9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry notes, claimed to have been issued by Shri Puratchidasan, were part of the seized records. Assessee has shown no reason as to why such promissory notes were not produced before the A.O - the CIT(Appeals) was absolutely justified for rejecting the claim of the assessee - against assessee. - I.T.(SS) A. No. 28/Mds/2011 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2012 - SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JJ. Appellant by : Shri Lakshmichand Nahata, CA Respondent by : Shri Shaji P. Jacob, Addl. CIT O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : In this appeal filed by the assessee, its grievance is that CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,38,000/- out of total sum of Rs. 5 lakhs made by the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Shri Puratchidasan. Explanation of the assessee was that the agreement for purchase of property from Shri Puratchidasan was entered on 17.10.89. As per the assessee, Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid to Shri Puratchidasan during the period 17.10.89 to 5.12.89 alongwith expenses of Rs. 12,000/- for registration of agreement for purchase of the property. Thus the total sum paid to Shri Puratchidasan, as per the assessee, came to Rs. 2,62,000/-. Upon cancellation of above agreement, as per the assessee, the said sum was received back from Shri Puratchidasan. According to the assessee, it was not a loan given to that party, but only advance which was received back. However, Assessing Officer was not appreciative of these explanations. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever given to the Assessing Officer. As per the CIT(Appeals), assessee could not establish that his case was covered under any of the exceptions provided under Section 46A of the Act. He, therefore, refused to consider the evidence filed by the assessee for the claim of Rs. 3 lakhs. However, he accepted the source for the sum of Rs. 2,62,000/- out of Rs. 5 lakhs, as part of the advance earlier paid by the assessee based on the agreement for sale of property returned by Shri Puratchidasan. Thus, effectively, he reduced the addition to Rs. 2,38,000/- 5. Now before us, learned A.R., strongly assailing the orders of authorities below, submitted that the promissory notes were a part of the seized documents and therefore, it could not have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.11.1990 Rs. 3,00,000/- Case of the assessee is that what was returned by Shri Puratchidasan was the above amounts. Since agreement based on which Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid in 1989 was a registered one, CIT(Appeals) had accepted that claim. CIT(Appeals) had agreed with the contention of the assessee that Rs. 2,50,000/- out of Rs. 5 lakhs, was the amount returned on cancellation of the agreement. CIT(Appeals) also accepted the claim of the assessee that Rs. 12,000/- was the registration expenses for the agreement returned by Shri Puratchidasan. However, insofar as Rs. 3 lakhs claimed as amounts returned by Shri Puratchidasan out of cash paid in 1990, CIT(Appeals) was of the opinion that fresh evidence was produced in the form o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
