9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee to file the present appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 124 days is condoned. 3. The assessee raised two grounds of appeal amongst which constitutes only issue challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.21,00,000/- on account of alleged cash consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Brief facts relating to the issue on hand are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction and development of plots. The assessee belongs to Netsurf group on which a search action was conducted on 07-05-2007. In response to notice u/s. 153A(a) of the Act, the assessee filed its return of inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and no family other than Shri Bapu Vithal Parande are given any statement showing that withdrawals are made from the accounts of other family members and paid to the assessee. Further, she argued that there was no incriminating material found during the course of search and addition made on in the absence of search material is bad under law. We find according to the ld. AR that no evidence with regard to cash payment said to have been paid to the assessee was found during the search and no credence could be given to only statement of Shri Bapu Vithal Parande amongst others his family members. The ld. AR submits that a statement u/s. 131 of the Act lacks evidentiary value and the statement made by Shri Bapu Vithal Parande and we note that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e alleged search. We note that the alleged cash was withdrawn from the accounts of Shri Bapu Vithal Parande, Shri Sandeep Parande and two others. The said person expressed his inability bring Shri Sandeep Parande and two others from whose accounts amounts have been withdrawn as witnesses to the alleged cash payment who are none of them his own family members. We note that the AO in its order at Para No. 5 clearly observed that certain documents were seized which are related to Dighi property which resulted in making addition in the hands of assessee. The CIT(A) also affirmed the said observation at Para No. 6.13 of the impugned order but no such documentary evidence brought on record before this Tribunal showing that the assessee received t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
