9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Patel. The D.R. could not controvert these facts or could controvert the findings of CIT (A) by bringing any material to the contrary on record - in favour of assessee. - IT(SS)A No 142/Ahd/2010 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2012 - SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI JJ. Appellant by : Mr. D.P. Gupta, CIT (D.R.) Respondent by : Mr. J.P. Shah. ORDER PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT (A) I, Surat dated 10-12-2009 for the block period from A.Y. 1990-91 to 1999- 2000 and period upto 2-12-1999. 2. The only effective ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal reads as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee also furnished confirmation of Shri Mohanbhai Patel (prop. of Mahavir Developers) which stated that cash of Rs.6,82,000/- belonged to him. The assessee also submitted the copy of cash book of Mahavir Developers evidencing the availability of cash balance of Rs.6,82,400/- out of which the Department had seized cash of Rs.6,65,000/-.He also submitted a copy of balance sheet of Mahavir Developers (Prop. Mohan Patel) wherein the cash seized by the Income tax Department was shown as assets. The A. O. did not accept the submissions of the assessee for the reason that in the statement made by Shri Damodarbhai Patel, at the time of search, had admitted as unaccounted receipt which according to the A.O. proves that the cash found on the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied only on this statement. By relying on the statement the addition cannot be made in the hands of the appellant as Vanit Park Project has been assessed by the Department in the hands of Shri Mohanbhai Patel, who is the proprietor of M/s. Mahavir Developers. In view of this, the addition made by the A.O. is deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT (A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee could not explain and prove the source of cash. The assessee could not explain as to who had brought the cash in the premises of the assessee, the purpose of the cash lying in its premises or any other proof to substantiate his contentions. In view of thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. Shri Damodarbhai has in the statement stated that the cash belonged to Vanita Park project. On the basis of assessment records produced before us, it is seen that Vanita Park project is developed by Mahavir Developers whose proprietor is Shri Mohanbhai Patel. Further the income from Vanita Park project is assessed in the hands of Shri Mohanbhai Patel. The Ld. D.R. could not controvert these facts or could controvert the findings of CIT (A) by bringing any material to the contrary on record. In view of these facts we are of the considered view that CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition made by A.O. and we accordingly confirm the order of CIT (A) and thus, this ground of Revenue is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
