9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of such entries in the seized document is warranted in the hands of assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the addition of ₹ 5, 02,750/-. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessment was reopened under section 148 of the Act by the Assessing Officer, after recording reasons for reopening the assessment. The assessee inturn replied that the return of income already filed may be considered as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee asked for the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment which were supplied to the assessee and the objections raised by the assessee was addressed by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 14-02-2013 and the copy of the evidence being relied on by the Assessing Officer, was provided to the assessee. The Assessing Officer had proposed an addition of ₹ 5 lakhs in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i" are not to be attached to the firm, hence the entries do not relate to the assessee. Further no corroborative evidence was found during the course of search establishing the connection between the assessee and the Chhoriya group of assessee. He further stressed that in the absence of any business transaction with them there was no merit in holding that the said entries related to the assessee. He further pointed out that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Ratanlal C. Bafna Vs JCIT vide ITA No.91/PN/2010 & 204/PN/2012 and connected appeal vide order dated 31-03-2015 had held the similar transactions to be relatable to the assessee because of different factors, i.e. business transaction between Shri Ratanlal C. Bafna and Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efunded was mentioned as "Rajmal Lakhichandji". The case of the assessee before the Tribunal is that it is a partnership firm and the prefix "Shri" and suffix "ji" cannot be used against the assessee. Further no corroborative evidence has been found to establish any connection between the assessee and the Chhoriya group concern. In the absence of the same, the assessee claims that no addition could be made in its hands on the basis of such seized document. There is merit in the plea of the assessee that in the absence of any corroborative evidence found during the course of search from the Chhoriya group of cases in order to establish any business link or otherwise, merely because similar sounding name is found in the seized document, does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
