Raj Sharma Group of cases on 09.07.2014. During the search seizure operation in the case of the assessee at 8/276, ShuklaGanj, Unnao loose papers as per LP-6 was found and seized. On page no. 33 of the said papers on which payments regarding labour and construction material was given amounting to ₹ 12,04,938/- for F.Y. 2007-08 relevant to the F.Y. 2008-09. The case was centralized with this office vide order dated 16.10.2014 passed by Ld. CIT-I, Kanpur. The assessee for the year under consideration had filed his return of income at total income of ₹ 5,24,820/-. The asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... honour. 5. The Id. A. O has made addition simply stated that no other documentary evidence were furnished by the assessee which may prove that expenditure mentioned on the seized paper were actually incurred by the assessee RKJ Cold Storage Ice Factory. 6. The Id. A.O has fail to appreciate factual as well as legal position of section 69C in which onus is cast upon the department to prove the expenditure incurred. In this case there is no independent enquiry from the firm, no corroborative material found and seized record to suggest the ownership of paper in the hands of assessee, inspite of the fact that ownership of paper has been owned by the firm which is also income tax payer. 5. The ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of loose paper, the ld. A.R. of the assessee placed reliance upon the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai (TM). 8. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have perused the case records, heard the rival contentions and we find that in the findings given by the Assessing Officer, he noted that a document was seized having page 33 of LP-6 wherein an amount of ₹ 12,04,938/- was subject matter of transaction. Regarding this amount, an affidavit was filed before the Assessing Officer that it belonged to M/s R. K. G. Cold Storage Ice Factory and not to the assessee. The Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) should have m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned addition without the company of any other supportive material and evidence. 11. We, therefore, find that in the case of the assessee when on one hand affidavit was furnished stating that the amount belongs to someone else and if the Department was not agreeing with it, it could have enquired independently regarding the status of affidavit and verify the statement therein. Secondly, we do not find anything on record to suggest that seized document was supported by any other corroborative evidence. Therefore, we hold that addition made in the hands of the assessee is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be deleted. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct deletion of addition made in the hands of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
