9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. Assessee s search statement had admitted various amounts as per the contents of seized document - We find no merit in the Revenue s instant argument in light of CBDT s twin landmark circulars dated 10.03.2003 and 18.12.2004 that a searched party s admissions or confessions during search or survey hardly carry any significance in the absence of any supportive evidence. We reiterate that the foregoing sole seized document is totally dumb as there are no clear-cut entries which could suggest any payments or receipts, as the case may be involving this assessee - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 47 and 59/PUN/2021 And IT(SS)A Nos. 12/PUN/2021 & 11/PUN/2022 - - - Dated:- 14-2-2023 - Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectively. The above former circular rather makes it explicitly clear in para 4 thereof that any communication not containing such DIN and Order number shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued . Faced with the situation, Mr. Jasnani filed the Assessing Officer s subsequent intimation to the assessee dated 29.12.2019 that he had duly allotted DIN Order number to his assessment order dated 27.12.2019. We find no merit in the Revenue s instant vehement argument supporting the assessment herein as once the CBDT circular has clarified that such an order ought to be treated as to have never been issued herein (supra). We conclude that the impugned assessment deserves to be quashed on this count alone. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an 487 (Bom) CIT vs. Jawanmal Gemaji Gandhi, so as to avoid double addition. The Revenue s pleadings on the other hand vehemently support the Assessing Officer s action in entirety not allowing the impugned set off. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration for vehement rival stands. Learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the foregoing twin judicial precedents are already in assessee s support that such a set off could very well be granted even against jewellery items and vice-versa. This is further coupled with the clinching fact that page 41 before us is the seized material against the assessee found during the course of search on 04.11.2017. There is neither any amount mentioned therein nor the sum total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
