2014 (12) TMI 837

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on unexplained expenditure – Held that:- Assessee rightly submitted that there were totaling/arithmetic error by AO while making the addition - relevant pages of paper book correctly shows that there was totaling error by AO while taking the purchases of the assessee amounting to ₹ 15,69,618/- as per the seized documents - the purchases as per books of accounts and as per seized documents were of ₹ 15,19,618/- only and therefore no addition was called for – thus, the addition made by CIT(A) is set aside – Decided in favour of assessee. - IT(SS)A No. 155/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2014 - Sri D.K Tyagi and and Shri T.R. Meena, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri K.C. Mathews, Sr.D.R. For the Respondent : Sri Prof. S. Sampa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ma dated 14th December, 2005 were found. According to these documents assessee was operating a bank account which was not reflected in the return of income and the accompanying balance sheet of the assessee. Interest from this account was also not offered for taxation. Regarding source of deposit in the account the assessee submitted that these have been received from friends and relatives and confirmations were filed but the AO held that these were not genuine and deposits were not proved as the assessee did not prove the genuineness of the transaction, identity and creditworthiness of the creditors. He also observed that there was variation in the signature of the creditors in the various confirmations filed in group cases of the assessee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... roceedings in the premises of Shri Kapadia loose paper Annexure A-1/14 containing 22 papers was seized. These papers showed the total purchases of ₹ 15,69,618/- whereas as per books of account the purchases were of ₹ 15,19,618/-. The difference was not properly explained. At the time of assessment year, therefore AO made addition of ₹ 50,000/- u/s. 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure. 10. Before ld. CIT(A), assessee s submission that there were totaling/arithmetic error by AO while making this addition was not accepted by Ld. CIT(A) in the absence of relevant details being not filed before him. However before us learned counsel of the assessee at the time of hearing took us to relevant pages of paper bo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X