9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by V. B. GUPTA, J. - The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 22 nd December, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal') 'C' Bench, Kolkata in IT (SS) No.126/Del/2003 for Block Assessment period 1 st April,1989 to 29 th July, 1999. 2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee against the order dated 21 st February, 2003 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi confirming the various additions amounting to Rs.1,00,61,680/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of entries recorded in Annexure A-1 to A-5 of the panchnama. 3. The brief facts are that a search was conducted at premi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Hence, the present appeal. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the Revenue that the onus is upon the Assessee to prove the cash credits but the Assessee has failed to discharge this onus and Shri. Ram Kishan Aggarwal also failed to appear before the Assessing Officer and did not produce any evidence in support of his claim that the documents belong to him. 7. It is not in dispute that the Assessee has time and again submitted before the Revenue authorities that the seized documents belonged to Shri. Ram Kishan Aggarwal (his father) and whatever addition has to be made, it had been made in the hands of his father. Once the father of the Assessee has owned the documents which were seized during the course of search, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ownership, but the Assessee's father accepted ownership of the books by filing an affidavit. The Assessing Officer added the interest earned on investment found in the books to the income of the Assessee but this was deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the deletion was upheld by the Tribunal. The Allahabad High Court held that (page 543):- "It is not in dispute that the father and son were living jointly in the house. It is also not the case of the Department that the seized books in question were found from the room of the Respondent. Indisputably, the father had owned up the books in question. Normally the presumption that the seized books belonged to the person from whose possession they have been seized has been discharged and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
