ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. SHRISANJAY KAUMAR AGARWAL, AGRA
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed
ITA 31/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Tax, Central Circle-2, Kanpur D-59, Kamla Nagar, Agra-282005 Pan: Aaupa2845H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Kanpur Dated 14.11.2022 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 153A R.W.S. 153C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A)-Iv, Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- Made U/S 69A By The Ao Ignoring The Fact That Such Addition Was Made By The Ao On The Basis Of Entries Found On These Loose Papers Seized From The Possession Of Such A Person Who Was Having Business Relations With All Persons Named Therein Including Assessee. 2. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A)-Iv, Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- Made U/S 69A By Accepting The Denial By The Person From Whose Possession It Was Recovered & The Assessee Regarding The Relation Of Its Entries With Them Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Totality. 3. That The Order Of The Cit(A) Being Erroneous In Law & Facts Be Set Aside & Order Of The A.O. Be Restored. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Adduce Or Amend Any Ground Or Grounds On Or Before The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.”
For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 292CSection 69A
…wrong or false. He had neither examined the so called author of the document nor the assessee despite of specific request made by the assessee. Attention was invited to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the correctness of the affidavit could not be challenged unless the parties were cross examined by the ld. AO. In the present case, the assessee was not afforded the opportunity of cross examination and therefore, the contents of his affidavit could not be disbelieved or rejected. It was also argued…
