9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-III, Hyderabad dated 26.3.2009 for assessment year 2006-07. 2. The crux of the grounds raised by the Revenue is deletion of addition of Rs. 1.25 crores. Brief facts of the issue are that the assessee firm is engaged in construction business. It filed its return for A.Y. 2006-07 showing total income of Rs. 30,67,925. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istered in the month of April, 2007. No investment was made in this project in the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2006-07. No investment was made in the MKD Site since the ULC Approval was not received for this Site. Hence, the cash investment mentioned in respect of these two sites in the impounded document was only the projected/proposed investments. The cash expenses of Rs. 13,50,000 mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose sheets. Further he observed that a charge on the basis of the impounded/seized document can be levied only when the document is a speaking one and should speak either out of itself or in the company of other material found on investigation. The speaking from the document should be loud, clear and unambiguous. If it is not so, then the document is only a dumb document and no charge can be levie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial evidence. There should be cogent material to substantiate the loose slips. Income of the assessee is to be computed by the Assessing Officer on the basis of material available on record which itself shall show the details of the addition. It is very important to have direct evidence or conclusive evidence to determine the income. The Assessing Officer could make the addition on the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
