9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessment year [A.Y.] 2013-14, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's appeal against assessment order dated 26.03.2022. 2. The brief facts state that the appellant assessee is an individual engaged in the business of professional photography. Assessee filed his return of income on 26.09.2013 for A.Y. 2013-14, declaring total income of Rs. 29,13,171/-. On the basis of an information uploaded by the investigation wing of the department, it came to the notice of learned assessing officer that a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in October 2017 in the case of M/s. Evergreen Enterprises. On the basis of documents found and seized during the course of search action, it was established that Shri. Nilesh Bhara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and accordingly the assessment framed in the case of the appellant u/s 147 r.w.s 144B was bad in law, void-ab-intio and is required to be struck down on that account. 2. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in upholding the re-opening the assessment u/s 147 of the I. Tax Act 1961, by issue of the notice u/s 148 dt. 31.03.2021, only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, of the Income Tax Department, without there being any independent and valid reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and therefore the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 as well as the asst. order flowing therefrom was invalid and bad in law and was required to be quashed. 3. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The objection of the assessee against the reasons were not disposed of by the learned assessing officer. No incriminating evidence was shared with assessee before making the quantum addition. The addition has been made merely on the basis of unauthenticated documents found in search and on the basis of statements of Nilesh Bharani, (Partner), Ashwin Amritlal Rathod (Accountant) and Vibha Sachin Rawate (Account assistant) of M/s. Evergreen Enterprises. No opportunity to cross examine these persons was afforded to assessee. It was further submitted by the learned AR that the assessment order passed u/s. 147 r/w section 144B is bad in law as the assessment should have been u/s. 153C of the Act. Learned AR has further submitted that the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has relied on the statements recorded proceeded to make addition towards the alleged cash loans given by the assessee as unexplained under section 69A of the Act. Before the CIT(A), the assessee raised legal issues with regard to the addition and also contended the issue on merits stating that the AO has not brought anything incriminating the assessee to substantiate the addition. We in this regard notice that the CIT(A) has not given any specific findings regarding the contentions on merits while dismissing the appeal. 9. From the perusal of seized material and the statements recorded, we notice that the accountant in the statements recorded has explained how the entries are to be decoded for understanding what each entry means really. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n record and given thoughtful consideration to the rival claims of the parties and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is very much clear from the impugned order that the same is an un-reasonable order and passed in cryptic manner, therefore, on this aspect itself, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. However still we want to go to the merits of the case. We observe that the Assessing Officer made the additions mainly on the ground that Shri Nilesh Bharani in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act has admitted that he was in the business of lending/ borrowing money in cash (unaccounted and undisclosed business). Further, in the course of search, a diary has been seized wherein inter-alia following entri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ergreen Enterprises who otherwise neither named nor specified the role and also not connected the Assessee specifically and the aforesaid facts/entries made in the diary as noted above by us, in fact, is not at all substantive material to make and sustain the addition as done by the authorities below in this case and, therefore, we are inclined to delete the addition. Consequently, the addition under consideration stands deleted. 10. The facts and circumstances of assessee's case is identical, where the AO has interpreted the alphabets and the figures in the similar manner to hold that the assessee has given cash loans to Shri Nilesh Bharani. Further in assessee's case nothing has been brought on record by the AO to substantiate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
