9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned the addition of ₹ 396725/- on account of interest on loans of ₹ 64 lakhs, alleged to be earned but not disclosed. 2. Ground No. 1(a) The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Joint Managing Director of M/s Upper India Steel Manufacturing Engineering Company Ltd., Ludhiana. On 22.2.2006 a survey was undertaken in the premises of the company and during the survey an old paper with some writing was found from the personal possession of the assessee. In the statement recorded during survey, it was stated that it was an old piece of paper about which he did not know / remember anything. However, since the assessee had tried to destroy that paper which was retrieved by the Department and it was concluded that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned various figures which would definitely constitute information leading the Assessing Officer to believe that there are reasons that the income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the issue of notice u/s 148 was valid. 7. We have heard the rival submissions carefully and find that reason for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act reads as under:- During survey operation u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 22.2.2006 at the business premises of M/s Upper India Steel Manufacturing Engg Company Ltd., one document involving investment of ₹ 64 lakhs on which interest of ₹ 396725/- was being earned was found in the personal custody of Shri Gurlal Singh Grewal, Joint Managing Director of M/s Upper India Steel Manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned document. From high-lighted portion, it is clear that even the assessee has accepted that information regarding this piece of paper found during survey was intimated by the Assessing Officer by the company to the Assessing Officer with regard to the taking action. This means that the Assessing Officer had independent information. This fact has to be further considered along with the fact that the assessee had tried to destroy the paper during survey and this fact has not been denied during the course of hearing of this appeal. Therefore, the Revenue had prima facie evidence to believe that the some income has escaped assessment and accordingly the notice was issued within four years from the end of Assessment Year. It is well set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A). 9. Before us, the ld. counsel of the assessee referred to page 9 of the paper book which is a copy of the document found during survey and submitted that by no stretch of imagination the figures written in such document can be interpreted as loan given on various dates. The Revenue did not have any evidence to show that these amounts represent only loans. The assessee has clearly stated during survey that it is a dumb document and he did not remember what it was. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT V. Girish Chaudhary, 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) wherein a document was found which did not contain any specific details and therefore, it was held that in the absence of other material, the figure 48 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/9, 12/12 4 LB 11/6, 11/9, 12/12 4 Mohini 5/5, 2/8 5 LB 9/5, 48, 28/10, 28/1 5 Chanda 4/5, 4/8, 28/10, 28/1 5 MRG 4/5, 4/9, 1/1, 26/1 2 Chanda 7/6, 4/9, 1/12 5 LB 25/6, 25/9, 26/12 The above document does not show anything and its very difficult to say that this document represents certain loans given by the assessee to various persons. For example if we read first column of the document then Chanda can be possibly read with the name of person to whom loan has been given then it cannot be said that in the second row of Roles is also a name. Similarly in third row the word Impret this also does not seem to be a name. Same is the case with the word LB and MRG . Similarly against certain entries three or fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not applicable in the case before us as the document is unsigned. Even if it is assumed that document belongs to the assessee and the contents are true such contents do not lead to inference that the assessee had advanced certain loans. As seen above on the plain reading of the document, no such inference can be made. 11(ii) It is true that the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT V. Girish Chaudhary (supra) was rendered under the provisions of section 158B and may not be strictly applicable to other situation because in block assessment the position was totally different. In case of CIT V. Atam Vallves (P) Ltd. during course of survey some loose papers were found in the premises of the assessee containing bill of pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
