9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 33,90,5501- on account of cash found during the search especially in view of the following: - a) By holding that during the search, neither confirmation was filed nor books of account of M/s MGF Development Ltd. were produced. b) In ignoring the fact that imprest was taken for business purposes. c) In holding that the appellant has failed to explain why imprest was taken without providing any opportunity to explain the same. d) In referring to section 269SS and 40A(3) which are not applicable in respect of imprest." 3. Briefly stated, the fact giving rise to this appeal are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out in the case of the assessee on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o CIT(A) by the AO, it has been mentioned that regarding balance cash of Rs. 33,90,550/-, the assessee had furnished confirmation during the course of assessment proceedings to the effect that this amount belonged to M/s MGF Development Ltd. and the confirmatory letter dated 13.11.2009 was placed on record. Ld. Counsel vehemently contended that the AO, despite the confirmation, wrongly held that the alleged confirmation was furnished more than two years after the date of search and the same appears to be an afterthought on the part of the assessee to explain the cash found at the time of search. 7. Ld. counsel submitted that the AO could have verified this very factum from the assessment record of M/s MGF Development Ltd. who gave confirma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shravan Gupta clearly replied to the questions of the revenue authorities that the relevant details would be provided for verification. Ld. Counsel has also drawn our attention towards paper book page 42 and submitted that the same impugned amount has been returned by the assessee to M/s MGF Developers Ltd. on 15.2.2007 which also fortifies the explanation of the assessee that the impugned amount of addition upheld and confirmed by the CIT(A) was returned by the assessee to M/s MGF Developers Ltd. 9. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings as well as first appellate proceedings, the assessee clearly submitted a sustainable explanation that the amount of cash seized was inclusive of imprest a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted for verification as and when the same will be required. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee stated that the cash amount of Rs. 33,90,550 belonged to M/s MGF Development Ltd. This letter dated 15.12.2009 was submitted to the AO. Further, during first appellate proceedings, the AO admitted that the assessee had furnished confirmation during the course of assessment proceeding to the effect that the impugned amount of cash belonged to M/s MGF Development Ltd. and the AO also alleged that the confirmation has been furnished after more than two years of search, therefore, it appears to be an after thought which cannot be the basis for rejection of confirmation without any further examination and verification from the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
