TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om undisclosed income of seized document being fastened on assessee. CIT(A) as per the trite law that there must be something more than suspicion to support an assessment, the assessment based on pure suspicion is bound to be quashed . CIT(A) has rightly concluded that the attempt of the AO to connect seized paper with assessee has failed and finding given in the assessment order is erroneous on facts and is perverse and whimsical and stands vitiated and any addition based thereon deserves to be deleted. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. No reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the CIT(A), accordingly, we uphold the same and decide the issue against the Revenue by rejecting the ground of appeal filed by the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t amounting to ₹ 1.0 crore has been shown to have been made to the assessee in cash. 3. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 4. The assesseecraves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 3. The grounds raised by the Department in ITA No. 3286/Del/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) read as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,10,00,000/- made by the AO on account of document i.e. computer printout found and seized from the premises of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda during the course of search. 2. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Departmental Representative has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and reiterated on the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. 7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be upheld. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order dated 11.2.2013, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has carefully gone through the findings of the AO as well as the submissions made by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) observed that the basic and primary issue to be decided in the facts of this case is whether based on a computer printout which has been taken from the computer at the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition that the AD cannot rely upon and presume against the assessee on the basis of any document found as a result of search from a person other than the assessee for instance: (a) In Asstt. CIT vs. Kishore Lal Balwani Rai [2007] 17 SOT 380 (Chd.) it was held that though the diary seized enables the revenue to presume that its contents are true, such presumption is available only against the person to whom it belongs and not others. (b) In the case of Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan v. Dy. CIT [2010] 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd) (UO),it was clearly stated that the presumption under Section 132 (4A) is not available, when the seized paper is recovered from third party and not from the assessee. 8.3 We find considerable cogency in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax Act, 1961. As such, applying the said principle it is clear that seized document found from the possession of Sh Kinda, belong to them and if it is claimed that said document belong to assessee, then in that event the onus of proof vest with the AO. In the facts of the case in hand, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly found that this onus has not been discharged by the AO, in so far as there is no corroborative evidence brought on record to substantiate that document or transactions mentioned therein belong to assessee except conjectures and presumptions and what to talk of any liability for taxation from undisclosed income of seized document being fastened on assessee. 8.5 We find considerable force in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
