Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central-2 v. Umesh Ishrani

1 / 3 07-ITXA-219-17.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.219 OF 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,Central-2.... Appellant versus Umesh Ishrani... Respondent….... Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant.Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant. None for Respondent.None for Respondent. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.DATE: 30[th] APRIL, 2019. P.C. : 1. This Appeal is filed by the revenue to challenge the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following questionis presented for our consideration; “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified indeleting the addition on account of cash payment forpurchase of shops by holding that the seized papers werenot found from the premises of the assessee and hence 2 / 3 07-ITXA-219-17.odtpresumption u/s. 132(4A), u/s. 292C of the I T Act,1961 are not applicable, without appreciating that theseized papers were found during search in the premises ofone of the partners Sri Laxmichand Rohira of the samefirm for purchase of shops by the firm and in the saidseized documents, amounts of cash paid by all thepartners are noted and assessments made in the case ofthe said partner Shri Laxmichand Rohira relating to hisshare of cash payment has become final, and therefore,that evidence is also relevant for assessment of otherpartners, including the assessee?” 2. The Respondent-Assessee is an individual. He was thepartner of the firm. The Income Tax Department had carried outsearch and seizure operation during which certain loose paperswere collected. On the basis of loose papers additions weremade in the hands of the individual partners and on protectivebasis on the hand of the firm. While deleting such addition incase of the present assessee the Tribunal noted that thedocuments nowhere show that any payments were made bysame persons, no enquiry or verification was made with theseller of the shops or the developer. Tribunal therefore concluded that entries of the loose papers were not corroboratedwith any other evidence on record. 3. It can thus be seen that the entire issue is based onappreciation of evidence on record. The Tribunal noted that theloose papers entries were not clear and not corroborated by anyindependent evidence. No question of law therefore arises.Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)