TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I. T. (SS)A. Nos. 186 to 190/Ind/2016 And I. T. A. No 1019/Ind/2016 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2018 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv. For The Respondent : Shri Lalchand, CIT DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, J . M . : This bunch of six appeals by the assessee in respect of different assessment years are directed against the common order of ld. CIT(A)-2, Bhopal dated 30.06.2016. Since common grounds are raised, all the appeals were taken up together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. These appeals are barred by time. It is noticed that there is a delay of two days in filing the appeals. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay alongwith affidavit. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application seeking condonation of delay on the reasons stated in the application. We find that the assessee had reasonable cause. The delay of two days is condoned. Apppeals are taken up for hearing. 4. First, we take up I.T.(SS)A.No. 186/Ind/2016 pertaining to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and placed a letter dated 26.06.18, wherein it has been categorically stated that the addition is not based on any incriminating material or statement. 9. We have considered the facts, rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Revenue has admitted in letter dated 26.06.2018 that the impugned addition of ₹ 60,000/- is not based upon any incriminating material. We derive support from the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del), in which the Hon'ble Court held as under :- Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed. In view of these facts, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, (supra), we delete the addition of ₹ 60,000/- and allow ground nos. 1 to 3. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2000-01 is allowed. I.T.(SS)A.No. 187/Ind/2016 A.Y. 2001-02 : 11. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in charging ₹ 2,16,000/- from eighteen concerns of the same name and in confirming the addition of ₹ 2,16,000/- towards the same. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition of ₹ 30,000/- towards the fresh security deposits from the concerns of the same name, which were appearing in the final accounts filed with the return u/s 139(1) and in confirming the addition of ₹ 30,000/- towards the same. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the action of the AO of examining the credit of ₹ 30,000/- in the final accounts filed with the return u/s 139 in the proceedings u/s 153A. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the unsecured loan of ₹ 1,05,000/- in the names of Neera Kotwani at ₹ 55,000/- and Amit Tiwari at ₹ 50,000/- appearing in the account books was unexplainable and in confirming the addition towards the same at ₹ 1,05,000/- u/s 69 of the Income- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed. I.T.(SS)A.No. 190/Ind/2016 A.Y. 2004-05 : 23. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the assessment made u/s 153A/144 was valid, which was made pursuant to the notice u/s 143(2) served after prescribed time limit. The assessment order be kindly quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the assessment order, which was passed by the AO without providing adequate opportunity to the appellant. The same be kindly cancelled. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in charging ₹ 3,12,000/- from twenty six concerns of the same name and in confirming the addition of ₹ 3,12,000/- towards the same. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition of ₹ 60,000/- towards the fresh security deposits from the concerns of the same name, which were appearing in the final accounts filed with the return u/s 139(1) and in confirming the addition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. Departmental Representative vide his letter dated 26.06.2018 has categorically mentioned that the additions are not based upon any incriminating material. 29. Following the same reasoning as in para 9 above, we delete the additions and allow grounds no. 1 to 3. 30. The assessee has not taken ground no. 4. 31. Ground no. 5 relates to the upholding the receipt of ₹ 5,00,000/- by the Ld. CIT(A) from M/s. Aramax Courier appearing in the account books was unexplainable. 32. The Ld. Departmental Representative vide his letter dated 26.06.2018 has mentioned that the addition was made as no books of account related to Aramax were found during the course of search. Shri Mohanlal Kotwani in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, on 22.12.2005 admitted ₹ 5,00,000/- undisclosed income in the case of Shri Kamal Kishore Kotwani. Since the same was not offered to tax in return of income filed, therefore, addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- was made on account of unexplained income from M/s. Aramax Courier. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not point out whether the cross examination was sought. 34. Since the addition is based upon incriminating mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
