9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t interalia claiming that the diary found from his office was of Shri Rohit Sharma. The diary mentions expenses incurred on election contested by several candidates of Aam Aadmi Party. Affidavit of Shri Rohit Sharma was also filed. The contents of affidavit especially para No. 6 do not properly explain entries as names of person paying the amount and the expenses paid are vaguely mentioned. Names of relatives of appellant/assessee are also mentioned. Shri Rohit Sharma had stated that only Rs. 10,95,700/- was incurred for promotion of Aam Aadmi Party and many candidates in West Delhi constituency. No supporting document regarding averment was submitted. In absence of specific details and other supporting documents, the affidavit of Shri Rohi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 139 of the Act on 24.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 1,66,73,890/-. Notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 05.02.2020 and duly served. In response to the notice return of income was filed on 25.12.2020 declaring total income at Rs. 1,66,73,890/-. Notice under section 143(2) dated 28.12.2020 was issued through ITBA portal and duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 12.01.2021 along with a detailed questionnaire was issued to the assessee to furnish details, documents. Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, CA/authorised representative of the assessee appeared. Subsequently. Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA filed power of attorney, details and documents called from time to time. Assessee had der ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized from the office of the assessee as belonging to the assessee by applying the presumption u/s 132(4) of the Act ignoring that the said presumption is a rebuttable presumption. The presumption was rebutted by filing of affidavit of Shri Rohit Sharma owning the diary and explaining its contents by way of affidavit dated 22.03.2021 copy of which is at page No. 38 to 42 of Paper Book. Moreover, appellant/assessee had filed explanation of Annexure A-2 which is at page No. 43 to 47 of the Paper Book. The diary was owned by a third party. So, the diary could not be considered as belonging to assessee as per settled law. No amount was mentioned in the diary was ever given to appellant/assessee. 8. Learned authorized representative for appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the said section. 12. Learned authorised representative for department submitted that during search dated 10.10.2018 diary annexure as A-2 was recovered from premises i.e. office of Shri Kailash Gahlot. The diary contained entries of cash payment to the tune of Rs. 42,98,086/-. Appellant/assessee failed to explain the questionnaire question No. 4-13. The affidavit filed by Shri Rohit Sharma claiming to be author of diary and the details of receipt and payment /election expenses of Aam Admi Party and not of the assessee. In absence of specific details or any other document was rightly not considered by the Learned AO and Learned CIT(A). Reference to the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in ITA No. 134/2014, C.M. APPL.5666/2014 in the case of M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
