TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus MAULIKKUMAR K. SHAH [2007 (7) TMI 267 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] followed – thus, the addition cannot be made – Decided in favour of Assessee. - I.T.(SS) A. No. 682 /AHD/2010 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2014 - Shri G. C. Gupta And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.,JJ. For the Appellant Shri P. M. Mehta For the Respondent : Shri T. P. Krishnakumar, CIT D.R. ORDER Per Shri Anil Chaturvedi,A.M. 1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-I, Ahmedabad dated 27.07.2010 for A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under. 3. In this case, a search operation under section 132(2) was conducted in the case of Savvy group on 14.02. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 003 and being such, they could not be used to support a suggestion that the appellant had received cash amounting to Rs. 17 lacs after the said date viz., 5.3.2003; (b) that even as Offices bearing Nos, 204 and 205 were sold to Shri Yogeshbhai Lakhani whose name appeared at the top of the paper, the details of the actual transaction in relation to those Offices including their measurements and the schedule of payments etc. showed that the jottings in the seized paper were only rough and widely off the mark; (c) that the impugned addition had been made merely on the basis of a presumption and without once attempting to contact Shri Yogeshbhai Lakhani with a view to cross-verifying with him the interpretation of the record which the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to the A.O. He concluded that since the document contains amount received up to 15th June showing cheque of Rs. 6 lac and cash of 17 implying that Rs. 6 lac had been received by cheque and 17 lac received in cash and therefore the Assessee has received the payment up to 15th June, 2003. He therefore considered the alleged cash receipts of Rs. 17 lacs to be unexplained receipt and accordingly considered it to be unaccounted income of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by holding as under:- 3.1 I have considered the assessment order and the above submissions. It is seen' that the A.O. has referred to a loose paper found from the reside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustomer regarding terms of payment. It was submitted that the Assessee was having discussion with Yogeshbhai Lakhani for purchase of unit no. 204 205 in respect of scheme Shapath 3. Mr. Lakhani was interested in having Terrace rights along with the purchase of units. The deal however did not culminate and the Assessee purchased only 2 units without any terrace rights and therefore the rough notings which were the notings regarding the terms of payment and tentative terms of payment was not having any relevance. He further submitted that a disclosure of Rs. 2 crore was made by Assessee for A.Y. 07-08 where as the notings showed payment up to 15th June, 2003 and therefore disclosed amount already covers the amount shown in such notings also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of search with respect to the aforesaid cash receipts. Further, the A.O. had also not examined the purchaser Shri Yogeshbhai Lakhani to whom the said unit was sold and from whom the alleged cash of Rs. 17 lacs is said to have been received by Assessee. Before us, the ld. A.R. submitted that the notings were with respect to the tentative discussion held with Yogeshbhai Lakhani for the purchase of units which ultimately did not culminate. We find that the aforesaid contention has not been controverted by Revenue by bringing any tangible material on record and the addition has been made on the basis of the notings found at the time of search. We also find that in the case of Maulik Kumar Shah (supra) the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|