TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... financial year 2004-05. In response to the notice issued under section 153A, the assessee has filed returns of income for the assessment years 2000-01, 2001- 02 and 2003-04 as under : A.Y. Returned income Date of filing 2000-01 6,22,412 27.11.2006 2001-02 6,97,380 -do- 2003-04 7,71,780 -do- 2.1. While completing the assessment, the A.O. observed from the seized material that the assessee had made huge investments in M/s. Sujana Metal P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of search, no incriminating materials have been found except the seized document A/SUIL/B6/10, which is a dumb material and the other seized material is only a compact disc and the above amounts have already been reflected in the books of the M/s. Sujana Metal Products Ltd., for the respective financial years relevant to the Assessment year and no detection has taken place and hence the additions made is not justified and bad in law. We would like to submit that, the assessee has furnished all the relevant information and justification and clarification which has been raised and the same has not been considered which is not correct and not justified and bad in law. Hence, the additions towards unaccounted investment for all the th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se papers would lead to no conclusion whatsoever and these loose papers will have to be considered as dumb papers - Aswin Kumar Vs ITO (1991) 39 ITD 183 (DEL) relied on. The reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra vs. Sushil AIR 1965 SC 367. In the case of S.K. Gupta vs. DCIT 1999 063 IT J 0532 T DEL Search and seizure-Block assessment-Estate agent-Loose sheet and torn papers found during raid relating to purchase/sale of property-Entries made thereon related to some futuristic planning-Purchase and sale of properties had actually taken place-No evidence to show that there was any undisclosed investment or any sale of any property-Presumption arising under s. 132(4A) is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence of any cogent material, the additions made for the impugned assessment years have to be deleted and the assessing officer is directed accordingly. 4. The second ground of addition is with respect to fixed deposits interest for the assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2003-04. The assessee s explanation was considered by the CIT(A) but the CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and therefore, confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer in this regard for all the three impugned assessment years. 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), the department has filed appeal and has raised following grounds : 1. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous in law and on facts of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Off icer on the basis of material available on record which itself shall show the details of the addition. It is very important to have direct evidence or conclusive evidence to determine the income. The Assessing Officer could make the addition on the basis of direct evidence on hand. If there is direct evidence on hand with the Assessing Off icer for small period covering the assessment year, he could use the same for estimating the income of the whole year and as such the addition cannot be made only on presumption basis. In this case the material considered by the Assessing Off icer for assessment is only loose sheets containing investments made by the partners of the firm. But the Assessing Officer not taken any pains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r cannot, once again, rely solely on the very same seized documents marked as A/GAR/5 and repeat the addition set aside by the Tribunal. Until and unless the Assessing Officer is able to establish any undisclosed income by gathering any material relevant to the seized material, he is precluded from relying on the loose slips and note book, etc., alone for making the addition in question. While passing the consequential order, the Assessing Officer wholly relied on the unsubstantiated seized material alone, and thereby did not strictly comply with the directions of the Tribunal. The CIT(A) in the circumstances of the case, taking due cognizance of the specific directions of the Tribunal, has correctly deleted the addition made by the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
