9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the course of search in Anant Steel Group containing the name of the assessee with three transactions of purchase of material in the name of the assessee. The crux of arguments on behalf of the Revenue is identical to the ground raised whereas the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Mrs. Richa Parwal, defended the impugned order. 2.1 We have perused the record and considered the arguments advanced by the learned respective counsel. The facts, in brief, are that survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act were conducted on 25.1.2007. Certain discrepancies were claimed to be found in the cash and stock at the business premises of M/s Parakh Sales. During the course of search u/s 132(1), in the case of Anant Steel Group, certain loose papers of Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny of the amount appearing in the seized papers. Thus on consideration of over all facts and circumstances case on record and in view of nature of document as discussed above and pre-ponder ant judicial view such addition is not found to be justified and accordingly directed to be deleted." In view of the above uncontroverted finding, we find no justification to interfere with the conclusion drawn in the impugned order and specifically the fact that the payments were made through banking channel and there was no co-relation of the impugned amounts with the seized papers. Therefore, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 3. The next ground pertains to deleting the addition of Rs.2,91,692/- made for shortage of cash which was held as unex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee. As per the Revenue, this cash was not found entered and only up to 29.11.2006 was entered. The statement of the assessee was recorded. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 2,91,662/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition as we have reproduced hereinabove. There is a categorical finding in the impugned order that the assessee claimed that such amount was utilised for purchase of goods and it was found by him that the cash was not unexplained. This finding was not controverted by the Revenue, therefore, we affirm the stand of the CIT(A). 4. The next ground pertains to deletion of addition of Rs. 1,04,830/- by the learned CIT(A) which was made by the Assessing Officer on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, the addition made by A.O. by treating the purchases from M/s Guru Nanak Traders and M/s Jitu Steels at Rs. 4,75,635/- as unexplained is not found to be justified and accordingly directed to be deleted." 5.2 We find that the impugned addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the plea that bill no. 4 dated 19.1.2007 of M/s Guru Nanak Traders for an amount of Rs. 3,55,000/- was found at the business premises of the assessee. The assessee tendered in his statement that the goods mentioned in the bills have not been delivered till date and were transported through Sanjay Transport Company of Jabalpur on 20.1.2007 only. Identically bill bearing no. 76 dated 20.1.2007 of M/s Jeetu Steels for Rs.1,20,365/- was found which was issued in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
