9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hd/2019 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2023 - Mrs. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member For the Revenue : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr DR For the Assessee : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate And Shri Parin Shah, AR ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ) dated 31.07.2019passed u/s 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. The brief facts relating to the case is that the police authorities, Surat took hold of 42 gunny bags of documents and other materials from the premise Flat No. 205, Shoppers Plaza, Swastik Char Rasta, Opp. Municipal Market, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad belonging to Prahaladbhai Kishanchand Sewani on 26th and 27th October, 2013. A requisition u/s 132A of Act was made to the police authorities (custodian of 42 gunny bags actually related to Asaram Group) and possession of the same was taken by the Department. The 42 gunny bags contained incriminating documents which, noting having rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment order was invalidly framed as also the deletion of all the additions made on merits. The grounds raised by the Revenue in this regard are as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld, CIT(A) has erred in holding that anyaddition during the assessment u/s.153C has to be confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search u/s.132(1) of the Act, even though, there is no such stipulation in sec.153C of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT{A) has erred in not appreciating that sec.153C requires a notice to be issued requiring the assessee to furnish his return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and to assess or reassess the total income of those six assessment years, and that the scheme of assessment or re-assessment of the total income of a person searched will be brought to naught, if no addition is allowed to be made for those six assessment years in the absence of any seized incriminating material. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to clause 7 of 80IC. 5.4 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim u/s 80IC of Income Tax Act, despite discrepancies found in Form 10CCB vis-a-vis the submission made before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings including the fact that :- (i) The assessee during assessment proceedings has vide submission dated 05.12.2016 stated that the assessee is involved in trading of Ayurvedic Medicines and Pooja Samagri food Items, whereas in form 10GCB it is stated that the assessee is involved in production trading of medicines Pooja Samagri items; (ii) Form no. 10CCB Colum does not show excise duty registration number even though this is a mandatory column. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 61,16,020/- made u/s 69 of the Act on account of inability to prove genuineness of loans and advances. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.20,65,776/- made on account of unexplained cash u/s 69 of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that too laid down by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court and that too without bringing to our notice any contrary decision either of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court or of the Hon ble Supreme Court in this regard, we see no merit in Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the Revenue. 7. Without prejudice to the above, we have also considered this issue from the aspect of whether the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on fact that there was no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee, and we find that this finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is correct. The assessment order reveals, at paragraph No.5 of the order, that the documents which were relating to the assessee and which were requisitioned during search were the following:- Bag No. Annexure No. Page No. Particulars Type of Document Amount Involved BAG No.A-6 Annexure-A-6/13 154 A bank deposit slip A/c No. 14365(The Ahmedabad Dist. Co-op bank, Ahmedabad) of Akash Foundation Cash/Cheque deposit 800000 BAG No.A-7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... added U/s. 69 of the act. The assessee submits that the addition was made based on wrong slip and has also enclosed correct document at Bag No. A-6, annexure no. 13 page 154. The contention of appellant is verifiable and deposit slip mentioning name of Krishna bahanji was wrongly mentioned in the assessment order. The assessee has now produced correct deposit slip and submitted that the amount deposited of Rs. 8,00,000/- was cheque received from M/s. Pratius merchants private limited. The said facts are verifiable from the ledger confirmation and bank statement of Pratius Merchants Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has never explained the requisitioned material provided by the assessee during the course of the assessment thereby resulting in addition of the said amount. This issue may therefore be decided on merits by your good self. Thus, even as per the Assessing Officer, this deposit slip did not tantamount to any incriminating material. 11. With respect to the cash book of the assessee requisitioned, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had explained all transactions noted therein and he had no adverse comment to make with respect to the same. The Assessing Officer s rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
