9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of additions as unexplained income on an estimate basis. 2. Non-decision on the addition made on an ad-hoc basis. Summary: Issue 1: Confirmation of Additions as Unexplained Income on Estimate Basis The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the business of builders and developers, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2006-07. The AO made additions based on statements recorded during a survey operation and impounded documents. The additions included Rs.7,12,02,601/- for cash transactions from the sale of 39 flats, Rs.11,70,000/- for brokerage, and Rs.39,00,000/- for car parking charges, totaling Rs.7,91,78,829/-. The AO estimated the price of each flat at Rs.4500/- per sq.ft. against Rs.2200/- per sq.ft. shown by the assessee. The CIT(A) allowed cross-examination of witnesses and confirmed the addition to the extent of 21 flats sold during the relevant period, based on impounded documents. The CIT(A) confirmed Rs.3,74,81,000/- for on-money on sale of flats, Rs.6,30,000/- for brokerage, and Rs.21,00,000/- for car parking charges, totaling Rs.4,02,11,000/-. The assessee argued that the AO's additions were based on contradictory statements and not corroborated by documentary evidence. The statements were not signed by the authorized officer, and the assessee was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses during the assessment proceedings. The AR contended that the impounded loose sheets were not prepared by the assessee and had no evidentiary value. The Tribunal noted that except for one statement, others were not attested by an authorized officer. Statements recorded u/s 133A have no evidentiary value unless corroborated by documentary evidence. The Tribunal found that the AO's estimated rate of Rs.4500/- per sq.ft. was not supported by impounded documents. The CIT(A)'s reliance on impounded documents for confirming additions was partly upheld. The Tribunal concluded that no addition was warranted for area, parking charges, and brokerage, except for rates mentioned in impounded documents. Issue 2: Non-decision on Ad-hoc Addition The CIT(A) did not decide on the addition of Rs.25,000/- made by the AO on an ad-hoc basis. During the hearing, the assessee did not press this ground, and the DR had no objection to its dismissal. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed this ground as not pressed. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, confirming the addition regarding rates mentioned in impounded documents and dismissing the ad-hoc addition of Rs.25,000/-.
|
