9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1965 - AT - Income TaxUnrecorded sales - payment of cash and cheque - Non mentioning section under which the addition was made - HELD THAT - During the course of hearing assessee could not advance any contrary arguments confronting the orders of the lower authorities - available records that the assessee had received a sum of ₹ 67.50 lacs during the year under consideration which was not recorded in the books of account of the assessee - before the Investigation Wing at New Delhi, Shri Nikhil Tripathi, Director of UTHPL statement was recorded u/s 131 in which he confirmed the payment of cash of ₹ 57.50 lacs and ₹ 10.00 lacs through bearer cheque during the year under consideration and stated that the MOU dated 14-07-2007 was not signed by him but it was a forged document. In this situation, the AO noticed the unrecorded sales of ₹ 67.50 lacs and made the addition in the hands of the assessee . Appellant received a sum of ₹ 67.50 lacs during the year under consideration which was not recorded in its books of accounts.CIn ground of appeal, it has been stated by the appellant that the AO has not mentioned the section under which the addition was made and he has not verified the bank statement. In this regard, it is stated that non-mentioning of section does not make the assessment bad. Further, for cash transaction, there is no need for verification of the bank statements - Decided against assessee. Admission of additional evidence filed by the assessee - HELD THAT - Filing of additional evidence by the ld.AR of the assessee has no relevance as the same has already been taken into consideration in the case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2007-08. In this view of the matter and facts and circumstances of the case, we concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and do not find merit in admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Hence, the additional evidence filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2007-08 is not admitted. Thus Ground of the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition of ?67.50 lacs by AO without specifying the section and verifying the bank statement. 2. Confirmation of addition based on the statement of Shri Nikhil Tripathi without allowing cross-examination. 3. Justification of addition without ensuring payment through cash and bearer cheque to M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. 4. Rejection of additional evidences under section 46A without allowing the opportunity of being heard by AO. 5. Confirmation of order passed under section 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. Confirmation of addition of ?3.26 crores under section 68 as unexplained cash credit. 7. Non-allowance of cross-examination of the statement of the director of the purchase company recorded under section 131. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Confirmation of Addition of ?67.50 lacs The assessee argued that the addition of ?67.50 lacs by the AO was unjustified as it was made without specifying the section and verifying the bank statement. The CIT(A) noted that an MOU was executed on 22-03-2006, where the appellant agreed to sell land to UTHPL for ?15,87,50,000/-. UTHPL paid ?2.20 crores through cheque and ?57,50,000/- in cash. However, the MOU was canceled on 14-07-2007 due to non-payment of the balance amount. The AO made an addition based on the statement of Shri Nikhil Tripathi, Director of UTHPL, who confirmed the cash payment of ?57.50 lacs and ?10 lacs through a bearer cheque. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that non-mentioning of the section does not invalidate the assessment, and for cash transactions, bank statement verification is unnecessary. Issue 2: Cross-Examination of Shri Nikhil Tripathi The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition based on Shri Nikhil Tripathi's statement without allowing cross-examination. The CIT(A) observed that the statement was brought to the appellant's notice, and the appellant did not seek cross-examination during the assessment stage. The CIT(A) rejected this ground, stating that the appellant waived the right to cross-examination by not requesting it at the appropriate time. Issue 3: Justification of Addition Without Ensuring Payment The CIT(A) addressed this issue by referring to the detailed discussion in Ground No. 1. The CIT(A) concluded that the appellant received ?67.50 lacs during the year under consideration, which was not recorded in the books of accounts. Issue 4: Rejection of Additional Evidences Under Section 46A The assessee filed additional evidence, including a court order dated 20-11-2015, arguing that the CIT(A) should have kept the proceedings in abeyance until the court decided the suit. The CIT(A) considered the additional evidence and rejected it, stating that the issue of the genuineness of the MOU dated 14-07-2007 was not before the court, and the order was passed ex-parte in the absence of the respondents. The CIT(A) upheld the addition of ?3.26 crores under section 68. Issue 5: Confirmation of Order Passed Under Section 147/143(3) The AO reopened the case under section 147 based on the information that the assessee received ?2,77,50,000/- from UTHPL, out of which only ?1,85,00,000/- was declared. The AO made an addition of ?67.50 lacs based on the statement of Shri Nikhil Tripathi, who confirmed the cash payment. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's action, noting that the assessee failed to provide any contrary evidence. Issue 6: Addition of ?3.26 Crores Under Section 68 The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ?3.26 crores as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee failed to controvert the AO's findings and provide any contrary material evidence. Issue 7: Non-Allowance of Cross-Examination of Director's Statement The assessee argued that the AO did not allow cross-examination of the director's statement. The CIT(A) rejected this ground, stating that the appellant waived the right to cross-examination by not requesting it during the assessment stage. Conclusion: The appeals filed by the assessee for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were dismissed. The CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the AO, including ?67.50 lacs and ?3.26 crores, based on the statements and evidence provided. The additional evidence filed by the assessee was not admitted, and the grounds raised by the assessee were rejected.
|
