9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flat in a sum of Rs. 2,48,000. Considering the facts and circumstances noted above, and the facts that no entry is also recorded in the account of the assessee in respect of the amount contributed by the assessee's father - Decided against the assesssee. Additional evidence - Held that:- since the assessee has not raised this ground either before the Assessing Officer or before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and no specific ground is taken in the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, submission of the assessee may not be entertained which also requires verification of facts. - request for additional ground rejected. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 3,73,000 through cheques and Rs. 2,48,000 had been paid as on-money in cash. The assessee, however, submitted that a sum of Rs. 3,73,000 was paid from his own funds which had been duly reflected in the accounts and in the return of income. The remaining amount of Rs. 2,48,000 had been paid by his father who was an agriculturist out of his agricultural income. It was submitted that the source of income of Rs. 2,48,000 in cash is, therefore, explained. The Assessing Officer observed that in the balance-sheet of the assessee as on March 31, 1999 a sum of Rs. 2,61,000 had been shown on the assets side against the name of M/s. Ohm Organizers. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was shown in the balance-sheet of the assessee's wife as on March 31, 1999. The Assessing Officer, therefore, accepted Rs. 3,61,000 as explained. The assessee has however, claimed to have paid Rs. 3,73,000 vide letter dated February 26, 2004. Thus, there was a difference of Rs. 12,000. The Assessing Officer further noted that the name of the assessee's father, Shri Naranbhai Govindbhai Waghela, did not appear in the accounts of the assessee, i.e., balance-shee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal representative relied upon the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, in the case of Raghav Bahl v. Dy. CIT [2008] 111 ITD 174 in which it was held that transactions not recorded in the books of account maintained in normal course before the date of search, it could be said that on the date of search income has not been disclosed to the Revenue nor it was intended to be disclosed. It was treated as undisclosed income. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and the materials available on record. The dispute is left only with regard to addition of Rs. 2,48,000 which is confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on account of unexplained on-money paid by the assessee to the builder. The assessee in his initial reply admitted before the Assessing Officer that the flat in question has been purchased by him in his name for a sum of Rs. 3,73,000. However, the seized material proves that it was purchased for a sum of Rs. 6,21,000. The amount of Rs. 3,73,000, according to the assessee was paid by cheque. The builders in their statements have admitted to have received on-money from purchasers for sale of the flats. The seized material is, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over his case. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noted that after search all the cases were centralised with the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Surat, therefore, the case of the assessee was taken up by the same Assessing Officer. Objection of the assessee was accordingly rejected. Learned counsel for the assessee did not argue on this issue. We, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We confirm his findings and dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee also. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, dated November 7, 2008 in M.A. No. 115/Ahd./2008 and I.T. (SS) A. No. 80/Ahd./2007 in the name of Ramesh Ambalal Waghela v. Asstt. CIT, Surat. He has submitted that it was a case of other buyer in which the Tribunal has held that the block assessment order is barred by limitation. He has, therefore, prayed that the order in the case of the assessee also may be quashed. The learned Departmental representative objected to the submissions of learned counsel for the assessee on the ground that no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
