9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Act? 3. In Tax Appeal No.770 of 2009, appellant revenue has proposed the following two questions:- Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts of the case in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 19,00,000/- made on the basis of loose papers seized during the course of search u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act? Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has failed in appreciating that as per section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act the initial onus is on the assessee to dislodge the presumption pursuant to the loose papers which in this case has not been done by the assessee? 4. The assessee in Tax Appeal No.769 of 2009 is M/s. B.M. Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7. Both the assessees carried the matter in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and succeeded. Revenue preferred two separate appeals before the Tribunal which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal upholding the view adopted by Commissioner (Appeals). 8. On behalf of the appellant in both the appeals, learned advocate strenuously supported the assessment orders and submitted that both Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the facts in their proper perspective. It was submitted that Shri Pravin P. Agrawal from whose cabin the aforesaid documentary evidence was seized had, in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, stated that he is not aware as to how the said papers had come in his cabin an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s or ₹ 19,00,000/- would involve lot of fleet movement and during the search nothing has been found which could relate with the debit note of ₹ 19,00,000/-. Therefore, no addition on the basis of unsigned and unsubstantiated debit note is called for. The A.O. is thus directed to delete an addition of ₹ 19,00,000/-. 10. For the same reasons, the addition has also been deleted from hands of M/s. B.M. Transport by Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal has confirmed both the orders made by Commissioner (Appeals) in hands of the two assessees concurring with the findings of fact recorded by Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal has also concurred with the finding of Commissioner (Appeals) that the recovery of the document may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
