TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o addition of ₹ 25 lakhs as unexplained investment. The said ground, being ground No.2 reads as follows- "The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Hyderabad is not justified confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of addition of ₹ 25 lakhs to the returned income as unexplained investment for the AY 2002-03." On this very issue, the assessee has also raised grounds in its appeals for the assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06, being ITA Nos.915/Hyd/2011 and 916/Hyd/2011. 3. Facts of the case in brief as taken from the assessee's appeal for assessment year 2002-03, viz. ITA No.914/Hyd/2011, in relation to this issue are as follows- 4. The assessee is an individual. On 17.10.2007. a search and seizure operation under S.132 of the Act was conducted in the residential premises of the assessee. Consequent to the search and seizure operations, notices under S.153A were issued on 27.10.2008 for assessment year 2002-03 to 2007-08 to the assessee. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed its returns of income for the impugned assessment year on 12.11.2009, admitting income of ₹ 77,015. In the course of the assessment proceedings, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the CIT(A). Before the first appellate authority, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the HUF has been receiving agricultural income since the year 1990, and has been submitting income-tax returns showing agricultural income from the year 2000. It was further contended that during the assessment proceedings the assessee had also submitted copies of the assessment order passed in the case of HUF, alongwith certificate from MRO to prove the fact that the HUF was deriving income from agricultural sources and the loan of ₹ 25 lakhs was from that source only. The CIT(A), after considering the contentions of the assessee in the context of the facts and materials on record before him was of the view that the submission made by the assessee are not acceptable, because no prudent person will keep such huge amount of cash with him for extending the loan. The CIT(A) further noted the fact that it is not the only instance of the assessee having received cash loans from the HUF. In subsequent assessment years also, i.e. assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, the assessee has shown cash loans of ₹ 1,27,00,000 and ₹ 1,46,00,000 from HUF. The CIT(A) noting the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, the assessee's contention that the HUF was holding substantial agricultural land and was earning income from agricultural activity cannot be totally ruled out. This fact is further substantiated not only by the returns filed by the HUF showing agricultural income, but also from the fact that the Department has accepted agricultural income shown by the HUF in the assessment order passed under S.143(3) of the Act, a copy of which is placed at page 49 of the paper-book filed by the assessee. Therefore, the contention of the assessee cannot be rejected outright. However, whether cash to the extent of loan advanced to the assessee was actually available with the HUF is required to be proved by the assessee by submitting evidence in the form of either cash/fund flow statement of the HUF or any other evidence, which can establish that the HUF was having fund available with it to advance the loan to the assessee. All these aspects having not been looked into either by the CIT(A) or the Assessing Officer. We consider it proper to remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer, for deciding afresh after considering all the relevant material and evidence available before him and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistered in the name of the assessee and ultimately, the transaction did not materialise. The Assessing Officer further noted that during the year under dispute, 25 acres out of the above land was sold by Syed Naseer and Dilip Kumar and registered in the names of K.V.V.Balasubramaniam and others for which Syed Naseer and Dilip Kumar received an amount of ₹ 36,11,250 from the said parties and the money was refunded to the assessee. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee had shown the receipt of the above amount from the parties concerned in the Receipt and Payment Account and has also filed confirmation from Syed Naseeer and Dilip Kumar. The Assessing Officer however, noted that the assessee had not admitted the additional amount received which is accretion to the advances given by him in the return filed by him. When the Assessing Officer made query in this regard, the assessee claimed that the amount received was expended towards maintenance, travel, incidental expenses and legal expenses etc. The Assessing Officer observing that the assessee has not produced any evidence with regard to the claim of expenditure, disallowed the same. The Assessing Officer furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the Receipt and Payment Account, which has not at all been considered by the Assessing Officer in spite of the fact that the same was submitted during the assessment proceedings. The assessee further contended that since the expenditure including payment made to Jagat Singh was incurred in relation to the entire land, the Assessing Officer was not justified in observing that the expenditure was not in respect of 41 acres of land. It was also submitted by the assessee that all the expenditure claimed towards payment made to Jagat Singh and Others in respect of the land in dispute has been claimed in the return filed for the assessment year 2008-09, where the consideration received towards sale of 41 acres of land was also shown. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of the facts and materials available on record, noted that the assessment records do indicate that during the assessment proceedings the assessee has filed various documents and money receipts in respect of payments made to Jagat Singh, Kareemuddin group, Jamaluddin group, etc. He also noted the fact that the claim of expenditure made by the assessee was disallowed in assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gat Singh and others by the assessee had no connection with the 42 acres of land. The CIT(A) further held that the Assessing Officer while treating the amount of ₹ 23,61,130 as accretion to the advance had not given the basis on which he arrived at such figure. The CIT(A) observed that though it is not disputed that during the year the assessee has received ₹ 36,11,250 from Dilip Kumar and Syed Naseer and the same has also been shown in the receipts and Payment Account by the assessee. From this figure, the assessee has reduced the land cost taken at ₹ 12,51,120 and arrived at the figure of accretion to advance at ₹ 23,61,130, in the process disallowing the payment made to Jagat Singh and others towards litigation expenses etc. whereas the money receipts submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, clearly show that payments were in fact made to Jagat Singh. It is also a further fact that the same Assessing Officer while finalizing the assessment in the case of Jagat Singh for the assessment year 2008-09, had made an addition of ₹ 31.65 lakhs in respect of payments received from Ramchandra Rao, the present assessee in the assessment year 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61,130 as income of the assessee, being accretion to the advance given, ignoring the evidences furnished by the assessee and other facts and material available on record. In this view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. The same is accordingly upheld and the first ground of the Revenue in this appeal is rejected. 16. The next ground in the appeal of the Revenue is with regard to the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 29,65,279, being income from other sources by the Assessing Officer. 17. Briefly the facts relating to the issue in dispute are during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had shown receipts from execution of civil contract works at ₹ 32,23,129 and computed net profit thereon at the rate of 8% under S.44AD and shown income of ₹ 2,57,850. The Assessing Officer, observing that the assessee had not produced any evidence to prove that the above receipts were from execution of civil contract works, treated the same as income from other sources and added it to the total income of the assessee, holding in the process that the provisions of S.44AD is not applicable to such receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks as income from other sources and adding it to the income of the assessee in the proceeding under S.153A of the Act. 19. We heard the submissions of the parties, perused the orders of the authorities below as well as other material on record. As can be seen from the order of the CIT(A), the amount of ₹ 32,23,129 represents the receipts from execution of civil contract works. This factual aspect is beyond any pale of doubt, since it is substantiated by the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee. This has also been accepted by the Department in the assessment under S.143(1) of the Act, made prior to the date of search. A perusal of the TDS certificate issued by the contractee, M/s. Soma Enterprises Limited, in favour of M/s. Srinivasa Constructions which is proprietary concern of the assessee, clearly establishes the fact that the aforesaid receipt of ₹ 32,23,129 is towards execution of civil contract work entrusted by the contractee M/s. Soma Enterprises Ltd., to the proprietary concern of the assessee as a subcontractor. It is also a fact on record that the assessee has not only disclosed this receipt from civil contract works in the return of income filed fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under- (1) Kondapur Rs.10,18,500 (2) Gachchibowli ₹ 3,00,000 (3) Narsingi Vill. Rs.35,85,000 (4) Puppalaguda Rs.20,00,000 26. The Assessing Officer however, noted that the assessee neither furnished any confirmation letter nor any other evidence in respect of the above receipts from sale of land to establish the fact that the amounts represents sale consideration of land. He further noted that neither in the original return of income nor in the return filed in response to notice under S.153A, the assessee had admitted any capital gain or business income in respect of the sale of the above lands. On the aforesaid basis, the Assessing Officer proceeded to add the amount of ₹ 69,03,500 as unexplained income/investment of the assessee of the impugned assessment year. 27. The assessee challenged the above addition made in an appeal before the CIT(A). In the course of hearing of the appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted the details of sale of land made by him. The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer on the basis of details submitted by the assessee. In the remand report submitted, the Assessing Officer after examining the det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the extent of ₹ 11,31,250. He accordingly, out of the total addition of ₹ 35,85,000 made by the Assessing Officer, in respect of the lands at Narsingi village, the CIT(A) sustained an addition of ₹ 11,31,250. As regards land at Puppalguda, sale consideration of which was sold by the assessee at ₹ 20 lakhs, the Assessing Officer after examining the document stated in the remand report that the assessee has produced two sale deeds dated 2.6.2003 and 4.6.2003 indicating sale of ten acres of land for a consideration of ₹ 9 lakh and ₹ 11 lakh respectively, total aggregating to ₹ 20 lakhs. The purchase deed submitted by the assessee, indicated that these lands were purchased on 28.3.2002. The CIT(A) on examining the sale deeds, as well as other materials available on record, including the Receipts and Payments Account filed by the assessee found that the assessee had shown purchase of agricultural land in survey No.285 at Puppalguda village for ₹ 17,25,000 and the receipt of sale consideration of ₹ 20 lakhs is as per the sale deed executed by the assessee. Hence, the CIT(A) was of the view that no addition can be made so far as sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the order of the CIT(A)-I, Hyderabad dated 3.3.2011, the only effective ground of the assessee relates to addition of ₹ 1,46,00,000, made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment of the assessee. Facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments of the parties in relation to this ground are identical to the one considered by us while dealing with the corresponding addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2002-03. Hence, for the detailed reasons given by us, in the context of assessee's appeal for that year, being ITA No.914/Hyd/2011 for that year, vide para No.8, hereinabove, we remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 34. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06, being ITA No.916/Hyd/2011, is allowed for statistical purposes. Assessee's Appeal : ITA No.1052/Hyd/2011 : Assessment year 2006-07 35. In this appeal directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) I, Hyderabad dated 21.3.2011, for the assessment y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce ₹ 5 lakhs no sale deed could be produced by the assessee. He therefore, concluded that the assessee can be held to be entitled to receive 1/12th of ₹ 5 lakhs, i.e. ₹ 41,667 as his share. He therefore, held that out of ₹ 10 lakhs shown as sale consideration in respect of land at Survey No.295/1, an amount of ₹ 41,667 stands explained and the balance amount remains unexplained. Similarly, considering the observation made by the Assessing Officer in the remand report, as well as the sale consideration mentioned in the respective sale deeds, the CIT(A) found that out of the total sale consideration of ₹ 93,41,000, shown in the Receipts and Payments Account, an amount of ₹ 83,16,967 stands explained and the balance amount of ₹ 10,24,033 remains unexplained. He therefore, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to the aforesaid amount of ₹ 10,24,033. 38. We heard both sides and perused the material available on record. An identical issue has been considered by us, while dealing with second effective ground in the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 2004-05, viz. ITA No.915/Hyd/2011, hereinabove. For the deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestment in fixed deposit was either out of available fund or formed part of the expenditure of ₹ 6 lakhs mentioned in the Receipts & Payments Account. In that view of the matter, we find no justification to interfere with the impugned orders of the lower authorities on this issue. We accordingly uphold the same and reject the ground of the assessee on this issue. 42. In the result, this appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07 is dismissed. Assessee's Appeal: ITA No.1053/Hyd/2011 : Assessment year 2007-08 43. This appeal directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) I, Hyderabad dated 21.3.2011. 44. The first effective grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to an addition of ₹ 90 lakhs made on account of unexplained investment. 45. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are that during the assessment proceedings, while verifying the Receipts & Payments Account submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had shown an amount of ₹ 10 lakhs received from sale of land at Survey No.295/1. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee neither produced any confirmation letter or evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as contended that the same was paid from out of the amount received from Radha Realty Corporation, which is duly reflected in the Receipts & Payments Account. On the basis of the submissions made by the assessee, the CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer stated that there was no document submitted by the assessee indicating the sale of land in Survey No.295/1. In the encumbrance certificate filed by the assessee, his name appears as a claimant only. He therefore, opined that the sale consideration of ₹ 10 lakhs shown by the assessee remained unexplained. In the absence of any evidence to controvert the aforesaid finding of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹ 10 lakhs. So far as the source of ₹ 1-crore to M/s. Kedia Overseas Ltd. was concerned, the Assessing Officer in the remand report stated that as per the bank account submitted by the assessee, an amount of ₹ 20 lakhs was paid through cheque drawn on 17.4.2006 and 18.4.2006. The bank statement also indicates that the assessee has received back an amount of ₹ 20 lakhs through cheque in June, 2006. He therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A), the assessee while explaining the source of ₹ 1-crore paid to M/s. Kedia Overseas Ltd. for purchase of land in Survey No.46 situated at Madinaguda had stated that the amount was paid out of money received from M/s. Radha Realtors and has been duly reflected in the Receipts & Payments Account submitted before the Assessing Officer. It further appears from the order of the CIT(A) that he also accepts the fact that the receipt of ₹ 5 crores from M/s. Radha Realtors has been reflected in the Receipts & Payments Account, however, he has disbelieved the explanation of the assessee to explain the source of payment to M/s. Kedia Overseas Ltd. on the ground that the assessee has incurred expenditure towards payment to various persons and no datewise cash-flow was filed to prove the availability of cash to make payment of ₹ 80 lakhs to M/s. Kedia Overseas Ltd. After considering the issue in depth and also keeping in view the explanation of the assessee to the effect that the source of payment to M/s. Kedia Overseas Ltd. was out of the amount of ₹ 5 crores received from M/s. Radha Realtors Ltd., which has also been reflected in the Receipts & Payments Account, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer after verifying the submission made by the assessee, submitted a report stating therein that the assessee has filed three sale deed copies before him, evidencing sale of agricultural land at Ramteertham and Hadnoor Villages and as per the sale deeds the assessee received total consideration of ₹ 12,63,500 towards the sale of the said agricultural land. The CIT(A), after considering the report of the Assessing Officer and other material on record, concluded that by showing the sale consideration from sale of land at ₹ 28,27,000 as against actual sale consideration of ₹ 12,63,500, the excess amount shown of ₹ 15,63,500 remains unexplained. Hence, he confirmed the addition to that extent. 51. We heard the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned orders of the lower authorities. The only contention of the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee before us is that the excess amount received in cash represents onmoney, over and above what has been mentioned in the sale deed, which has not been mentioned in the sale deed. In the absence of any evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the income of the assessee for the assessment year under appeal. 56. Being aggrieved by the addition made as above, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). During the proceedings before the CIT(A), it was contended by the assessee that the payments made to Jagat Singh, Jamaluddin, Kareemuddin as well as Dilip Kumar and Syed Naseer and other related parties were genuine expenditure and similar in nature to the expenditure incurred for validation of irrevocable power of attorney of Dilip Kumar and Syed Naseer during 2003. It was further submitted that registration charges for the ratification deed amount incurred towards pending registrations and other incidental expenses incurred in respect of Acres 41, 34 guntas in Survey No.262 to 274 Puppalguda Village were also genuine. It was further contended by the assessee, that he is the owner of the land situated at Survey No.262 to 274 and therefore, entitled to claim cost of indexation for calculating capital gains. It was further submitted that from time to time, assessee has been incurring expenditure by making payment not only to the original owners of the land, but also to middlemen who acted as agents and claimed right ove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d various amounts to Jagat Singh, Jamaluddin and Kareemuddin family and incurred various other expenses like GPA registration, validation of irrevocable power of attorney and other incidental expenses. It was submitted by the assessee that though evidence in support of payments was submitted before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee. 57. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and going through the material on record, upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer to the effect that the activity carried on by the assessee is in the nature of business only and hence, he is not entitled to claim the benefit of indexation on transfer of the property. The CIT(A) also did not accept the assessee's claim with regard to expenditure incurred towards payment made to various persons namely, Dilip Kumar, Syed Naseeb, Jagat Singh and Kareemuddin and his family and Jamaluddin and his family, by observing that all the aforesaid persons had directly received the substantial amounts of consideration from DLF at the time of registration of sale deeds on 22.8.2007. The CIT(A) further held that since in the financi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended that though the assessee in fact has, given all the details with regard to the expenditure claimed of ₹ 4,97,32,00 in the said statement, the same has not at all been considered by the CIT(A). The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has accepted assessee's claim of incurring expenditure towards payments being made to various persons for resolving the dispute in the assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05. 59. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand, strongly supporting the order of the CIT(A), submitted that since the CIT(A) has considered the issue in its entirety and has allowed reasonable deduction, there is no justification for granting any further relief to the assessee. 60. We heard the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned orders of the lower authorities. On a perusal of the order passed by the CIT(A), it can be seen that so far as expenditure claimed towards registration of GPA irrevocable power of attorney, ratification sale deed, etc., the CIT(A) has accepted the same. So far as the claim of expenditure towards payments made to various persons, namely, Dilip Kumar, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m M/s. Radha Realty Corporation Ltd., concluded that the assessee in fact, had received the said amount from M/s. Radha Realty Corporation Ltd. as revealed by the seized document. The Assessing Officer reducing an amount of ₹ 50 lakhs received by Syed Naseer and Dilip Kumar, held that the assessee had received an amount of ₹ 13.16 crores, as against the amount of ₹ 11.50 crores disclosed in the return of income. He therefore, treated the differential amount of ₹ 1.55 crores as income of the assessee from unexplained sources. 64. The assessee challenged the addition made in an appeal preferred before the CIT(A). In the course of hearing of the appeal, the assessee submitted that the entire addition of ₹ 1.55 crores was made solely on the basis of the statement of N.Ravindranath Reddy, the Managing Director of M/s. Radha Realty Corporation Ltd. It was submitted by the assessee that the said Ravindranath Reddy in his sown statement recorded on 12.11.2007, had admitted of having paid a total consideration of ₹ 21 crores as per agreement of sale entered with them during financial year 2005-06. However, Ravindranath Reddy in a subsequent statement rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N.Ravindranath Reddy, Managing Director of M/s. Radha Realty Corporation Ltd. when there is inconsistency between the amounts stated to have been paid to the assessee as admitted by N.Ravindranath Reddy in the two statements recorded from him. It was submitted that while in the earlier statement, N.Ravindranath Reddy had stated the amount to be ₹ 21 crores, in the later statement he stated the same as ₹ 14 crores. Hence, much credence cannot be given to his statement. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee further submitted that excepting the statement a recorded from N.Ravindranath Reddy, the Assessing Officer has not brought any other material on record to show that the assessee has received ₹ 14 crores from M/s. Radha Realty Corporation Ltd. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee has never received ₹ 14 crores from M/s. Radha Realty Corporation Ltd., but has actually received ₹ 11.5 crores as declared in the return of income, and the balance ₹ 50 lakhs were paid to his associates. It was submitted by the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee that so far as the balance amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer to the income of the assessee. 71. Briefly the facts relating to the issue in dispute are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer being conscious of the fact that an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was found and seized from the assessee's residential premises, as per which the assessee alongwith ten others and M/s. Radha Realty Corporation Ltd. had entered into an understanding with Demi Realtors and Mali Forex Ltd. for sale of 41 acres of land in survey No.263 to 270 of Puppalguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal for a total consideration of ₹ 68.50 crores. He further noted that the said land was ultimately intended to be purchased by DLF group of companies through M/s. Demi Realtors and Mali Forex Ltd. The Assessing Officer further observed that in the sale deed executed by document No.8379 dated 22.8.2007, ₹ 3.30 crores and ₹ 51.39 crores were shown to have been received by the assessee and his associates and M/s. Radha Realty Corporation Ltd. respectively. The Assessing Officer therefore, was of the view that the balance amount of ₹ 13.81 crores was received by the assessee and his associates in cash which has not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any consideration in cash to the tune of ₹ 13.81 crores from either DLF or Demi Realtors. It was submitted that as per the agreement entered into with N.Ravindranath Reddy, Ravindranath Reddy is entitled to enter into negotiations with third party for sale of Puppalguda property. It was submitted that the draft MOU seized by the Department is between N.Ravindranath Reddy and M/s. Demi Realtors and M/s. Mali Forex Ltd. only. As per this draft MOU, the two entities approached Ravindranath Reddy only for purchase of property. As the assessee and his GP holders were purchase to the sale with Ravindranath Reddy which was executed on 5.11.2005, their names were cited only as parties of the first part in the draft MOU. There is no direct sale by the assessee to Demi Realtors or any other party. It was further submitted by the assessee that the draft MOU did not feature the sale consideration if any payable to the assessee in any clauses. Only because assessee is a party to the sale with Ravindranath Reddy, he sent a copy of the MOU towards information only. It was submitted that as the amount of consideration if any, payable to the assessee is not mentioned in the MOU, it clearly pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat as per this sale deed also, the assessee has not received any advance from the purchasers. It was therefore submitted that as the assessee has not received any advance, nor it is party to any agreement and understanding between Ravindranath Reddy and Demi Realtor, as alleged in the draft MOU it cannot be said that the assessee has received an amount of ₹ 13.81 crores. It was further contended by the assessee that the Assessing Officer was also not justified in commenting that M/s. Demi Realtors has paid cash of ₹ 8.50 crores to the assessee for which it has taken cash receipts from the assessee as per the seized document, vide Annexure A/DSKR/SR/03. It was submitted that the Managing Director of M/s. Demi Realtors, D.S.Karunakar Reddy, acknowledged payment of ₹ 8.5 crores to the assessee, but at the same time, also acknowledged receipt of ₹ 8.50 crores from the assessee whichw as categorically stated by him at the time of recording of the statement during the search proceedings. It was submitted by the assessee that had the assessee been paid the amount of ₹ 13.81 crores, then, some other corroborative evidence should have been recorded by the Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part. In these circumstances, it is not correct to assess the total difference in the hands of the assessee, when M/s. Radha Realty Corporation Ltd. is also a party to such consideration. The CIT(A) held that the draft MOU found at the time of search, being an unsigned one, can at best be considered as a dumb document and cannot be relied upon for the purpose of making any addition. So far as the allegation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has received cash payment of ₹ 8.5 crores from Demi Realtors as per seized receipts is concerned, the CIT(A) held that the view of the Assessing Officer is not correct as D.S.Karunakar Reddy, partner of M/s. Demi Realtor, though acknowledged payment of ₹ 8.5 crores to the assessee, at the same time, he also acknowledged the receipt of ₹ 8.5 crores from the assessee in his sworn statement. The CIT(A) further observed that the Assessing Officer has also not brought on record any evidence to indicate that any cash payment was made to the assessee. He further noted the fact that even during the course of search conducted at different places, connected with the land transactions, no material was found indicating such cash p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|