9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 framed by ACIT-2(1), Bhopal. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual connected to Agrawals, Taparias and the Singhdcos group of Bhopal which was subjected to search u/s 132 of the Act on 13.11.2007 and assessee's residential premises were also searched. Notice u/s 153A of the Act issued for filing the return. In response return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 filed on 19.06.2008 declaring income of Rs. 24,13,180/-. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings Ld. AO perused the seized material in the form of sale deeds of agricultural lands purchased by the assessee. As per these sale deeds assessee has purchased a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities are not justified in making/sustaining addition of Rs. 87500 for the alleged on money payments for purchase of land from Laxmi Narayan Devi Prasad, the said unlawful and unjustified addition of Rs. 87500 be kindly deleted. (3) That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the additions of Rs. 192500 & Rs. 87500 are unlawful and unsustainable in law as in the search, no incriminating materials/ any positive/concrete evidence were found which suggested that the assessee had paid on money Rs. 192500 & Rs. 87500 on purchase of land and, therefore, the said two additions be kindly deleted. (4) That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the course of assessment proceedings. The year under appeal is a non-abated assessment year. Addition in such non-abated assessment years can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. 10. Our this proposition is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla 280 ITR 570 and in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526. We have also followed this ratio in the case of Satish Neema -IT(SS)A No.149/Ind/2016 dated 07.02.2020. Ld. DR failed to bring any other binding precedence in its favour. We, therefore, respectfully following the above referred decisions allow the legal ground raised by the assessee and delete the impugned addition. 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
