9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO and as such the same was treated as unexplained investment in the hands of the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant did not elaborate on the issue, except referring to the statement of the fact where in it was merely mentioned that payments were denied. No further explanation was offered as regards to the payments if the same, to a political party. In the absence of a clear explanation with required evidence, the argument of the appellant is not acceptable. - Decided against assessee. Deletion of investment in house - Non production of books of accounts - Held that:- After perusing the detailed order of Ld. CIT(A) and submission by learned D.R. and A.R., we are of the opinion that Ld. CIT(A) should have deleted the additions himself without directing the A.O. to examine and allow. If A.O. refuses to examine/consider the evidence furnished by assessee when matter was remanded by CIT(A), there is no point in directing the A.O. again. Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in Revenue contentions. Assessee has placed on record the consequential order passed by A.O. wherein A.O. accepted the investments. Therefore, on facts there is no merit in Revenue c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by one Mr. Naveen Chand of Tandur, for obtaining loan/advance of ₹ 5,00,000 from the assessee, along with a blank cheque also for an amount of ₹ 5,00,000. During the examination on oath as well as' during the course of the survey and post-survey proceedings, the Assessing Officer found the explanation of the assessee i.e. Mr. Muralidhar Rao to be not consistent with the information found in the impounded material. Hence, the AO disbelieved the submissions of the assessee that assessee does not know why Mr. Naveen Chand of Tandur executed a promissory note along with a blank cheque for ₹ 5 lakhs, while admitting simultaneously the identity of the party/loanee. Accordingly, A.O treated the amount of ₹ 5,00,000 as mentioned in the promissory note and reflected in the blank cheque, as the unexplained investment of the assessee. 6. Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee had objected for such addition and submitted that assessee could not trace whereabouts of Mr. Naveen Chand who might have shifted his address from Tandur, and his present whereabouts were not known. It was contended that no such loan of ₹ 5 lakh was given by assessee to Mr. Naveen Chand. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly, the addition of ₹ 5 lakh is sustained. The appellant fails on this ground of appeal. 8. Learned A.R. contended that there is neither the date nor year, nor evidence that assessee advanced any amount. In fact, impounded documents are in possession of department which indicates that no monies are advanced and there is no validity to the documents. It was further submitted that no other advances were found in survey and assessee is not doing any money lending activity. Learned D.R. relied on the order of authorities. 9. Having perused the copies of documents placed on record and considering the contentions, we are of the opinion that no addition can be made on the basis of such dumb documents. There is no evidence that assessee is in the money lending activity. The document does not contain any date so that the same can be taxed in the year under consideration. Moreover, Mr. Navin Chand is not available to verify. Department also did not take any steps to trace out the details from the cheque impounded like the Bank account details and further whereabouts of Mr. Navin Chand. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, the statement made by assessee has to be accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt referred to in the impounded material, it can be inferred that the amounts were not explained by the appellant. Based on the facts, rather the amounts could have been treated as unexplained expenditure. Regardless of the nature the amount stand as an outflow of the cash from the hands of the appellant for which the sources are not explained, as such the addition made by the assessing officer stands sustained. This ground of appeal is therefore, dismissed . 13. Nothing was brought on record to counter the findings of Ld. CIT(A). In the absence of any explanation from assessee, we confirm the same. Ground is rejected. 14. In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed. ITA.No.429/Hyd/2013 : 15. In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following grounds : 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee failed to produce the books of accounts and other relevant information during the course of assessment proceedings and failed to discharge the onus of substantiating the claims made with corroborative evidences. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed or dismissed the grounds of the assessee and would not have directed the A.O. for ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
