TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Maad Realtors and Infra Private Limited nor granted opportunity of cross examination to the assessee. Thus, the impugned addition is based only on entry found in the seized documents, without the same being corroborated with any other evidence found during the course of search or post search investigations and assessments. Further, we agree with the submission of learned A.R. that section 292C of the Act is not applicable in the present case, as it is not the claim of Revenue that seized documents were found in the possession of the assessee. Decided in favour of assessee. Addition on account of unexplained expenditure - HELD THAT:- From the contents of loose documents, as mentioned in the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), it is evident that the same is nothing but the calculation of cumulative interest on month-to-month basis by charging the interest in the next month on the principal plus interest of the preceding month. Further, the details do not show any payment or receipt of interest on monthly basis, otherwise, the principal amount would have been actually reduced rather than being increased. In the present case, no evidence has been brought on record by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d natural justice have been breached and for that reason also the addition is required to be deleted. 4. The only issue arising in assessee s appeal is with regard to addition of Rs. 25,00,000 as unexplained cash loan given by the assessee to M/s Maad Realtors and Infra Private Limited. 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from the record are: The assessee is an individual and engaged in business of construction activities in the name and style M/s Y.K. Sons . The assessee is also a partner in various firms. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 31.07.2014 in AMEYA group of cases including at the residence of the assessee. Notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 15.12.2014 for the assessment years 2009 10 to 2014 15. In response to notice under section 153A of the Act, assessee filed his return of income for the assessment years 2009 10 to 2014 15 and regular return of income for the assessment year 2015 16. The assessee was provided with the copies of statement recorded during the search and survey vide letter dated 23.03.2015. 6. Separately, during the course of search proceedings in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25,00,000 against the name of Nana i.e. the assessee is appearing in voucher No. 55 at seized page 15 dated 16.12.2010. The learned CIT(A) further observed that at page No. 59 is the unsecured loan from other group summary for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.05.2013 indicating liability of Rs. 2,00,00,000 towards Rajiv Patil. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the 2 accounts do not relate to the same period and therefore the claim of the assessee on the basis of seized page 59 cannot be accepted. The learned CIT(A) further held that the assessee was given full information on the documents found during the course of search and which was sought to be used against the assessee. As a result, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. During the course of hearing, Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, learned Authorised Representative ( learned A.R. ) submitted that the assessee only gave loan of Rs. 2,00,00,000 to M/s Maad Realtors and Infra Private Limited which was rightly recorded at seized page No. 59. The learned A.R. by referring to letter dated 08.09.2016 filed by accountant of M/s Maad Realtors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as investment by Rashmi Ameya Developers Housing Estate Realtors Ltd, the Assessing Officer neither called for any information / document from Rashmi Ameya Developers Housing Estate Realtors Ltd. nor issued any notice under section 133(6) of the Act to ascertain the authenticity of such a statement. In the present case, it is evident that the Assessing Officer completely dis-regarded the aforesaid letter dated 08.09.2016 and merely on the basis of seized document page 15 made addition in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash loan to M/s Maad Realtors and Infra Private Limited. Further, the Assessing Officer also neither recorded any statement of the director/partner of M/s Maad Realtors and Infra Private Limited nor granted opportunity of cross examination to the assessee. Thus, the impugned addition is based only on entry found in the seized documents, without the same being corroborated with any other evidence found during the course of search or post search investigations and assessments. Further, we agree with the submission of learned A.R. that section 292C of the Act is not applicable in the present case, as it is not the claim of Revenue that seized documents wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tively involved in political and social affairs of his area and his guidance is sought by various personal in social, political as well as business affairs. In the course of such activity, the above papers must have been brought to his office and have remained there. The assessee further submitted that the papers found and impounded from his office belong to various entities with which he has no direct connection and on the basis of such papers proceedings under section 153C of the Act have been initiated. The assessee further submitted that from the examination of the said papers it is apparent that the concern investments have been made in financial years which are prior to the assessment years under consideration. 16. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 19.09.2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act did not agree with the submission of the assessee and held that the documents seized were found in the possession of the assessee and thus the onus is on the assessee of explaining the same. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,11,97,690 as unexplained payment made by the assessee. 17. In appeal before the learned CIT(A), the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
