9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T, [(for the sake of convenience, here in after referred in short as Ld. AO)] for A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The Revenue has raised 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 deleting the reduction of Rs. 8,39.30,000/- from the total inventory as against the compensation paid to Sh. N Suryanarayana by the assessee company. 2 On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the above addition without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to rebut the findings of the Investigation Wing of Goa either before the AO or before the CIT(A) 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011-12/1534 dated 06.09.2011. 5. Consequent upon search and centralization, a notice u/s section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 30.12.2011 which was duly served upon the assessee company through speed post, receipt of which is placed on record. In this notice, the assessee was required to furnish the true and correct return of income for the A.Y 2009-10 within 16 days from the date of receipt of the notice. 6. Heard rival submission and carefully scanned the material available on record. 7. Revenue has assailed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) by which first appellate authority deleted the reduction of Rs. 8,39,30,000/- from the total inventory as against the compensation paid to Sh. N. Suryanarayana by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered doubtful by his Assessing Officer at Goa. It was vehemently argued that even from the aforesaid Investigation Wing report as reproduced in the assessment order, does not contain even an iota of evidence against the compensation paid by the assessee company to Mr. Surya and disallowance made in the instant case is unlawful because the investigation report relied upon by the Ld. AO for making disallowance is not a clinching evidence secondly, such report raises suspicion regarding the genuineness of expenses booked by Mr. Surya and not about his gross revenue receipt and no opportunity of being herd was given to furnish the explanation as assessee was not confronted with such report during assessment proceedings. The relevant part of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made purely on conjuncture and surmises. The relevant part of the impugned order is reduced as under: " Rs. 5.8 Taking in totality of all the facts and evidences on record viz: (a) no evidence has been brought on record so as to hold that payment of Rs. 19.50 crore which is paid to the 4 entities have any direct or indirect link or connection with the appellant or IREO group, (b) no evidence is there to show that "Mr. Surya" has paid back the money to appellant's group entities, (c) nothing has been brought on record by the AO so as to hold that "Mr. Surya" was not having the tenancy right over the subject land with him and (d) in the assessment order passed under section 153A/ 143(3) dated 29.12.2011 in the case of "Mr. Surya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
