9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that these are rough jottings by staff. In light of the analysis of seized material and accounts of the assessee and the companies, the replies filed by him are found to be inadequate and unexplained. Therefore, it is rejected and income assessed accordingly.Therefore the expenses incurred by assessee during the year which are treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C in his hands and added to his total income. - ITA Nos.3972 And 3973/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 18-10-2022 - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Dr.B.R.R.Kumar, Accountant Member For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Pandey, CIT DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : Both appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in sustaining the impugned addition on the basis of a bunch of loose papers seized from the premises of a third party. 5. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence. 6. That the Appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 4. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee is an individual and has been deriving income from business, house property and other sources. A search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) has been carried out in the business and residential premises o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of the assessee, we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of authorities below, the same is hereby affirmed. Thus, Ground Nos. 1 2 raised by the assessee are dismissed. 10. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is against the sustaining of addition of Rs.2,45,925/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 11. Ld.CIT DR supported the order of AO and submitted that the AO has given a finding on fact that the assessee was confronted with the seized documents. He failed to submit any proper credible explanation. 12. We have heard Ld.CIT DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the AO has given a finding on fact in paras 3.3 to 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 45,925/- during the year which are treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C in his hands and added to his total income. (2,45,925/-). 13. The assessee has not brought any material to rebut the findings of the AO. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of the authorities below, the same is hereby affirmed. Thus, Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 14. Ground Nos. 4 5 raised by the assessee are against the sustaining of impugned addition on the basis of a bunch of loose papers seized from the premises of a third party and not providing opportunity to the assessee. 15. Ld.CIT DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that in support of this ground, the assessee has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law in upholding the addition of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in sustaining the impugned addition on the basis of a bunch of loose papers seized from the premises of a third party. 5. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence. 6. That the Appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. 19. The facts and grounds raised by the assessee are identical. The Ld. CIT DR adopted the same arguments as were in ITA No.3972/Del/2016 [Assessment Year 2007-08]. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
