9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee could not explain and how that the said amount does not belong to him. 2) The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in holding that there was no corroborative evidence without taking into account the statement recorded u/s 132(4) and the seized document clearly mentioning the payment of Rs 22,75,000 to the assessee which was used by the AO in terms of sec. 132(4A)(ii). 3) The Ld.CIT(A) has also erred in not following the decisions having direct implication to the assessees case for the intention of sec. 132(4A)(ii). i) THIRU JOHN V. RETURNING OFFICER AIR 1977 SC 1724 - "An admission, if clearly and unequivocally made is the best evidence, Party making it and though not conclusive, shifts the onus on to the maker on the principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a sum of Rs.22.75 lakhs from Sohanraj Mehta on 22.10.2003. 6. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings against the Assessee for AY 04-05 based on his opinion that the Assessee had received a sum of Rs.22,75,000 from Mr.Sohanraj Mehta. The Assessee filed return of income on 10.5.2011 in response to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act for reassessment of income. 7. On 05.08.2011, the assessee was examined by the DCIT, Central Circle 2(2) u/s. 131 of the Act. The Assessee denied having received the sum of Rs.22,75,000/- from Sohanraj Mehta. The assessee submitted that he had rendered services to Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and was paid a sum of Rs.50,000 and Rs.1,75,000 after due deduction of tax at source, which has been offered to tax as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h document can also be presumed to be true. 10. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition made by the AO observing as follows:- "4.2 At page 3 of the Statement of Facts accompanying the appeal memo vide serial No.f(iv), the appellant has made the following submissions: '(iv) The impugned addition of Rs.22,75,000/- has been made by the Respondent just on the basis of the entry found in the aforesaid page 34 and 4l of the seized material marked as A/M/8, without satisfying himself as to the nature of the receipt, whether the same constitutes an income chargeable in the hands of the Appellant, whether the same was really paid by Mr. Sohanraj to the Appellant and without producing the evidence of such statement of Mr.S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.22,75,000/- to the appellant as income in his hands. Merely on the strength of a seized document in the case of another assessee suggesting a payment to the appellant, this addition cannot be sustained. The addition of Rs.22,75,000/- made to the income of the appellant by the AO is, therefore, deleted." 11. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 12. We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR, who relied on the order of the AO. With reference to ground No.2, a query was raised as to the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act referred to in the said ground. It was pointed out that the AO did not base his conclusions on any statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act. In fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
