9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther corroborative evidences to substantiate the said noting in the loose paper. The entire addition has been based on this single noting found in this loose paper without any corroborative evidences. Even at the time of hearing, the Ld. DR could not place on record any relevant document, evidences in order to substantiate and corroborate the addition made on the basis of that entry in the loose paper. Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Amrutlal Runawal Vs. TRO [2015 (12) TMI 958 - ITAT PUNE] and Addl. CIT Vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1973 (6) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein it is a settled legal position that it is not correct for the Assessing Officer to just rely on the noting found on the loose paper and make addition in the ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he final reasst. order passed u/s.147 was not valid at all. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,87,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had received the said amount on account of transfer of tenancy rights held by the assessee in the shop at Laxmi Road, Pune. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O. of ₹ 1,87,00,000/- on the basis of the tax evasion petition filed by third party without appreciating that no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the evidences furnished by the third party and accordingly, the entire addition should be deleted. 5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is a Charitable Trust carrying out the activity of running of School. These two shops were given on lease by the Trust to late Smt. Sushilabai B. Agarwal on a nominal monthly rent. It is also seen that the said tenancy rights (in respect of said shop no. 30 and 31 at Saraswati Vilas Building, Laxmi Road, Pune) were transferred to Shri. Shamjibhai Shah and other on 15/07/2006 against cash consideration of ₹ 2.12 crore. It is learnt that Smt. Sushilabai B Agarwal has passed away in the year 2005. Thus, as on the date of above cash transaction of ₹ 2.12 crore, Smt. Sushilabai B Agarwal was no more alive and therefore the noting of inclusive of 1.87 rajkumarji indicates that cash of ₹ 1.87 Crores was paid to Rajkumar B A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the transaction, though assessee s signatures are not there. . That irrespective of recording this finding, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) as per detailed reasons appearing in his order which is on record, had upheld the addition in the hands of the assessee. 6. That before the Bench, the Ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and referred to the said loose paper which is annexed at Page 13 of the paper book field before us. The Ld. AR contended that there is no statement or noting in the loose paper stating any amount was paid to the assessee i.e. Rajkumar B. Agarwal. That further, as accepted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), there is no signature of the assessee i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some loose papers the Assessing Officer is not justified in making addition in absence of other corroborative evidences to that effect. 7. The Ld. DR has placed reliance on the orders of the Sub-ordinate Authorities. 8. We have perused the case record and heard the rival contentions. We have also analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case. It is an undisputed fact that the additions were made as per TEP and the noting found in the loose papers wherein the name of the assessee is mentioned and against the name of the assessee 1.87 is written but whether it is an amount in thousand, Lakhs or Crores nothing is evident from that noting. The Assessing Officer concluded it to be crores simply on basis of the business locality which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
