9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Partners of the various Firms. AO nowhere in the assessment order rebutted the claim of the assessee with any material evidence. Further the Assessing officer did not give any basis for working out the figure of Rs. 2,53,04,000/- as unexplained cash in the hands of the assessee, as against the workings of Rs. 5,79,61,200/- found in the seized diary. Whereas the assessee produced before us the Return of Income filed by the partnership firm M/s. Yash Buildcon and M/s. Dev Corporation relating to the AY2014-15 and Ld. CIT(A) order in the case of M/s. Yash Buildcon wherein the undisclosed income declared by the assessee. Therefore the ground raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of Rs. 2,53,04,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee and also initiated Penalty proceedings u/s. 269SS, 269T and 271AAB of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Ld. CIT(A) called for a Remand Report from the Assessing Officer and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer observing as follows: 8.1 The cash receipts of the transactions mentioned in the diary were not accepted by the AO as the unaccounted income of the firms which they disclosed in their returns of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on the ground that the firms made disclosure on account of their suppressed receipts from the customers. The firms made disclosure in the A.Y. 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. He accepted only part of the explanation of the appellant without giving any reasons. Further finding of the AO that the disclosure was made by the partnership firms on account of suppression of the on-money received from the clients and it did not include the transactions recorded in the pocket diary was also not supported by any material. He did not bring any evidence on record by conducting any inquiry on the issue either with the firms or their partners before coming to the finding particularly when the assessee claimed that the transactions in the pocket diary were related to the firms only. It was a fact on record that the firms, after making disclosure of unaccounted income, entered the dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Given to Soham Builders 50 Na 40% Mujabh Haste Jayesh (Arl+Bkg) Page no 10 Given to Soham Builders 50 Na 40% Mujabh (Arl + Bkg) Page no 13 Soham Builders 50 Na 40% Mujabh Haste Rajesh Ari + Bkg 8.3 Thus, it was clear that the finding of the AO was contrary to the facts of the case. The appellant repeatedly stated during the course of search, in the course of post search investigation and in the assessment proceedings that his source of income was from interest, remuneration and profit/loss from the firms wherein he was a partner. The AO nowhere in the assessment order rebutted this claim of the appellant with any material evidence. He did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Aggrieved against the same, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,53,04,000/- made on account of entries appearing in a diary seized from the assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent. 5. Ld. CIT-DR Shri Sudhendu Das appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) is not co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee was maintaining the accounts of the Partners of the various Firms. Further the Assessing Officer nowhere in the assessment order rebutted the claim of the assessee with any material evidence. Further the Assessing officer did not give any basis for working out the figure of Rs. 2,53,04,000/- as unexplained cash in the hands of the assessee, as against the workings of Rs. 5,79,61,200/- found in the seized diary. Whereas the assessee produced before us the Return of Income filed by the partnership firm M/s. Yash Buildcon and M/s. Dev Corporation relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15 and Ld. CIT(A) order dated 24.07.2017 in the case of M/s. Yash Buildcon wherein the undisclosed income of Rs. 2.94 crores declared by the assessee. The opera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
