9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in F.Y. 2009-10 relating to A.Y. 2010-11. The additions made by the AO are without any corroborative evidence brought on record, therefore, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition . Credit in bank entries - HELD THAT:- Appellant introduced his own accounted cash in the form of loan to show his accounted capital, what benefit a person would drive if the same loan is repaid immediately thereby reducing the accounted capital. Considering the fact in totality we do not find any merit in this addition of ₹ 4 lacs and the same is direct to be deleted. Exhibit 213 of the paper book is the confirmation of M/s. Gyan Kund Trust Educate and it can be seen that on 01.04.2007 there was an opening balance of ₹ 15 lacs out of which on 13.10.2007 ₹ 2.50 lacs was repaid by cheque No. 770251. Exhibit 215 show that on 08.12.2006 loan of ₹ 5 lacs was given by cheque No. 175852 and on 0802.2007 loan of ₹ 10 lacs was given by cheque No.917483. Since the entry of ₹ 2.50 lacs is nothing but the repayment of loan given by the assessee in earlier assessment years no addition need to be made on this account. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has challenged the addition of ₹ 2.50 crores. 5. Facts relating this ground show that during the course of survey at the business premises of the assessee on 30.06.2014 and 01.07.2014 one of the documents impounded was marked as A-1 page 89 and which is as under :- 6. On the basis of this document the AO formed a belief that cash of ₹ 50 lacs was paid for Vijaywada land. Further the AO found that ₹ 65 lacs, 75 lacs and 60 lacs were paid to LJT Viveka Institute by the assessee 7. The assessee was asked to explain these transactions found to be noted on the document impounded at the time of survey. In his reply the assessee vehemently stated that said document is dumb document and the entries in the said document have no logical inference. 8. The AO rubbished the contention of the assessee stating the provisions of section 292C of the Act clearly apply and, therefore, onus is upon the assessee to explain the nature of transaction. 9. The assessee through an affidavit once again reiterated that the account number mentioned in the impounded document does not belong to him or to his family member. The AO issued summons u/s. 131 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that of the first appellate authority clearly show that there is no corroborative / demonstrative evidence to justify the additions so made. 14. When the AO came to know that the bank account at Vijaywada belongs to Lingaya Society then the AO should have made atleast some necessary enquiries from the said society but we find that neither the AO nor the first appellate authority has done any such exercise. We further find that the AO did not accept the contention of the assessee that the said document is a dumb document. According to the AO a document can be considered as dumb document only when it has no reference as to any person or identity or to any date or to any amount. We find that no dates have been mentioned in the impugned entries which are basis of the additions. We fail to understand when no dates have been mentioned then how the AO came to the conclusion that the document pertains to A.Y. 2008-09. Further the entries relating to LJT which according to the AO pertained to A.Y. 2008-09 have to be demolished on the fact that LJT came into existence on 10.07.2009 which falls in F.Y. 2009-10 relating to A.Y. 2010-11. 15. Considering these facts in totality we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 24.10.2007 the loan has been repaid fully. We find that the AO/ CIT(A) have not even bothered to consider this documentary evidence which contains the PAN details of M/s. Sun India Finlease Private Ltd. Further even the AO has confused himself with the date. As mentioned elsewhere on 24.04.2007 there is no credit entry of this amount and it is only credited on 03.04.2007. In our considered view assuming that the appellant introduced his own accounted cash in the form of loan to show his accounted capital, what benefit a person would drive if the same loan is repaid immediately thereby reducing the accounted capital. Considering the fact in totality we do not find any merit in this addition of ₹ 4 lacs and the same is direct to be deleted. 23. Exhibit 213 of the paper book is the confirmation of M/s. Gyan Kund Trust Educate and it can be seen that on 01.04.2007 there was an opening balance of ₹ 15 lacs out of which on 13.10.2007 ₹ 2.50 lacs was repaid by cheque No. 770251. Exhibit 215 show that on 08.12.2006 loan of ₹ 5 lacs was given by cheque No. 175852 and on 0802.2007 loan of ₹ 10 lacs was given by cheque No.917483. Since the entry of ₹ 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he back of the assessee and inspite of several requests made during the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO did not give any opportunity to cross examine Smt. Jaya Sharma. The counsel strongly contended that the reopening is bad in law and the assessment order so framed deserves to be quashed. 30. The DR strongly relied upon the assessment order and the findings of the first appellate authority. 31. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. A bare perusal of the assessment order of the AO show that the AO has specifically mentioned that he has considered the past assessment record of the assessee. If the AO had in fact gone through the assessment history of the original return than the AO would have noticed that on 21.06.2011 a notice u/s. 142 (1) was served upon the assessee with the following question are :- Sh. Picheshwar Gadde - A.Y. 2009-10 1. List of Bank accounts giving the account No. branch name of the bank for all the accounts alongwith copy of the bank pass books. 2. Details of club membership, credit cards owned by you. 3. Copy of Form 16 alongwith copy of Form No. 12BA issued by employer.. 4. List of all compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Dera Mandi, Chattarpur, New Delhi. A perusal of the said sale deed show that the transaction amount of the said property is ₹ 1.05 crores and the original assessment order dated 21.11.2011 which was framed u/s. 143 (3) of the Act is placed at page 29 of the paper book. 34. As mentioned elsewhere the assessment has been reopened after four years and, therefore, the first proviso to section 147 of the Act clearly apply which read s as under :- Provided that where an assessment under subsection (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: 35. The aforementioned proviso clearly state that no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
