9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d/2010 for A.Y.2005-2006, three more grounds were raised, which will be adjudicated separately in this order. 3. The ground nos.1 to 3 in IT(SS)A.No.06 to 9 and 11 & 12/Ahd/2010 and ground no.1 & 2 in IT(SS)A No.10/Ahd/2010 are similarly worded except difference in figure of addition, therefore, we reproduce the common grounds raised in IT(SS)A.No.6/Ahd/2010 for the sake of convenience as under: "1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions of Rs.24,88,499/- made on account of rejection of claim u/s.44AE of the Act, ignoring that the accounting soft ware file tally 54 seized from the business premises of the assessee reflects 12 vehicles during the course of search and survey on 31.05.2006, even after a long gap of three F. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4AE of the Act. He relied on the order of the AO. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the computer file seized by the department during the search action pertained to the assessment year 2004-2005 and out of 12 vehicles in the table reproduced by the AO in the assessment order, the assessee has sold 7 and acquired 4 during the financial year 2002-2003. He submitted that the sale proceeds from these vehicles were recorded in the bank account of the assessee. He submitted that the allegation of the AO that the assessee has held the sold vehicles in benami names was without any evidence and basis. He submitted that the AO has not examined the purchasers of these vehicles although copy of the sale deed in respect of the vehi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee for plying of trucks. We find that no evidence to prove the charge of benami trucks owned by the assessee could be brought on record by the Revenue. The AO has not summoned the purchasers of these vehicles although their complete addresses were evident from the copies of the sale deed in respect of these vehicles filed by the assessee. The sale proceeds from these vehicles were recorded in the bank account of the assessee and the value of the block of assets was reduced by the amount of sale proceeds of these vehicles. Even during the course of search proceedings no incriminating evidence were found by the department to suggest that the vehicles even after the sale thereof in fact belonged to the assessee and that the assessee owned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee and there will be no revenue gain. However, in view of our finding that the provisions of section 44AE of the Act is applicable to the case of the assessee, we find that there is no merit in the grounds of the appeals of the Revenue and accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the Revenue in all the appeals are dismissed. IT(SS)A No.10/Ahd/2010 (A.Y.2005-2006) 8. The grounds of appeal nos.1 & 2 of the Revenue have been dismissed in the foregoing paras of this order. 9. The remaining ground of the above appeal of the Revenue for adjudication read as under: "3. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the additions made on account of unaccounted income of Rs.1,61,207/- on account of unexplained entries in page n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly confirmed and the Ground No.3 of the Revenue is dismissed. 11. The Ground No.4, 5 and 6 of the appeal of the Revenue are as under: 4) The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the additions made on account of unexplained expenditure of Rs.5,51,000/- on account of entries in the loose paper file annexure A-3 on page no.72, (Enclosed as Annexure-B) seized during the course of search and survey on 31.05.2006, by the A.O. accepting the plea of the assessee that the said payment is made for purchase of marble, ignoring that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had taken different stand that the said payment was made to one Mr.Ravi Sharma, truck driver. 5) The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per (Annexure-A3) on which some petty cash advances on different dates given to Shri Ravi Varma were written. The assessee has explained in his statement that he was not provided the copies of the seized paper and therefore he had by mistake stated that the amount was provided to tanker driver Ravi Varma. The assessee explained during the course of assessment proceedings itself that the amounts mentioned in the seized paper advanced to Shri Ravi Varma were for supply of marbles for house construction and were recorded in the regular books of accounts of the assessee. The case of the assessee is that the AO has wrongly rejected the explanation of the assessee which was supported by the regular books of accounts. We find that the AO has not, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
