9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or our consideration : "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition of Rs. 4,22,30,000/on the basis of the transactions mentioned in the seized document Page No.165 when the transactions were specific and speaking ? 3. The respondent assessee is a Doctor by profession. On 5th October, 2007, a search and seizure operation was carried out in the premises of Mr. Haren Choksi and Mr. Harshil Choksi (Choksi's). In the search operation carried on Choksi's, certain loose papers and documents were seized. One such document was a loose paper No.165 (the document) wherein certain transactions were noted pertaining to invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid, the CIT(A) in his order dated 3rd September, 2010 also records the fact that at the highest the reading of the document would only indicate that Rs. 4.22 crores is to be contributed and cannot led to the conclusion that an amount of Rs. 4.22 crores had in fact been invested by the respondent assessee in M/s. Avis Motors Pvt. Ltd. as alleged by the Revenue. The reliance by the Assessing Officer on the statement of Mrs. Kailash Tiwari (Wife of respondent) that amount of Rs. 1.54 crores as shown in the document as paid to her by Mr. Bhupendra, could not lead to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 4.22 crores has been invested by the respondent assessee in M/s. Avis Motors Pvt. Ltd. Thus, a finding of fact was rendered in the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent assessee had made an investment of Rs. 4.22 crores in Avis Motors Pvt. Ltd. On these facts, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal upholding the order of the CIT(A). 6. The Revenue's grievance before us is that Sections 64 and 65 of the Act had to be invoked and the amount of Rs. 4.22 crores had to be brought to tax in the hands of respondent assessee. 7. We are unable to understand the grievance of the Revenue before us. This was not the case of the Revenue at any time right upto the Tribunal. This is also not a ground taken in the memo of appeal. Therefore, this issue does not arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal. Therefore, we see no reason to examine the respondent assessee's grievance about applicabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
