Kailash Chand Trivedi, Kanpur vs Assessee

Kailash Chand Trivedi v. DCIT 65/32, Moti Mahal Central Circle-1 Kanpur Kanpur TAN/PAN:ACCPT8154G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by: Shri. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Dr. Anand Kumar Agarwal, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 24 03 2015 Date of pronouncement: 31 03 2015

ORDER

PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), inter alia, on the following grounds:-

1. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.8,67,369/- as unexplained investment and Rs.1,30,105/- as gross profit in "flower business" which business does not belong to the assessee but belongs to one Shri Priya Darshan Agnihotri without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and without going through the evidences filed both before the Assessing Officer and before him. The addition being bad in law be deleted.

2. Because on a proper consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances as well as the contents of the submissions made before him during the course of the appellate proceedings and :-2-:

has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,67,369/- as unexplained investment and Rs.1,30,105/- as gross profit in flower business, which additions be deleted.

3. Because the authorities below have failed to appreciate the fact that neither the loose papers BK1, BK2, BK3 and BK4 of LP1 found at the time of search on 17.09.2008 from the premises of the assessee belong to the assessee nor the assessee being anywhere involved in the flower business, the additions made are all contrary to facts, bad in law and be deleted.

4. Because the CIT(A) has in a very cryptic manner without looking into the facts and circumstances of the case (overlooking the paper book containing the written submission and the affidavit) has decided the issue, which order of CIT(A) is not only arbitrary, but is also against the principle of natural justice, the addition of Rs.8,67,369/- and Rs.1,30,105/- be deleted.

2. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the fact that during the course of search conducted upon the assessee, certain papers were found, with regard to which it was deposed by the assessee that it belong to Shri. Priya Darshan Agrihotri who was engaged in the flower business. The explanations furnished by the assessee with regard to the seized material were not examined by the Assessing Officer by making necessary enquiry from Shri. Priya Darshan Agrihotri and the Assessing Officer has made the addition in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the seized material, against which an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), but the assessee did not find favour with him.

3. Now the assessee is in appeal before us with the submission that the assessee has placed relevant evidence before the Assessing Officer, but it :-3-:

was not examined by him, therefore, in the interest of justice, the order of the ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-adjudicate the issue afresh in the light of the explanations and materials filed by the assessee with respect to the seized documents.

4. The ld. D.R. has simply placed reliance upon the order of the ld. CIT(A).

5. Having carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities in the light of the rival submissions, we find that the addition in the hands of the assessee was made on the basis of seized material, which was stated to be belonging to Shri. Priya Darshan Agrihotri. Though the assessee has furnished explanation with regard to the seized material, but it was neither examined by the Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(A). We are, therefore, of the view that this issue was not properly examined by the Assessing Officer in the light of the evidence and documents filed by the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-adjudicate the issue afresh by making necessary enquiry from Shri. Priya Darshan Agrihotri and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the captioned page.

Sd/- Sd/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

DATED: 31st March, 2015 JJ:2403 :-4-:

Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR Assistant Registrar