Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore
Shri Arun Sehlot, Bhopal vs The Acit, 3(1), Bhopal on 25 March, 2021
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इंदौर यायपीठ, इंदौर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT
MEMBER
PAN NO: ABFPM9882E
M.A. Nos. 67 to 70/Ind/2017
Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2006-07
(Arising out of (I.T(SS) Nos.206 to 212/Ind/2012)
Shri Sanjay Mehta, ACIT (3)(1),
Bhopal V/s Bhopal
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN NO: ABFPM9681H
M.A. Nos. 71 to 74/Ind/2017
Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2006-07
(Arising out of (I.T(SS) Nos.200 to 203/Ind/2012)
Smt. Seema Mehta, ACIT (3)(1),
Bhopal V/s Bhopal
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN NO: ADOPS9911M
M.A. Nos. 75 to 78/Ind/2017
Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2006-07
(Arising out of (I.T(SS) Nos.193 to 196/Ind/2012)
Mrs. Sandhya Sahlot, ACIT (3)(1),
Bhopal V/s Bhopal
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Sanjay Mehta & Ors
M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017
PAN NO: AFSPM8170Q
M.A. Nos. 55 to 58/Ind/2017
Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2006-07
(Arising out of (I.T(SS) Nos.154 to 157/Ind/2012)
Mr. Surendra Mehta, ACIT (3)(1),
Bhopal V/s Bhopal
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN NO: ABFPM9683F
M.A. Nos. 59 to 62/Ind/2017
Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2006-07
(Arising out of (I.T(SS) Nos.160 to 163/Ind/2012)
Mr. Sandeep Mehta, ACIT (3)(1),
Bhopal V/s Bhopal
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN NO: AFSPM8168A
M.A. Nos. 63 to 66/Ind/2017
Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2006-07
(Arising out of (I.T(SS) Nos.167 to 170/Ind/2012)
Mrs. Priya Mehta, ACIT (3)(1),
Bhopal V/s Bhopal
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN NO: AEYPM4445D
M.A. Nos. 82 to 85/Ind/2017
Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2006-07
(Arising out of (I.T(SS) Nos.149 to 152/Ind/2012)
Mr. Hitesh Mehta, ACIT (3)(1),
Bhopal V/s Bhopal
(Appellant) (Respondent)
2
Sanjay Mehta & Ors
M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017
PAN NO: ADOPS9911M
M.A. Nos. 92, 53, 79 to 81/Ind/2017
Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2006-07 & 2009-10
(Arising out of (I.T(SS) Nos.186 to 189 & 192/Ind/2012)
Mr. Arun Sahlot, ACIT (3)(1),
Bhopal V/s Bhopal
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Revenue by Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.DR
Assessee by Shri Yeshwant Sharma, CA
Date of Hearing 12.02.2021
Date of Pronouncement 25.03.2021
ORDER
These Miscellaneous Applications have been filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the aforesaid assessee(s) against the different orders dated 22.03.2013, 16.04.2013 & 30.04.2013. Through these petitions, assessee(s) have pointed out that there are certain apparent mistakes which are required to be rectified u/s 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. The learned counsel on behalf of the assessee submitted that all these Miscellaneous Applications (in short M. A) have been filed within stipulated time of 4 years applicable at the time of filing MAs. For the proposition that MA could be filed within 4 years at the 3 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 relevant point of time, he relied on the judgement of Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of Distt. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. V. UOI (2017) 86 taxmann.com 176(MP). Detailed chart along with affidavits exhibiting that all these MAs have been filed within 4 years of the date of receipt are placed on record.
3. In view of the proposition laid down by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Distt. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. V. UOI (2017) 86 taxmann.com 176(MP), we are in agreement with Ld.AR that all these MAs are filed within time and deserve to be entertained for adjudication.
4. The ld. AR has submitted that a search u/s.132 of the Act took place simultaneously on all these assessees on 30.05.2008 and the assessment years involved are from AY 2003-04 to 2009-10.These MAs have been filed on two common issues relating to all the assessees of the group which have remained undecided warranting rectification:
i. No addition ought to have been made in respect those years where no incriminating material was found as these assessments stood completed u/s. 143(3)/143(1) and were not pending on the date of search.
4 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 ii. In absence of corroboration by way of independent evidence, no addition ought to have been made in respect of rough notings in the diary found in search.
5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through the impugned orders of this Tribunal in order to show that above stated two issues remained to be adjudicated by this Tribunal even though they were specifically raised in the grounds of appeal filed before this Tribunal.
6. Ld. Departmental Representative was also fair enough to accept this fact that the above stated two issues remained to be adjudicated by this Tribunal. We therefore are of the considered view that the assessee's above captioned Miscellaneous Applications deserves to be allowed to the effect that above stated two issues needs to be adjudicated as there was an apparent mistake in the order of this Tribunal mentioned herein above. We will like to make it clear that except the two issues raised by the assessee in his Miscellaneous Applications which will be adjudicated by us in the subsequent paras all other findings of this Tribunal will remain intact and our adjudication will be limited only 5 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 to the two issues raised before us which though were raised before this Tribunal but remained to be adjudicated. At the time of disposal of Miscellaneous Applications hearing was also completed for the pending issues not adjudicated at the time of original hearing by this Tribunal. The same are adjudicated and decided as follows.
7. We take up the first issue which reads as under:-
i. No addition ought to have been made in respect those years where no incriminating material was found as these assessments stood completed u/s. 143(3)/143(1) and were not pending on the date of search.
8. The brief facts of the cases are that in these cases, original assessment under section 153A were made for AY 2003-04 to 2008- 09 and assessment under section 143(3) was made for AY 2009-10, for all the assessees of the group. The Ld. AO made various additions in all the assessment years. It has been contended by the ld. AR that the Ld.AO made various additions in AY 2003-04 to 2006-07, ignoring the fact that the assessments for AY 2003-04 to 2006-07 stood completed on the date of search and in all the impugned assessment years viz. AY 2003-04 to 2006-07, no 6 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 incriminating material was found during search, except rough jottings in a diary found in case of assessee Arun Sahlot. Further in respect of all the assessees, a specific legal Ground no. 2 was taken before this Tribunal in the grounds of appeal which reads as follows under :
Ground No. 2 :
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order u/s.153A is bad in law particularly because:
i. No corresponding material much less incriminating material was found in the course of search or thereafter for subject additions.
ii. No assessment could be said to be 'pending' on the date of initiation of search and have 'abated' for the subject asstt. year as stipulated u/s. 153A.
iii. Assessment under section 153A on the basis of search action under section 132, cannot and should not be equated to regular/ normal scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), as done by the AO.
iv. Sec. 153A does not permit denovo assessment devoid of any material / evidence, as done by the AO.
9. The ld. AR submitted that the above specific legal grounds remained un adjudicated in all the cases and hence it warrant rectification u/s. 254(2). He further asserted that in case of one of the assessees of the group, Arun Sahlot, in ITA no. IT(SS).A.Nos.186 7 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 to 192/Ind/2012 & 261 to 267/Ind/2012, hon'ble Bench has already held that additions in respect of completed assessments should not be made in absence of any incriminating material in view of Special Bench Decision in the cases of All Cargo global vs. DCIT 20 ITJ 45 (Mum.)(SB) and Gurinder singh Bawa in ITA no.
2075/mum/2010 dtd. 16.11.2012. He took us through Para no. 28- 31 at Page 61-65 of the above referred ITAT order of Mr. Arun Sahlot ( the leading case), to demonstrate that the Bench had held that "assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 were not pending and stood completed on the date of search and hence in respect of deemed dividend, the AO should decide afresh taking in to consideration the legal proposition decided in the case of All Cargo global and Gurinder singh Baba (Supra)". It was stated that, this was done in respect of deemed dividend because there was contradictory findings of Ld.AO and Ld.CIT(A) on the fact of availability of incriminating material or not during search relating to deemed dividend, as discussed by the Bench.
10. The ld. AR vehemently argued that since the very principle has been decided by the Bench in favour of one of the assessees of group, as aforesaid, the same should be held and applied in favour 8 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 of the remaining assesses of the same group referred in instant MA's. Ld.AR also submitted that detailed chart of all the assessees were furnished in the hearing before the Hon'ble ITAT and the same are again filed placed at Page no. 34 to 39 of Synopsis Volume 2 . This chart will help to explain that that none of the additions were made on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search in respect of AY 2003-04 to 2006-07 for all the assessees, except the addition made on the basis of diary in case of Arun Sahlot.
11. We have gone through the contentions made by the ld. AR and facts of the case. We find that the impugned legal issue raised by all the assessees by way of specific ground no. 2 has remained undecided by the Bench and hence it calls for rectification u/s. 254(2). Ld. DR could not controvert the fact that none of the additions were made on the basis of any seized incriminating material found during the course of search in respect of AY 2003-04 to 2006-07 for all the assessees, except the addition made on the basis of diary in case of Arun Sahlot.
12. We further find that the cardinal proposition that additions in respect of un-abated and completed assessments should not be 9 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 made in absence of any incriminating material is a settled law and has been followed by this Tribunal also in case of one of the assessee of the same group namely Arun sahlot. Since, all the assesses mentioned in the above captioned Misc. Applications being part of the same group subjected to search and cases heard and decided together and the facts being common it was asserted by Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the same view deserve to be taken in respect of other asessee(s) of the group.
13. It is a settled proposition as laid down in the case of CIT V/s Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) that additions for the concluded and non abated assessment can be made only if there is a incriminating material found during the course of search for those years. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee has demonstrated through the documents placed in the paper book that Assessment Year 2003-04 to Assessment Year 2006-07 with respect to all the assessee(s) mentioned in the instant Miscellaneous Application are concluded and non abated assessments as they have either to be assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act or the time limit for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act had expired and there was no incriminating material found during the course of search with 10 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 respect to Assessment Year 2003-04 to Assessment Year 2006-07 and therefore the additions made by the Ld. A.O for all these years in respect of the assessee(s) mentioned in the instant Miscellaneous Application deserves to be deleted.
14. We, however are of the considered view that looking to the peculiarity of the facts and in the interest of justice, it will be fair for both the parties, if this issue is set aside to the file of Ld. A.O for limited purpose of examining the veracity of the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We accordingly order so and direct the Ld. A.O that after giving necessary and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee(s), should examine, firstly as to whether any incriminating material was found during the course of search for Assessment Year 2003-04 to Assessment Year 2006-07 having any nexus with the additions made and secondly whether the Assessment Year 2003-04 to Assessment Year 2006-07 were falling under the category of concluded and non abated assessments. In case the Ld. A.O finds that Assessment Year 2003-04 to Assessment Year 2006-07 were concluded and non abated assessments and there was no incriminating material found during the course of search pertaining to these Assessment Years, 11 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 in view of settled judicial precedents should not make any addition for the assessee(s) mentioned herein above and in the alternate can take necessary action as per the provisions of law. In the result first common issue raised by above captioned assessee(s) present before us, as to whether "No addition ought to have been made in respect those years where no incriminating material was found as these assessments stood completed u/s 143(3)/143(1) and were not pending on the date of search" is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
15. As regards second issue i.e. In absence of corroboration by way of independent evidence, no addition ought to have been made in respect of rough notings in the diary found in search, Ld. Authorised Representative reiterated his submissions as made in his application. He vehemently argued that the objection relating to the addition made by AO in respect of rough notings in the diaries found in search without corroboration by way of independent evidence, was also raised specifically before the Ld.AO, Ld.CIT(A) and also before this Hon'ble Tribunal. He took us through Para no. 64 Pg. 98 of ITAT order of assessee Arun Sahlot in ITA no. 12 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 IT(SS).A.Nos.186 to 192/Ind/2012 and 261 to 267/Ind/2012 which reads as under :
64. Before us, the contentions of ld. Authorised representative is that the assessing Officer has not brought any corroborative material on record to indicate that such payments were actually made by the assessee.
16. He also took us through submissions earlier made before this Tribunal during the regular course of hearing wherein it was repeatedly asserted and argued that no independent corroborative material was brought, even worth the name, by AO before making any such addition on account of rough notings in the diary. He has again filed before us the copy of the submissions and argued that this issue also goes to the root of the case and is necessary for correct determination of tax liability of the assessee and having remained undecided, calls for rectification u/s. 254(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
17. We have gone through the facts of the case, submissions made by the Ld.AR and have also heard Learned DR on the issue who has supported the order of this Tribunal.
18. We find that this very issue goes to the root of the matter for determination of tax liability of the assessee, has not been decided 13 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 by the Bench though it was raised by the assessee and hence it warrants rectification u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
19. We observe that two diaries were found from the possession of the assessee namely Arun Sahlot during the course of search conducted on 30.05.2008. The assessee, Arun sahlot, used to live in this house and vacated the same way back in 2003. It remained unguarded for three years and a guard to look after the house was appointed only in 2006.The diary was found in a scrap form from a Bister peti and inventorised as B-3.. Another diary was found from present house of assessee at E3/10, Arera Colony, Bhopal relating to AY 2009-10, inventorised as A-3.
20. As regards diary relating to AY 2004-05 inventorised as BS-3, we take note of the fact that the assessee all along has been contending and arguing since inception that he has not made any such alleged payments noted in the dairy. In the submissions earlier made before Bench also he reiterated his stand emphatically.
He stated that the assessee is director of Raj Events and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., which lunched a Hindi daily newspaper in the impugned Financial Year 2003-04. It also had a new business of 14 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 cable TV distribution. He is also director in Raj Homes Pvt. Ltd. which deals in real estate. Being new in the field of media and cable TV distribution, assessee did aggressive planning to scale up readership of newspaper and viewership of cable TV. This diary related to only that year of initial phase of business planning and development.
21. Assessee explained that jottings in the impugned dairy had nothing to do with actual financial transactions and it merely contained various proposals, what he intends to do or get done, reminders, appointments, planning, business targets, projections etc. but none of them have materialised. It was also contended that most of the entries are dumb and do not show whether these are payments or receipts whereas the AO has arbitrarily treated all of them as payments. It was vehemently submitted that the AO did not even try to corroborate, much less corroborated, and acted only on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. It was stated that had the assessee made such huge payments, as alleged by Ld.AO, he would not have thrown the diary recklessly in an unguarded house for years together and would have surely kept it 15 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 in safe custody for memorandum purposes. Even he would not have scrapped the jottings by way of cutting the entries, as was done in this case. He further argued that if such payments in large numbers and frequencies were made, at least some other evidence in the form of unaccounted bills, kachcha receipt for payment, cash flow statement or the like would have been found in extensive search, but nothing of the sort was found, which speaks the truth.
22. He was also stated that the entries were merely proposals is further proved from the fact that similar entries are repeated many times for reminder purpose and naturally nobody would make exactly identical payment to same persons repeatedly. But the AO has added all such entries. Even some proposed receipts were jotted in the notings, which AO has treated as payments. It was contended that the jottings are in round figures further vindicates that these estimated figures were noted only for planning, proposal, business targets, projections etc. It was also explained that no undisclosed source of income or undisclosed cash was found in the search of assessee and only cash of Rs. 15,350/- and jewellery less than 500 gm. was found from assessee during search, which speaks for itself. 16 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017
23. The Ld. AR also stated that the action of the Ld.AO was whimsical and arbitrary because he accepted plea of the assessee partly that the scribbling are mere business proposals and did not make additions in respect of some of these entries like entry at Diary pg. no. 89, pg.25 / sr. no. 17, pg.48 / sr. no. 9, pg.49 / sr. no. 11, pg.60 / sr. no. 8, pg. 70 / sr. no. 6.It was argued that such casual and arbitrary approach of the AO is impermissible in law as the explanation of the assessee cannot be accepted in part and rejected in part and for this proposition he relied on the decision of Mehta Parikh vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC).
24. For the proposition that addition on the basis of jottings in the diary cannot be made without any independent corroborative evidence and no addition can be made on the basis of mere surmises or conjectures, the ld. AR relied on the decisions of ACIT vs. Satyapal Wassan 10 ITJ 216 (Jabalpur),CIT vs. Raj Pal singh Ram Avtar 288 ITR 498 (All HC), ACIT vs. Prashant Ahluwalia 92 TTJ 464 (Ctk), Amarjit Singh Bakshi v.ACIT 86 ITD 13 (Delhi)(TM),Brijlal Roopchand vs. ITO 40 TTJ 668 (Indore), CIT vs. D K Gupta 308 ITR 230,233 ( Delhi HC),CIT vs. Atam Valves 184 Taxman 6 (P&H),CIT vs. Maulik Kumar 307 ITR 137 (Guj HC),Madanlal Narendra Kumar vs. 17 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 ACIT 31 ITC 123, 146-147 (Indore),J.S.Parkar vs. V B Palekar 94 ITR 616,644 ( Bombay), ACIT vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Mum.), Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v. CIT 26 ITR 736 (SC), Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC), S K Gupta Vs. DCIT 63 ITJ 532 (Delhi), Amar Natwarla Shah vs. ACIT 60 ITD 560, 564-565 (Ahd.), CIT vs. Khazan singh & Bros. 304 ITR 243 (P&H),DD.Malhan vs. DCIT 91 TTJ 947 (Delhi ), DCIT vs. Vinod Kamra 102 TTJ 152,155 (Jod.) and Atul kumar Jain vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 (Delhi).
25. We have gone through the written submissions of AR and the decisions relied upon by him. We find that as regards diary found relating to AY 2004-05 from the possession of the assessee Arun Sahlot, the assessee has been explaining since inception that jottings in the impugned dairy had nothing to do with actual financial transactions and it merely contained various business proposals , reminders, appointments, planning, business targets, projections etc. He filed an affidavit too before AO on oath solemnly stating that he has not made any such payments as presumed and alleged by the AO. Assessee also issued letters u/s. 131 of the Act to call the respective parties to verify the facts but the same was not done. In the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act also assessee 18 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 nowhere accepted to have made any such payments alleged to have been recorded in the seized diary and he only averred that the diary contains merely work list.
26. We also take note of the fact that despite categorical denial of any such payments by the assessee, Arun Sahlot, he was neither examined as author of the diary nor was he cross-examined as deponent of the affidavit. We take note of this very significant and important fact oozing out from AO order that the AO claims to have identified so -called recipients of the alleged payments contained in the diary by collecting their addresses and even phone numbers as narrated in his assessment order at Page 55 and 61-65 but he has neither examined any of them nor even tried to take pain to corroborate, much less corroborated, the same by way of independent evidence.
27. Even one employee, Asim Ansari, was simultaneously searched and was simultaneously assessed by same AO and addition on account of three alleged payments to him were made in the hands of assessee to the tune of Rs. 8,25,000 ( 2,00,000 + 3,25,000 + 3,00,000) at Page 46 ( Table) at sr. 8 of AO order. The 19 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 AO has also identified Asim Ansari at Page 53 of his order/para 3 to be the same person who was assessed by him simultaneously. But even in case of Asim Ansari also, neither he was examined by AO nor any corresponding income in the hands of the Asim Ansari, as alleged recipient, was ever made.
28. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought the facts on record to demonstrate that the additions made by the Ld. A.O are merely on the basis of scribbling in the diary which is a rough document and no nexus of the notes made in the diary have been established with the person mentioned therein nor any connection of the assessee with any such transaction of any nature has been established. It is also been argued before us that in view of the settled judicial precedents additions cannot be made merely on the basis of rough jottings on loose paper or diary as no signature or initial of the maker are available and no corroborative evidence is found to prove that the transaction appearing in jottings so made in the diary or loose paper has actually taken place. Affidavit has also been filed by the assessee in this regard. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and our discussions made herein above, 20 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 we are of the considered view that the issue raised in Ground No.5 in IT (SS)A No.187/Ind/2012 in the case of Arun Sahlot for Assessment Year 2004-05 needs to be set aside to the file of Ld. A.O for afresh examination. On perusal it seems that the additions are based merely on rough jottings and rough diary but still in the interest of justice and fair play we are of the view that the issue needs to be examined afresh by Ld. A.O after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the Ld. A.O is also directed that in view of the settled judicial precedents and discussions herein above the addition can be made on the basis of the seized diary only if proper nexus is established and same is corroborated with relevant material. If the Ld. A.O is not able to establish any such nexus between the notings in the seized diary and the actual transaction having taken place then no addition deserves to be made and if found otherwise Ld. A.O can make addition as permissible under the law. In the result Ground No.5 for Assessment Year 2004-05 in the case of Arun Sahlot in IT (SS)A No.187/Ind/2012 is allowed for statistical purposes. 21 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017
29. Similarly, as regards addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the hands of Arun Sahlot in AY 2009-10 on the basis of notings in the diary inventorized as A-3, we find that the assessee deposed in the affidavit filed before AO that he has not made any payment to Mr. Samal and explained in the affidavit that it was mere proposal to offer employment to one Mr. Samal which is explicit from the word 'salary' written therein. But the idea being unilateral one and as the assessee did not talk to Mr. Samal on the proposal, he dropped the idea.
30. We note that here also, the Ld. AO did nothing to corroborate, much less corroborated, his presumption of undisclosed payment and without finding any adversity in the deposition of the assessee, he went on to make addition only on surmises and conjectures but since we have already set aside the issue of additions made on the basis of seized diary B-3 to Ld. A.O for afresh examination, we are of the view that the issue of additions made at Rs.2,00,000/- raised by the assessee in Ground No.4 of in IT(SS)A No.192/Ind/2012 which was made by the Ld. A.O on the basis of seized diary marked as A-3 is also set aside to the file of Ld. A.O for fresh examination 22 Sanjay Mehta & Ors M.A. Nos 67 to70/Ind/2017 and is hereby directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and should make addition only if nexus with corroborative evidence is established between the jottings in the diary with the actual transaction having taken place.
31. In the result all the Miscellaneous Applications filed before us are allowed to the extent of the claim that two common issues remained to be adjudicated by this Tribunal and further the two issues mentioned herein above which remained to be adjudicated by this Tribunal at the time of original hearing are hereby allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated herein above.
The order pronounced in the open Court on
25.03.2021.
Sd/- Sd/-
( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
दनांक /Dated : 25th March, 2021
/Dev
Copy to: The Appellant/Respondent/CIT concerned/CIT(A) concerned/ DR, ITAT, Indore/Guard file.
By Order, Asstt.Registrar, I.T.A.T., Indore 23