TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounted for in the books of accounts, is not correct. When such transactions have been recorded in the books of accounts, there is no justification for making addition of the same in the hands of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the addition of ₹ 1.40 crore. As regards the balance of ₹ 31,04,166/- the nature of amounts aggregating to ₹ 32.00 lakhs (Rs.25.00 lacs, ₹ 2.00 lacs and ₹ 5.00 lacs as given/paid to MMTL, Aeroplast and towards S. Tax respectively as noted on the paper). These amounts of ₹ 25.00 lakhs and ₹ 2.00 lakhs should, therefore, be considered as payment by the assessee, as also explained before us with reference to PB 32 and ₹ 5.00 lakhs is accepted by the Assessing Officer itself as explained. Taking all the above figures into account, in our considered opinion, it would be justified to sustain the addition to the extent of ₹ 31,04,166/- Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer deserves to be restricted to ₹ 31,04,166/- and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer. As a result, the appeal of the Revenue deserves to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idend of ₹ 1.71 Crores around other than from M/s Micromax Informatics Ltd. and also earned capital gain of ₹ 51.00 Crores around. It was also contended that out of expected outflow of funds mentioned on right side of the page most of the transactions, as mentioned in the impugned order, were materialized, and recorded in the books of account, duly verifiable there from. It was also explained that a bare glance on the paper would reveal that it was nothing but entries of financial planning of Rahul Sharma. On one side of the paper expected income by way of dividend and capital gain has been mentioned and on the other side utilization of funds by the way of payments to be done or already done has been mentioned. Thus, this paper could, in no way be treated as actual receipts and payments made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied by the above reply of the assessee and treating the above transactions as actual receipts and payments by the assessee, added a sum of ₹ 1,87,04,166/- to the total income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources, observing as under : 6. The assessee's reply is duly considered. However, this contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cument found and seized during the course of search proceedings which was identified as MA-6/Anx. A-2/ pages 37 38. The Assessing Officer did not accept the appellant's contention that the transactions recorded on this document were rough notings of future planning of funds flow position of the appellant. According to the Assessing Officer the transactions recorded on these pages were the actual transactions of receipts and payments. I have perused the copies of these documents which were filed before me by the appellant during the course of appeal hearing. On perusal of the same it is seen that they did not establish any specific transaction with respect to receipt or payment that was made by the appellant. The notings on these papers appeared to the rough working indicating certain amounts which according to the Assessing Officer represented actual transactions of receipts and payments. The AR of the appellant in his written submissions stated that all the transactions mentioned on this document were mere future planning of appellant's funds flow position. According to the AR of the appellant all the transactions recorded on this document did not materialize and some of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gheerath Engg. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 79 taxmann.com 325 (v). Ashok Kumar vs. CIT, 69 taxmann.com 129 (vi). Baldev Raj vs. CIT, 2 taxmann.com 335. 5. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee, reiterating the submissions made before the authorities below submitted that the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer rests on the sole basis of document found and seized during the course of search operation thereby completely ignoring the fact that the said document was a mere estimated calculation made by the assessee of future cash flows in his personal name and in the name of his company. It is submitted that out of the same, entries of few items, which were materialized are verifiable from the books. As also opined by the authorities below, most of the transactions appearing in the said paper were through proper banking channel and there was no undisclosed income in this respect. Certain details, which stood materialized were got verified and supporting documentary evidences were also placed. The assesses had submitted a detailed explanation as appearing at pages 11 and 12 with the supporting evidence at page 13 to 16 of the paper book. It was submitted that transacti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned paper without having any corroborating material either available with the Assessing Officer or found on search. It was also submitted that the assessee in his personal capacity has no dealings of any kind with any concern naming C. Magix as mentioned in the impugned paper and hence, it is not proper to construe the entries on the paper as income of the assessee. Once, the assessee had explained the entries on the paper, the burden shifts on the Revenue to prove by cogent material that the notings on the said paper pertain to the actual income of the assessee, which it failed to discharge. Such rough and estimated jottings on the paper without having any reference to the income of assessee cannot be read against the assessee. Therefore, the addition, based on surmises and conjectures cannot be sustained in the eye of law at all, as held by various authorities, relied by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record and the decisions relied by both the parties. The only issue, which needs adjudication in this appeal is with respect to the deletion of the addition of ₹ 1,87, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee as recorded in the books of accounts. In this regard the assessee has placed before us copy of the ledger account in the Paper Book. Thus, the contention of the Ld. DR that assessee has failed to discharge its onus that the transactions are accounted for in the books of accounts, is not correct. When such transactions have been recorded in the books of accounts, there is no justification for making addition of the same in the hands of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the addition of ₹ 1.40 crore. 7.3 As regards the balance of ₹ 31,04,166/- though, it is stated in the document 'to be given' but assessee has not filed any explanation other than saying that it was a future planning. Once, the assessee had explained part of the transactions and got them verified from the books of account, it was for the assessee to explain the nature of other entries/transactions noted on the said paper which the assessee failed to explain. The CIT(A) should not delete this addition.The ld. Counsel for the assessee rightly contended that there was no nexus between right side and left side of the notings on the paper. The left side entries have no meani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
