9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount in purchase of the land, then no substantial question of law arises - Decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A], as confirmed by the Tribunal of an amount of Rs. 8.85 lakhs added by the Assessing Officer during the block assessment proceedings in case of respondent-assessee as "undisclosed investment" in Indira Vikas Patra ["IVP" for short] and interest of Rs. 14.20 lakhs [rounded off] accrued thereon. The Assessing Officer had made such addition which prompted the assessee to prefer appeal before the Commissioner [Appeals]. CIT [A] did not accept the Revenue's stand that the document Annexure A-14 seized during the course of search recorded details of investment upto April 1999 and that page-59 of Annexure A/16 contains the details of investment made after April 1999. CIT [A] observed that, "there is no base to come to such absurd conclusion. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al submissions, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the revenue. The A.O noted the maturity value of the IVPs at Rs. 1,10,20,000/= and presumed that since the IVPs mature after period of 5 ½ years at double the value of the investment, therefore, he has taken investment in IVPs at Rs. 55,10,000/=. The assessee filed cash flow statement of unaccounted income to show undisclosed investment in IVPs in a sum of Rs. 46,25,000/= which is based on the seized papers. The assessee also explained the bifurcation given in Annexure A/1 page 42 that investment in IVPs was only Rs. 92,50,000/=. It would show that the A.O merely presumed that since the IVPs mature after period of 5½ years at double the value of investment, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... losed investment in Kisan Vikas Patra ["KVP" for short] and the interest of Rs. 5.13 lakhs [rounded off] accrued thereon. Here also, Revenue has placed heavy reliance on the contents of Annexure A-14, as can be seen from the question itself. CIT [A] and Tribunal had examined this issue similarly. In particular, CIT [A] accepted the assessee's version that such deposits were made by the partners out of the undisclosed income of M/s. GNP Auto Cassettes which was included in the total disclosure of Rs. 15,00,000/= made by the firm. Such being the conclusion of CIT [A] which was also upheld by the Tribunal, in our opinion, the issue being factual in nature, no question of law arises. The sole surviving Question IV pertains to addition of Rs. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee has to be confronted to the assessee to give him opportunity to rebut the evidence, otherwise, same would not be admissible in evidence against the assessee." The assessee filed specific replies before the Assessing Officer controverting the statements of the sellers and material collected behind the back of the assessee and also requested for their cross examination, but the Assessing Officer deliberately did not allow the assessee to cross examine the statements and materials collected at the back of the assessee cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. The assessee pleaded before the Assessing Officer that confirmation of sellers are not reliable because there was difference in Bighas of land and land sold to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppreciation of the facts and material on record rightly deleted the addition. This ground of appeal of the revenue has not merit. The same is accordingly dismissed." From the above, it could be seen that primarily the Assessing Officer had made additions on two basis - firstly, that some of the lands in the village were sold at a higher price, and that in the present case, sellers had given statements to the Assessing Officer of having received higher sale consideration. Both the grounds were knocked down by the CIT [A] and Tribunal on the premise that the other lands were not shown to be comparable and that the witnesses were not offered for cross examination. In fact, the assessee had contended that the lands sought to be compared by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
