9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad taken place. Other than the seized document at page 1 of A/1/MKP found in the possession of the other person, the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any substantive material evidence to establish that the transaction had actually taken place. In this factual matrix, we concur with the finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) that the Assessing Officer has failed to substantiate with material evidence his stand that the entries at page 1 of seized material A/1/MKP represent undisclosed advances given by the assessee to Shri.S. Chandrasekhar. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) in deleting the additions made and consequently uphold by ITAT - Decided in favour of assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng similar addition made for assessment year 2009-10 drawing two different inferences on the same evidence? 2. We have heard Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. 3. We may record that the Tribunal while considering the aforesaid aspects at para 7.3 has observed thus: 7.3 We have heard both the learned Departmental Representative for revenue and the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee. It is not in dispute that the basis for the additions made by the Assessing Officer is the seized material at pages 3 to 6 of A/1/MKP; seized from the office premises of M/s. Mookambika Promoters, belonging to the S. Chandrashekar group of cases/concerns. The documents were not seized from the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee and perused and carefully considered the material on record. It is not in dispute that the basis for the addition made is page 1 of loose papers A/1/MKP seized not from the possession of the assessee but from the office premises of M/s. Mookambika Promoters belonging to the S.Chandrasekhar group of concerns. The learned CIT (Appeals) has observed that the document contains entries suggesting money transactions related to a property deal, between the assessee and Shri.S.Chandrasekhar. The person from whose possession the documents were seized, Shri.S. Chandrasekhar has also denied that any such transaction had taken place. Other than the seized document at page 1 of A/1/MKP found i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ope of the present appeals which is limited to judicial scrutiny of substantial questions of law. 7. However, Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that questio n No.1 would arise, since the Tribunal in respect of the very documents seized from the premises of other person has accepted the claim of the department for the assessment year 2009-2010, but did not accept the stand of the Revenue in respect of the assessment y ears 2007-08 and 2008-2009 and therefore it can be said that there is perversity in the finding of the Tribunal. 8. Had it been the same document pertaining to the very transaction, one might gather that there m ay be perversity but it is not pertaining to the same transaction. Furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
