9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without appreciating the fact that in this case the person referred to in Section 153A is M/S Milan Textiles & the 'Any other person' referred to in Section 153C is Shri.S.Seetharaman, in whose residence, a pen drive containing the details of cash loans obtained from the assessee was sized. As the information was available at the residence of such 'Any other person', the person to whom such information relates cannot be construed as "any other person". Therefore the only way to assess the information available in the residence of 'any other person' is through 147 proceedings against the assessee in this scenario. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without appreciating the fact that the case facts in the case of Karthi Chidmbaram Vs. PCIT [2021] (7) TMI 393 are distinct from the present case due to the information being available in the residence of such 'Any other person' as envisaged in section 153C against another assessee not being such 'Any other person' under section 153C. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without appreciating the fact that the case facts in the case of Karthi Chidmabaram Vs. PCIT [2021] (7) TMI 393, notices u/s. 147 & 153C wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrangement. The case of Shri S.Seetharaman was settled by the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission by an order dated 14.12.2020 in Settlement Application No.TN/CN 51/2019-20/60/IT. 5. On the basis of excel sheet noting unearthed from the searched premises of Shri S.Seetharaman coupled with his sworn statement, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021. In response, the assessee filed his return of income on 26.04.2021 declaring the same amount of income as originally returned. Subsequently, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 13.01.2022 by the AO followed by notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 14.02.2022. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was called upon to explain why the amount of loan advanced to Shri S. Seetharaman should not be added in his hands. In response, the assessee denied of having advanced loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to Shri S.Seetharaman. However, the AO rejected the explanation of the assessee and treated the sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee by passing an order u/s. 147 of the Act dated 24.03.2022. The AO made an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s evident in the assessment order the AO has relied upon the narration contained in the excel sheet found and seized from a third party premise without bringing any cogent and corroborative evidence to substantiate that the appellant has actually advanced a sum of Rs. 1 Crore to Shri. Seetharaman. Therefore, the addition made on the basis of un-corroborative evidence cannot be sustainable. 6.22 Further the AO in the assessment order has relied upon the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the act from Shri. Seetharaman in making the addition of Rs. 1 Crore in the hands of the appellant. Upon examination of the statement of Shri. Seetharaman, it can be seen that he has concluded that" he arranged a loan of Rs 1Crore through his father', Shri. Seetharaman has never deposed that the appellant has actually advanced any loan to him. In view of this the reliance of the statement recorded from Shri. Seetharaman in making the addition in the hands of the appellant is not appropriate to the facts of the case. Further, when the AO has relied upon the statement of a third person in making the addition, he should have provided an opportunity of cross examination to the appellant. 6.23 In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Page 7 of the Paper Book furnished by the assessee submitted that the name of the assessee is clearly written in the seized excel sheet maintained by Shri S.Seetharaman with inward entry of Rs. 1.00 Crore on 14.07.2016. The Ld.DR submitted that the said loan was carrying an interest rate of 15% and the details of interest payable are also mentioned in the excel sheet. The Ld. DR further submitted that the said loan was repaid in two equal installments. The Ld. DR submitted that a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- was repaid on 13.09.2016 and another sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- was repaid on 22.10.2016. The Ld. DR thus submitted that since the assessee's name is noted in the excel sheet maintained by Shri S.Seetharaman, it is to be taken as the assessee has advanced loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to Shri S.Seetharaman. The Ld.DR, thus, submitted that since the assessee has failed to prove the source of lending, the AO has rightly made an addition u/s. 69 of the Act. 11. The Ld. DR by referring to the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission in the case of Shri S.Seetharaman in Settlement Application No.TN/CN 51/2019-20/60/IT submitted that Shri S.Seetharaman has gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by the AO towards unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed for upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. 16. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below including paper book filed by the assessee. The sole issue that arises for our consideration is the validity of addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by the AO u/s. 69 of the Act towards unexplained investment and deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). The AO made an addition in the hands of the assessee on the basis of excel sheet noting maintained by Shri S.Seetharaman. In his sworn statement, Shri S.Seetharaman has clearly stated that the assessee has arranged loan through his father. Thus, Shri S.Seetharaman has never deposed that the assessee has advanced loan of Rs. 1.00 crore to him. 17. We have observed that the AO has never conducted any enquiry with the father of the assessee Shri P.Thangavelu, in spite of being named by Shri S.Seetharaman in his sworn statement. The AO has also not conducted an enquiry to ascertain the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gone through orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered reasons given by the AO to make additions towards alleged cash transactions as per seized excel sheets found in the possession of Shri. P.Karthikeyan, an employee of Christy group of companies. The three excel sheets based on which undisclosed income of the assessee has been worked out by the AO was found in the electronic devices seized from Shri. P. Karthikeyan, an employee of M/s. Christy Fried Gram Industry, during the course of search conducted in Christy group of cases. The seized material is therefore in the nature of materials seized in case of third party. Further, said material being a typed excel sheets in electronic form, the same is not in the handwriting of any partners or other employees of the assessee firm and the seized material does not contain any acknowledgement of the assessee with regard to the entries found therein, in respect of transactions allegedly made by the Christy group of concerns with assessee firm. Further, no other evidences including sale bills, cash receipts, unaccounted purchase bills etc, were found neither during the course of search of Christy group of concerns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on." Further, the ld.DR pointed out that the ld.CIT(A) has wrongly considered the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Khader Khan Son (supra) wherein decision was made in respect of search proceedings. Since, the decision is held in relation to the Survey proceedings the case law is not applicable to the present case. 21. We also rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sant Lal [2020] 423 ITR 1 (Del), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the assessee cannot be fasten with the liability on the basis of third-party material in the absence of any cogent material. In the case of the assessee the AO neither conducted proper enquiry to identify the actual lender nor made an effort to gather or corroborate evidence to establish that the assessee has actually advanced cash loan to Shri S.Seetharaman. Respectfully following the same, we are of the considered view that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be found faulted with and hence we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on merits of the case. 22. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
