9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a. These findings of CIT(A) could not be controverted by Learned D.R. of the Revenue and moreover, the name of the assessee i.e. Pawan Kumar Agarwal is very common name and merely because this name is mentioned in a seized paper found during the course of search at Bangalore at the premises of Shri Shobhan Raj Mehta, with whom the assessee was not having any direct transaction, it cannot be said that the said Pawan Kumar Agarwal, of whom the name was mentioned in the seized paper is the assessee. Without establishing this aspect that the name mentioned in the seized paper is that of the assessee, no addition can be made in the hands of the present assessee on the basis of such seized paper. Considering these facts, we do not find any reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... II, Kanpur, has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the fact that the amount of ₹ 1,13,40,000/-, written in the chits, was decoded by Sh. Sohan Raj Mehta and that if tallied with the amounts noted in the Monthly summaries. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur, has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the fact that the chits, duly signed by Sh. Prakash Dhariwal, owner of M/s. RMD Gutkha, contained instructions to Sh. Sohan Raj Mehta, C F agent of M/s RMD Gutkha, to hand over cash amounting to ₹ 1,13,40,000/- to the assessee. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur, has erred in law and on facts in that, while accepting the assessee's contention that the A O had not provided s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying the facts from any person in absence of specific request made by the assessee.. 4. That on facts and in circumstances of the case, appellate order in the present case deserves to be upheld. 4. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A) with regard to the appeal of the revenue and in respect of the C.O. of the assessee, he reiterated the submissions before CIT (A). In addition to this, it was the main submission that the entire proceedings are initiated and completed by the Department on the basis of a seized paper, which was found in course of search conducted in Bangalore in the case of Shri Sobhan Raj Mehta, agent of RMD Brand of Gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided by learned CIT(A) as per para 7 7.1 of his order, which is reproduced below for the sake of ready reference:- 7. That vide grounds No. 3 to 7, assessee has challenged the additions of ₹ 1,13,40,000/- made on account of alleged undisclosed income. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. I have also gone through the order of the A.O. It was contended by the learned AR before me that mere jottings and notings should not be the basis for making any addition in the returned income, more particularly when A.O has not allowed the opportunity of Cross Examination of Mr. Shobhan Raj Mehta. The material provided/gathered by the department has also been produced before me. In thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Shobhan Raj Mehta. Therefore, it is clear that the addition made by the Assessing Officer purely based on guess work without any evidence, therefore this addition deserves to be deleted. 7.1 From the facts enumerated above, it is clear that the assessing officer failed to establish any case against the appellant. Further inquiry/ investigation was required to be carried out on the information passed by the ADIT(Inv.)- III, Kanpur but evidences are not collected or placed. Copies of the statements, on the basis of which additions has been made, were not provided nor was the opportunity of cross-examination given to the appellant. The assessing officer merely summarized the salient features of the report of the ADIT (Inv.)-III, Kanpu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further evidences are not found to corroborate the additions. He has also given a finding that Cross-examination of Shri Shobhan Raj Mehta was not allowed and the assessee firm had strongly denied having any financial and business transactions with Mr. Shobhan Raj Mehta. These findings of CIT(A) could not be controverted by Learned D.R. of the Revenue and moreover, the name of the assessee i.e. Pawan Kumar Agarwal is very common name and merely because this name is mentioned in a seized paper found during the course of search at Bangalore at the premises of Shri Shobhan Raj Mehta, with whom the assessee was not having any direct transaction, it cannot be said that the said Pawan Kumar Agarwal, of whom the name was mentioned in the seized pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
