9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that neither the assessee had been able to substantially prove that the aforesaid seized papers found from his residential premises did not belong to him, nor the A.O had been able to dislodge the claim of the assessee that the said seized papers which nowhere made any mention of his name or the name of any of his family members, did not belong to either of them. The matter requires to be revisited by the A.O for making necessary verifications. Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, we restore the matter pertaining to the addition towards alleged unexplained investment in the shares of various companies by the assessee, to the file of the A.O for readjudication. A.O in the course of the set aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who shall remain at a liberty to substantiate his aforesaid claim by placing on record fresh documentary evidence. The order of the CIT(A) is set aside in terms of our aforesaid observations. The Ground of appeal No. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.1451/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 28-6-2019 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was disallowed by the A.O. Further, it was observed by the A.O that a perusal of certain incriminating material in the form of loose papers which were found and seized during the course of the search proceedings and marked as Annexure A-1 revealed details in respect of trading of scrips of M/s Valecha Engineering Ltd. and Reliance group by the assessee, along with certain other details viz. date, quantity, and net loss or profit on sale of the said scrips during the year under consideration. On being confronted with the aforesaid fact, the assessee distanced himself from the said seized papers, and claimed that the same did not belong to him or to any of his family members and might have been left at his premises by some visitors. However, the A.O not being inspired by the aforesaid explanation of the assessee declined to accept the same. Apart there from, it was observed by the A.O that in the course of the search proceedings, the assessee on being called upon to put forth a page wise explanation in respect of the aforesaid documents had came up with a different version which was contrary to the stand taken by him in the course of the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the A.O h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sec.69B, the ld. A.R relied on the submissions made before the lower authorities. It was submitted by her that though the assessee had categorically claimed before the lower authorities that the impugned document viz. Annexure A-1 (containing Pages 1-6) did not belong to him and might have been left at his premises by some visitors, however, the A.O had summarily brushed aside the said claim and arbitrarily added the amount of ₹ 23,00,000/- as an unexplained investment u/s 69B in the hands of the assessee. 6. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short D.R ) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. As regards the disallowance of the bank charges of Rs,1,206/- claimed by the assessee against his income shown under the head income from other sources , we find that the same had been disallowed by the A.O, for the reason, that the assessee had failed to establish an inextricable nexus between incurring of the said charges and earning of the interest income shown under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loose papers revealed that the same were the copy of the ledger account of a broker containing details of trading of certain scrips of M/s Valecha Engineering Ltd. and Reliance group, alongwith certain other details viz. dates, quantity and net loss or profit on sale of said scrips during the year under consideration. On being confronted with the aforesaid documents, it was the claim of the assessee that the loose papers seized from his residential premises did not belong to him or to any of his family members, and the same might have been left at his residential premises by some visitors. The A.O was not inspired by the aforesaid explanation of the assessee for two fold reasons viz. (i) that, explanation submitted by the assessee was found to be general and was an evasive one; and (ii) that, the page wise explanation of the assessee in respect of the aforesaid documents in the course of the search proceedings clearly militated as against the stand taken by him in the course of the assessment proceedings. As observed by us hereinabove, on appeal, the CIT(A) finding no infirmity in the view taken by the A.O had thus upheld his order and dismissed the appeal. 9. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the course of the search proceedings conducted under Sec.132 from his residential premises is well founded. However, at the same time, we also cannot remain oblivious of the settled position of law that the presumption envisaged in Sec.292C can be rebutted by the assessee. In the backdrop of the aforesaid mandate of law, we are of the considered view that now when the assessee had declined that the aforesaid seized papers, marked as Annexure A-1 did not belonged to him or to any of his family members, therefore, the said claim so raised by him could not have been summarily discarded. Apart there from, we find substantial force in the claim of the assessee that the seized papers does not make any reference to his name. Insofar the term D.V mentioned on the aforesaid seized paper is concerned, we find substantial force in the claim of the assessee that on a mere assumption the said term could not have been construed as the name of the assessee viz. Dinesh Valecha , for drawing of adverse inferences in his hands. On a perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, we find that the assessee had throughout canvassed that the aforesaid seized papers did not belong to him and migh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found from his residential premises did not belong to him, nor the A.O had been able to dislodge the claim of the assessee that the said seized papers which nowhere made any mention of his name or the name of any of his family members, did not belong to either of them. In our considered view, the matter requires to be revisited by the A.O for making necessary verifications. Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, we restore the matter pertaining to the addition of ₹ 23,00,000/- towards alleged unexplained investment in the shares of various companies by the assessee, to the file of the A.O for readjudication. Needless to say, the A.O in the course of the set aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who shall remain at a liberty to substantiate his aforesaid claim by placing on record fresh documentary evidence. The order of the CIT(A) is set aside in terms of our aforesaid observations. The Ground of appeal No. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. The Ground of appeal No. 3 being general in nature is dismissed as not pressed. 12. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
