9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction as per law and without recording requisite satisfaction as per law and without obtaining requisite approval as per law and without complying with the other mandatory conditions as envisaged under the Act. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment in violation of principles of natural justice in as much as passing the impugned order by recording incorrect facts and findings and without providing opportunity of cross examination and without confronting the entire adverse material used against the assessee and without providing adequate opportunity of hearing. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of advance given by the assessee to M/s BRA Associates (P) Ltd. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 3,31,4501- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw and without complying with the other mandatory conditions as envisaged under the Act. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned assessment in violation of principles of natural justice in as much as passing the impugned order by recording incorrect facts and findings and without providing opportunity of cross examination and without confronting the entire adverse material used against the assessee and without providing adequate opportunity of hearing. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.l,00,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that too on presumptive basis. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not deleting the addition of Rs. 3,31,450/- made by Ld. AO on account of unexplained expenditure. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the income from salary, long term capital gain and other sources to which assessee filed reply. Finding explanation furnished by the assessee not satisfactory, Assessing Officer, proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 98,16,450/- and Rs. 95,27,126/- qua AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively on the basis of seized document and assessed the total taxable income at Rs. 1,12,03,051/- and Rs. 95,27,120/- qua AYs 2003-04 and 2004- 05 respectively. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by challenging the assessment orders who has dismissed both the appeals. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeals. 4. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned order contended inter alia that none of the loose paper recovered from the residential premises of the Omaxe Limited bears his signatures, handwriting, address of the assessee, date, etc.; that none of the paper was recovered from the posse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having been paid by M/s. BHA Associates Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Landmark Estate Pvt. Ltd. being the sale proceeds for purchase of shop in New Friends Colony; ii. that the AO as well as CIT (A) have rejected the contention merely on the ground that the cheque number given by the assessee is 26888 whereas cheque no relied upon by assessee is 268868. To our mind, this is a typographical error in writing the cheque number which should have been verified by the AO from the debit credit entries maintained by the respective banks. So, this addition is not sustainable; iii. that addition of Rs. 40,85,000/- on the basis of loose document, available at page 3 of the paper book pertaining to AY 2003-04, is an estimate of house construction of 4800 sq.ft. @ Rs. 1,100/-. But this paper does not indicate the location of the house under construction nor does this bear the signatures and handwriting of the assessee. More so, no such house has been located by the AO belonging to the assessee having been constructed during the year under assessment nor does it indicate if the amount was paid by way of cheque or cash. So, this addition is again made by the AO on the basis of suspicion without collecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of Rs. 3,31,450/- on the basis of a seized document, available at page 2 of the paper book-B. Perusal of the document, available at page 2 of Paper Book - B, apparently shows that the document contains the figure of Rs. 50,000/- stated to have received as rent but again this document is bereft of name of the recipient, description of the rented property and as to who is the payee of the amount in question. Strangely enough, on the basis of seized document/paper showing the amount of Rs. 50,000/- the addition of Rs. 3,31,450/- has been made by the AO on the basis of whims and fancies and thereafter the ld. CIT (A) have further perpetuated the error committed by AO without insisting upon any cogent material to sustain the addition; x. that on the basis of seized document, available at page 3 of paper book - B, AO made an addition of Rs. 80,50,000/- by merely stating that the argument addressed by assessee is not acceptable. For the sake of repetition, it is again reiterated that this document is silent as to the payer and payee of the amount in question nor does it disclose that the payment was made by cheque or cash nor it is proved that the document is in the handwriting o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
