TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In this situation we can neither hold the matter in favour of the Revenue nor the assessee - addition made by the AO in the block assessment is devoid of merits because there is no conclusive finding by the Revenue that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the assessment years 1997-98 to 2003-04. Hence we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition made in the block assessment. Addition towards Recurring deposit - AO added the same to the undisclosed income of the assessee because the transactions were not accounted in the assessee s books of accounts - HELD THAT:- In similar situation herein above in SHRI RAKESH SARIN, [ 2011 (6) TMI 977 - ITAT CHENNAI] , we have deleted the addition made by the Ld.AO because the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not justifiable Addition being the amount advanced to M/s. BMB Productions as unexplained advances - HELD THAT:- As during the course of search proceedings it was observed by the Ld.AO that the assessee had advanced money to M/s. BMB Productions and the same was returned. Since excess money of ₹ 1,50,000/- was returned, theLd.AO added the same to the income of the assessee which was subsequently confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). Before us neither the assessee nor the Ld.AR has produced any materials or advanced any arguments to negate the finding of the Ld.Revenue Authorities, therefore we have no other options but to confirm the order of the Ld.Revenue Authorities. Accordingly we hereby confirm the addition of ₹ 1,50,000/- made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld.AO amounting to ₹ 1,50,000/- being the money advanced to M/s. BMB Productions as unexplained advances. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a HUF whose Kartha Shri Rakesh Sarin s premises was searched on 27.03.2003 and concluded on 28.08.2003. Thereafter a notice U/s.158BC r.w.s. 158BD was served to the assessee on 23.02.2005 requesting the assessee to file its return of income. Subsequently the assessee filed its return of income for the block assessment period in Form 2B on 16.03.2005 disclosing undisclosed income as Nil . Thereafter assessment was completed U/s.143(3) r.w.s. 158BC 158BD of the Act vide order dated 28.02.2007 wherein the Ld.A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. However the Ld.Revenue Authorities have not conducted any investigation on that regard. The Ld.Revenue Authorities also ought to have examined the copy of the returns filed by the assessee that was produced before them and thereafter arrived at a proper conclusion. Further the Ld.Revenue Authorities had not taken any coercive action for the alleged fraud committed by the assessee. In this situation we can neither hold the matter in favour of the Revenue nor the assessee. It is pertinent to mention that on the identical facts in the case of related parties Smt. Renu Sarin in IT(SS)A No.17/Chny/2014 vide order dated 20.03.2019 and in the case of the Shri Rakesh Sarin in IT(SS)A No.66/Chny/2007 vide order dated 11.03.2019 also we had expre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2019. Accordingly we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition made for ₹ 3,03,125/- towards recurring deposit. 7. Ground No.2(iv): Addition of ₹ 11,45,000/- towards pro notes:- During the course of search certain pro-notes were found in the assessee s premises and since no explanation could be obtained from the karta of the HUF Shri Rakesh Sarin who was unavailable at that time and the manager who was present, the Ld.AO added the aggregate of the same as the undisclosed investment of the assessee as they were not accounted in the books of accounts. On the identical issue and facts, this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee s related parties Smt. Renu Sarin in IT(SS)A No.17/Chny/2014 vide order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of the Ld.AO. Even before us the Ld.DR was not able to successfully controvert to the findings of the Ld.CIT(A). The decision cited by the Ld.DR is also not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case of the assessee. The assessee has also explained various situations wherein such documents are accumulated in the premises of the assessee. The Ld.DR could also not furnish any materials to reject the explanation offered by the assessee. Hence we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this regard. Thus this ground is also decided in favour of the assessee. Since the facts and the issue being same, the same decision holds good in the case of the assessee also and accordingly we hereby direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
