COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. ANIL BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rs. 0.15 crores under the head unexplained expenditure under s. 69C of the IT Act, 1961 on the basis of certain documents which formed part of Annex. A12 of the seized documents. The search and seizure operation was carried out in the premises of the assessee (Anil Bhalla) as well as in the premises of Vatika Township (P) Ltd. in which the said that both, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were convinced by the explanation given by the assessee with regard to the nature and contents of the seized documents in question which were essentially pp. 24 and 25 of Annex. A12 of the seized documents. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal examined the entire evidence on record including the statements made by the assessee in the post -search proceedings as well as before the AO and then came to the conclusion that the said additions could not be sustained in the absence of any other corroborative evidence.

(2.) HOWEVER , the learned counsel for the Revenue has not been able to satisfactorily explain as to how the assessee is stated to have spent a sum of Rs. 1.94 crores in respect of a transaction which was admittedly only for Rs. 3.86 crores.

(3.) THE next issue relates to a sum of Rs. 15 lacs which has been treated by the AO as undisclosed cash receipts of the assessee and added back as undisclosed income of the block period. The Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] deleted the addition of Rs. 15 lacs so made by the AO by holding that no independent corroborative material had been found in support of the conclusion arrived at by the AO that the amount of Rs. 15 lacs was paid to the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the finding of the CIT(A) on the ground that the explanation of the assessee had not been controverted by the AO by bringing any evidence on the record and observed as follows :