Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1.26. In various judicial decisions under such facts it was held that no addition U/s 68 & 69 should be made on the base of loose papers as on the basis of the same it cannot be concluded that there is any unexplained investment, and in this regard useful reference may be made to the following judicial decisions.

• Thiru S. Shyam Umar Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-III(3), Chennai 99 taxmann.com 39 (Madras High Court).

• Solitare World Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi ITA Nos. 55 & others/Jodh/2023 Shri Shyam Sunder Soni • DCIT-2(1), Raipur (CG) vs Shri ChhaganlalMundra, IT(SS)A No.32/RPR/2013 (ITAT Panji) • Shri Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad Vs The DCIT, Central circle-4, New Delhi. ITA.Nos.9147, 9148, 9149, 9150, 9151 & 9152/Del./2019, ITAT F Bench Delhi • Kantilal& Bros. vs. Asstt. CIT (1995) 51 77J (Pune) 513 : (1995) 52 • Asstt CIT vs. Karodilal Agarwal (1994) 50 M (Jab) 393; • RamlalDayawala& Sons (P) LTD. vs. Invest Import AIR 1981 CS2085; • Sir Mohammed Yusuf &Anr. vs. D. &Anr. AIR 1968 112 42 (Bom.) • Criminal Petition No. 265/1995, April, 1997-L.K. Advani. 1.27. It is further submitted that un corroborative entries in the books of accounts or documents do not establish their truthfulness and in this connection he laid emphasis on the contents of the document or book of account and truthfulness of the contents. It is emphasised that jotting in diary is held neither a book nor a document. Therefore, addition cannot be justified merely on the basis of seized papers. With reference to the decision of Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. WD. Estates (P) ITD. (supra) it was submitted that no addition could be made merely on the basis of a notorious fact that on-money is involved in property deals, particularly when the AO has not made any such allegation in the present case and no evidence was found during the course of search that any transaction entered into by the assessee is not disclosed by him.