9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition was made on estimated basis and on assumptions without referring to the specific information in the seized material or any other material – The AO has not given any specific logic on which basis he has computed the figure of Rs Rs.48,49,000/- Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.1436/Hyd/12 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2013 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Appellant : Sri M. Ravindra Sai For the Respondent : Sri B. Sai Prasad ORDER Per Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member: This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order dated 22-6-2012 passed in ITA No.1200/DCIT CC-4,Hyd/CIT (A)-VIII/2010- 11 pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. The only grievance of the department in the present appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were recorded from the assessee as well as Sri Jitender Kumar Kedia, MD of M/s Kedia Alloys Limited wherein details of payments made by the assessee and the amount received back by him on account of cancellation of deal was stated. The assessee further submitted that the additions were adhoc in nature and routine and general disallowances which do not have any connection with the seized material cannot be made in an assessment u/s 153A of the Act. Since the basis for making the addition was not clear from the assessment order the CIT (A) requested the AO to indicate the basis for such addition and also to transmit the copies of the seized material which were referred to by the AO while making the impugned addition. In response to the query ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arwal and Sri Jitender Kedia, the amounts as appearing at page Nos. 29 to 33 represent the amounts transacted between the two parties towards the taking over of the factory on lease, for which certain amounts were paid by Bharat Kumar Agarwal which have been repaid by Sri Jitender Kedia later through banking channels and were shown to have been accounted in their books on which no queries were raised by the AO. These facts clearly indicates that there is no material ground for the AO to arrive at the basis for quantification of the amounts and making the addition of Rs.48,90,000/-. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the addition was made on estimated basis and on assumptions without referring to the specific inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee and Jitender Kumar Kedia submitted that both of them have categorically stated the amount paid towards lease and amount refunded on failure of the lease agreement. The ld. AR submitted that there being no material on record to prove that the assessee had incurred the expenditure of the said amount the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the same. 7. We have heard submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. It is quite evident from the assessment order that the AO has added the amount of Rs.48,90,000/- by simply observing that as per the seized material the assessee has incurred sundry expenditure of the aforesaid amount. It is not at all intelligible from the assessment order on what basis the AO has arrived a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
