9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reon based on the evidences on the same seized documents? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 59,81,951 for assessment year 2007-08 made by the Assessing Officer based on the evidences seized during the course of search while at the same time confirming similar addition made for assessment year 2009-10 drawing two different inferences on the same evidence? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were right in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the additions of Rs. 1,08,22,620 and Rs. 63,03,000 for assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing on record any substantive corroborative material evidencing that the transactions in question had actually taken place. As such, in our view, the Assessing Officer has not been able to substantiate or establish with any material evidence his conclusion that the entries in the documents at pages 3 to 6 in A/1/MKP represents some transaction which had actually transpired. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, we find no requirement for interference with the decision of the learned CIT (Appeals) in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer i.e. Rs. 75,88,800 and Rs. 32,33,820. Consequently Ground No.1 raised by Revenue is dismissed." 4. Further the Tribunal at paras 8.3.1 to 9 has observed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in the matter. We, accordingly dismiss ground No.2 raised by revenue. 9. In the result, revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed." The aforesaid shows that before CIT (Appeals) as we ll as before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the fact as to whether the transaction had taken place or not, in case of Mr. Atul Kumar was not proved. Even in case of S. Chandrasekhar, substantive material evidence to establish that the transaction had actually taken p lace was also not let in. 5. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has confirmed the view taken by the CIT (Appeals) for deletion of the addition made and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed. 6. As such, in our view, the aforesaid aspects would fall in the are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
