9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the assessee and his family members and relatives were found with details of the investment of money in different shares. The amount shown in the diary was Rs. 13,73,136. The Assessing Officer considered the said amount as undisclosed income of the assessee and passed assessment order. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and held that the inclusion of the said amount to the income of the assessee is illegal. The Department filed an appeal before the appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, in its order in paragraphs 23, 24, 25 and 29 has made the following observations : "23. As regards ground No. 2-addition of Rs. 13,73,136, Rs. 1,25,000, Rs. 38,500, Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 1,00,000. The Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... members' name cannot be easily brushed out unless there is documents showing that the investment belongs to the assessee with corroborative evidence. The seizure of the documents from the custody of Hazarimal Bajaj does not lead to addition without justification since Mr. Hazarimal Bajaj accepted that the investment belongs to him and his family members. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the addition of Rs. 13,73,136 is not justified since no specific evidence has brought on record by the Assessing Officer that this investment based on the seized documents GD-8 to GD-12 relates to the asses see and not Mr. Hazarimal Bajaj. 24. In the case of gift received by Mishrilal Bajaj and withdrawal from the bank Rs. 1,25,000, he is the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, therefore, such admission being evidenced has to be controverted by the Revenue on the basis of evidence found during the search. Not doing so, the addition for the name sake cannot be justified." 2. The Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that the addition of the amount of the income of the assessee was illegal and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with elaborate discussion with reference to the evidence. 3. Upon considering the order of the Appellate Tribunal, we do not find that there is any perversity in appreciating the materials on record and in coming to the conclusion. 4. The only possible question, the Revenue could urge that the finding of the Appellate T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
