9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in cash paid on 20-10-2004 was not adjusted against purchase consideration of Rs.8 lacs shown in registered deed, where the total payment of Rs.8 lacs was shown to be made by three cheques only clearly shown that the appellant has paid the excess amount over and above the amount shown in the sale deed - addition as unexplained investment is warranted - against assessee. - ITA No. 779/2011 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otal income of ₹ 2,83,546/-. The documents which were seized included, (i) balance sheet and statement of capital accounts of Smt. Bela Juneja and Pravin Juneja as on 31st March, 2002 (ii) receipt dated 18th October, 2004 issued by S.C. Sharma of ₹ 1 lakhs received in cash from Smt. Bela Juneja. 3. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had purchased property bearing 40/43, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... October, 2004 for ₹ 8 lakhs. The assessee had not furnished any plausible explanation for the difference between agreed price of ₹ 31 lakhs and actual price as per sale deed of ₹ 8 lakhs. The Assessing Officer held that difference of ₹ 22,54,400/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. 4. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. While doing so, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered deed, where the total payment of Rs.8 lacs was shown to be made by three cheques only clearly shown that the appellant has paid the excess amount over and above the amount shown in the sale deed. Hence, the AO was justified in making an addition of Rs.22,54,400/- (it should have been Rs.23 lacs i.e. difference between Rs. 31 lacs and Rs.8 lacs) as unexplained investment towards the acqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law could be pointed out by learned counsel for the assessee for our consideration. These were all questions of facts on which the findings have been recorded by the authorities below. There is no perversity or infirmity in the impugned order. There is no question of law involved, much less substantive question of law. The appeal merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
