9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) erred in sustaining the same." 3. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee is a farmer earning income from agriculture as well as dairy business for last several years and there is no change in the source of income during the year under consideration. For the year under consideration, the assessee has filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 2,46,900/- on 30.07.2014. A search was conducted in the case of Kedia and Yadav Group and in consequent of the same, assessee's premises were also searched on 19.11.2016. Accordingly, notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued on 17.02.2017 and in compliance of the same, return was e-filed on 14.08.2017 at the same total income of Rs. 2,46,900/-. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has noticed that as per page 20-21 of Exhibit No. 2, certain entries of amount given and received were coming for which explanation was called from the assessee. The assessee has explained that he is not aware of any such amount having been given or taken and further, the same has already been crossed and hence, not relevant. However ignoring the submissions of the assessee, an amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- (Kalu tauji- Rs. 1,10, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espite the affidavit of Shri Jitendra Yadav, no enquiry was made from Shri Jitendra Yadav to get further clarification on these entries. In these circumstances, there is no basis for the addition in the hands of the assessee and the same deserve to be deleted. 6. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that there was seized document found from the premises of appellant and transaction on the same are written in cash and the assessee has failed to explain the said transactions and thus the onus cast on him has not been discharged and the addition thus has rightly been made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A). He accordingly supported the findings of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee doesn't want to press ground no. 1 of his appeal, hence the same is dismissed as not pressed. Regarding ground no. 2, it is not in dispute that there was a document marked as page 20-21 of Exhibit No. 2 seized from the premises of the assessee where certain entries of amount given/taken in cash has been written. It is also a fact that no question was as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declaring income of Rs. 4,54,370/- on 10.03.2018. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has noticed certain details on page no. 15 of Exhibit No. 2 whereby an amount of Rs. 8,76,197/- was appearing as "savings". The ld. AO asked for the explanation of the same in response to which the assessee has submitted that this is merely a loose paper which is having no date or period and thus, having no relevance being a dumb document. However, the AO rejected the submission of the assessee and held the amount of Rs. 8,76,197/- as unexplained money and added the same u/s 69A of the Act which has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A) and against the said findings, the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The ld. AR drawn our reference to the provisions of Section 69A of the Act which reads as under:- "Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... papers bear no date or year and therefore, the AO was incorrect in considering the same of the year under consideration. It was also submitted that if the investigating team or the AO was of the view that some income is to be assessed on the basis of such papers then they may have recorded the statement of the assessee on this issue but a perusal of the statement would show that no enquiry was made from the assessee on this issue. Therefore, the ld. AO erred in making addition on merits also and hence the same may please be deleted. 15. Without prejudice to the above submissions, it was further submitted that the perusal of papers would reveal that it is related to some work done and there is nothing to suggest of any investments. Therefore, at best the same may be assessed as regular source of income of the assessee and not otherwise. Therefore, in light of the same, the addition made by the ld. AO has to be deleted even on this aspect. 16. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that there was seized document found from the premises of appellant and the AO has given detailed reasons as para 5.3 of his order wherein the assessee has accepted the net savings of Rs. 8,76,197/- and basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
