9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Ld. CIT(A) that it is not a case of making any addition against the assessee.. - Decided against revenue - ITA.No.5364/Del./2017 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2020 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri O.P. Kant, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Salil Agarwal, Advocate And Shri Shailesh Gupta, C.A. For the Revenue : Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-DR ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Revenue has been directed against the Order of Ld. CIT(A)-25, Delhi, Dated 24.03.2017, for the A.Y. 2014-15, challenging the deletion of addition of ₹ 1.90 crores on account of undisclosed interest receipts. 2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the findings of the authorities below. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and filed return of income declaring total income of ₹ 11.39 crores, which was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this case action under section 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out on 17.12.2013 and various documents/books of account etc. were found and seized. The statement of the assessee was also recorded. The assessee has de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oup. It was also explained that statement of Shri Gaurav Aggarwal of ASL group was also recorded during the course of search in which he has denied the entries. The assessee, therefore, submitted that since the maker of the entry do not support the case of the Revenue and assessee did not receive any interest, therefore, no addition could be made against the assessee. The assessee relied upon Judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs., Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom.) It was submitted that since Author of the seized document himself denied to have given any interest, therefore, no addition could be made. The A.O, however, did not accept the contention of assessee and made the addition of ₹ 1.90 crores on account of interest paid by the aforesaid parties to the assessee. 4. The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A). It is noted in the impugned order that A.O. taxed the amount of ₹ 1.90 crores as unaccounted interest paid to assessee on the basis of entries in the Laptop and documents seized during the course of search operation in the case of M/s. Allied Strips Limited [ ASL ]. Such entries were found in Diary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer though reproduced the reply dated 28.03.16 of the Assessee, failed to rebut the claims made and simply brushed aside all the facts of the case without any reasoning or discussion. 8.23. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has failed to rebut the claims of Sh. Gaurav Aggarwal, MD of M/s Allied Strips Ltd. in the statement u/s 132(4), and the claims of Sh. Ravinder Gupta, Author of the entries in the statement u/s 131 and also the facts of the case brought out by Sh. Rajesh Gupta, the Appellant. In such a situation, there is no justification for any conclusion regarding any payment or accrual of Interest. Accordingly, the addition of ₹ 1,90,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as Undisclosed Interest Income is hereby deleted. 8.24. In view of the finding that there was no payment or accrual of Interest of ₹ 1,90,00,000/-, the adjudication of the various legal issues raised by the Appellant, and also the other Grounds of Appeal is not required. 5. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the A.O. and submitted that since other entries in the seized paper were explained, therefore, adverse inference was correctl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 ITR 220 (SC) held as under : Investigation could not have been directed in case of high public functionaries on basis of legally inadmissible evidence in form of loose papers. 6.3. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs., Mahendra Ambalal Patel [2010] 40 DTR 243 (Guj.) held as under : Addition in the hands of the assessee having been made merely on the basis of a bald statement of a third party without there being any corroborative evidence, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition particularly when the assessee was not allowed opportunity to cross-examine the persons who made such a statement. 6.4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee has placed on record copy of the seized paper which was found from the laptop of Mr. Ravinder Gupta Director of ASL group of cases. In the seized paper name of the assessee is not mentioned. It is stated cash paid to BDR through Mr. Rajesh and Mr. Vikram. No statement of Mr. Rajesh and Mr. Vikram, if any, have been mentioned in the assessment order. It is not clear whether any interest have been paid to the assessee or not. Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
