TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: This bunch of three appeals at the instance of the Assessee are directed against the orders dated 28.07.2021 (for A.Ys. 2008-09 2011-12) 27.07.2021 (for A.Y. 2010-11) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the assessment order dated 12.02.2016, 15.12.2017 11.12.2017; respectively, passed by the Learned ITO, Ward- 3(2), Jamnagar, under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to the Act ) for Assessment Years 2008-09, 2010-11 2011-12. ITA No. 104/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2010-11 2. The assessee, an individual engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of brass parts, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 03.08.2010 declaring total income at Rs.3,06,610/-. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act in relation to the inquiry of suspicious transactions carried out against Late Shri Chhotalal V. Doshi (Prop. of Abhi Enterprise) and it was found that he used to lend his bank account to other p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. We have further considered the judgment relied upon by the assessee in the case of Shri Mukeshkumar Vrajlal vs. ITO (supra). While granting relief on the identical issue, the Co-ordinate Bench was pleased to observed as follows: 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the addition cannot be made based on the third party allegations without any evidences and without considering the submissions made after cross examination of the third party. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee s appeal with the following observations: 8.1 It is seen that the appellant sought cross examination of Shri Dharmendra Doshi son of Late Shri Chhotglal V. Doshi on whose statement the reopening was made. The appellant was provided with an opportunity to cross examine the said Dharmendra Doshi during the assessment proceedings. It is claimed by the appellant that the said Dharmendra Doshi had made entries in the diary based on the directions of his late father and the said Dharmendra Doshi had admitted during the cross examination that he did not know the appellant. It is also claimed by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dharmendra Doshi. He submitted that the additions have been made only on the basis of submissions made by Shri Dharmendra Doshi, which cannot be relied upon. He submitted that in the cross examination of Dharmendra Doshi, he could not give any sort of evidences that alleged transactions were carried out by the assessee, and it is only on the basis of oral instructions from his father he has mentioned the assessee s name in the fabricated diary. In cross examination, therefore Shri Dharmendra Doshi was unable to submit any evidence of whatsoever nature, either direct/indirect/corroborative/substantive to establish that the assessee has carried out any sort of financial transactions with late Shri Chhota Lal Doshi (proprietor of Abhi Enterprises). Shri Dharmendra Doshi has only stated that he has written the assessee s name in the diary on the basis of oral instructions from his father late Shri Chhota Lal Doshi who expired on 12- 11-2010. Other than oral instruction of his father, he has no evidence to prove that the assessee has engaged in the financial transactions on the basis of which the additions have been made by the AO. Further, Shri Dharmendra Doshi was unable to submit nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposited, as the same needs to be withdrawn and be given to the beneficiaries. .. Therefore, there is a reasonable probability that the said transaction pertains to the appellant based on the entry in the diary and it is also not mandatory under the Income Tax that the evidence should be beyond doubt to assess a transaction. Considering the same, the addition made is upheld and the ground nos. 2 3 are dismissed. Therefore, from the above observations of the Ld. CIT(A) while passing the order, it is evident that the additions were made only on the basis of a reasonable probability that the money belonged to the assessee, and no substantive corroborative evidence has been adduced to show that the money belonged to the assessee. 6.1 In the case of Abhay Kumar Bharamgouda Patil [2018] 96 taxmann.com 377 (Panaji - Trib.), a survey was carried out in case of society carrying on banking business. In course of survey, a diary was impounded which was maintained by one AGM of said society. The Assessing Officer noted that diary contained entries of deposits received from various persons. He thus recorded statement of said AGM, who admitted that said deposits were undisclosed mone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
