9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- on substantive basis holding that the assessee had made unaccounted payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- for Boricha Land at the time of entry into deed of assignment on 18.03.2005. 2.1 The relevant facts are that the AO, in his assessment order had observed that the assessee has filed its return of income on 30.10.2007 declaring a total income of Rs. 22,64,000/-. A search and seizure operation was carried out u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in Akruti Group of cases on 10.08.2006. On perusal of documents seized from the premises of group cases, it was seen that the page Nos. 34, 36, 67 to 69, 73, 76 to 79 and 82 of Annexure A-1 seized from the main office of the group at 6th Floor, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under:- " Land Cost 1. Lokhandwals & Kataria 11.00 2. Local Residents 11.00 3. Stamp Duty etc. 25.00 47.00 As per Agreement 70.00 117.00 Boricha 51 + 20 71.00 Yawalkar 386.00 Stamp duty/ Registration This land had been further shown in the cost of project at page 36 seized and value of Boricha land was allegedly shown at Rs. 71 lakhs as on 30.07.2005. In another page 67, dated 28.11.2005, which was seized during the year, the cost of Boricha land had been shown at 71 lakhs. According to the assesse, the actual value of the land was Rs. 51 lakhs and the deed of assignment as well as transfer deed entered subsequently entered was only for the same amount. But in the seized papers, the value of land of Rs. 51 lakh and also the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Boricha land is Rs. 71 lakhs or Rs. 51 lakhs. To state more specifically, whether the seized materials/documents can be the basis for presuming that the assessee has made the impugned payment of Rs. 20 lakhs, which is in excess of the agreed consideration of Rs. 51 lakhs. Firstly, as regards the contention of the Revenue that page nos. 34 to 36, 69, 79 and 82, indicate that the assessee company has purchased Boricha Land for a total consideration of Rs. 71,00,000/-, which is evidencing at page 34 as (51+20), it is pertinent to mention that the seized paper at page 34 does not contain any reference as to whether '71.00' was 'paid' or 'payable' for the Boricha Land. It appears that the AO has himself assumed that the assessee company ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investment. The AO has accepted the assessee company's contention that the figure merely represented a rough estimate. Thirdly, Page no. 79 of the seized paper dated 16.05.2006 shows the budgeted as well as the actual amount spent in relation to the Tulsiwadi project. In terms of date, this is the latest paper in relation to all the other seized papers. This paper also clearly indicates that the amount of '71' is shown under the head 'Budgeted'. Further, as against the budgeted amount, only an amount of Rs. 5 lacs is shown as 'paid'. Thus if the seized paper itself shown an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- paid, then the inference which is drawn by the AO regarding the payment of Rs. 20,00,000 is totally incorrect. If the AO accepts one part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C on the basis of page -82 of Annexure A-1 seized, which is reproduced as under:- According to the AO, this seized paper at page-82, vouches for the total construction cost at Rs. 4,31,00,000/- whereas the total of payments recorded in the regular books is only 380 lakhs up to 02.05.2006. Therefore, the AO was of the view that the assessee had failed to explain the source of expenditure of Rs. 51,00,000/- and accordingly made the impugned addition u/s 69C of Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee has filed this appeal before us, which is pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08. 3.2 Having heard both the sides and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this context, it is relevant to state that the figure is an estimate, which is supported by the fact that while all balances as per loose paper match perfectly with the trial balance of that period, the difference of exactly Rs. 51 lakhs is in construction expenses along, which is an ongoing and continuous expense for the company, for which the construction work is done by the contractor and bill for the same is to be raised by him. The perusal of the records further supports that the amount under the column 'Spent Till date' not only includes the amount which is actually paid, but it also includes the amount of liability which is incurred but not yet paid. Thus, the difference of 51 lakhs is also an expense which though was only 'incurre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
