9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer making addition on account of receipt of on money from the Scheme Ganesh Plaza, while passing the order of assessment. [2.0] Facts leading to the present appeal in nut-shell are as under: A search was conducted under section 131 on 14.03.1996 at Radhe Group Business premises. Search was also initiated at residential premises of a partner. One of the partners statement, namely Shri Ashish P. Patel, a working partner, was recorded on various occasions/dates. It was noted that the assessee had constructed an office-cum-shop premises named as Ganesh Plaza. The allegation was that the assessee had charged on-money over and above the documented price on sale of the premises of the said project. It was noted by the AO that a notice under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the ITAT being Appeal No.53/AHD/1998 and by impugned order and observing that though the AO has mentioned that there was clinching documentary evidence with respect to receiving the on-money, but what was that evidence is nowhere mentioned and even nowhere it is mentioned that what was the nature of impugned clinching documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that in absence of any cogent incriminating material, the addition is bad in law and consequently has directed to delete the same. That while deleting the aforesaid addition, the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balaji Wire Pvt. Ltd. reported in 304 ITR 393 [Delhi] as well as the decision of the Madras High Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Delhi High Court in the case of Balaji Wire Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) as well as this Court in the case of CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah reported in 307 ITR 137 (Gujarat).
[4.0] Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the reasoning given by the ITAT and the aforesaid three decisions, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT in deleting the addition of Rs.1,45,37,500/- as unaccounted income as on-money alleged to have been received by the assessee. The decision of the ITAT is on appreciation of material on record and on facts. No substantial question of law arise in the present appeal. Hence, present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
