9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is unsupported and unsustainable in law. The same is accordingly deleted - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.3265/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2016 - SHRI A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri V Mohan For The Respondent : Shri A Ramchandran ORDER PER A D JAIN (JM) This is assessee‟s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 challenging the order of ld.CIT(A) dated 31.3.2015 confirming the addition of ₹ 37,00,000/- made under section 69 of the Income Tax act, 1961. 2. A search and seizure action was conducted in the case of the Siddhi Group on 19.2.2009 by the Investigation Wing, Thane. During the course of search action one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y rebuttal to the statement Shri Patel; and that the assessee had not furnished any details/explanation to rebut the material which showed that the assessee had paid ₹ 37 lakhs to the builder in cash while acquiring the shop. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by observing as follows: 2.2. The appellant has made the following written submission during the appellate proceedings: ... The appellant has filed return of income for the AY 2009-10 on 20/2/2010 declaring total income of ₹ 141780/-. Subsequently the assessment was reopened u/s.147 vide notice dated 5/10/2012 u/s.148. A search was conducted in the case of M/s. Siddhi Group on 19/2/2009 by Thane Investigation Wing. During the course of search one paper was seiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the A.0. satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year. The section thus clearly shows that it was for the AO too first establish that the assessee has made certain investments and then that the same has not been recorded in books of account. The A0 has not brought anything on record that the assessee had paid ₹ 3700000/ -to the builder M/s. Siddhi Group for the purpose of the referred shop/property. The appellant has placed his reliance on various judicial pronouncements: In case of Aarti S. Khetwani vs. ITO (ITAT No.5882/Mum/2011) In ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ils /evidences to disprove contents of the statement recorded. The burden shifts to revenue only when the assessee explains the entry with some evidence. Appellant chose to keep quite on the same. It was for the appellant to prove that apparent was not real. Considering the facts of the case, I hold that AO was justified in his action in adding the sum of ₹ 37,00,000/- being cash payments towards purchase of immovable property that was not recorded in the appellant's books of account. This ground of appeal is rejected. 3. Before me, the ld.counsel for the assessee has contended that the assessee had purchased property from Shri Kantilal Patel, for which the cheque payment of ₹ 50 lakhs made; that the Investigation Wing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justifiable and in accordance with law. It is pertinent to mention that as per the record, the assessee has vehemently denied having made any cash payment of ₹ 37 lakhs towards purchase of shop, over and above the price settled. In addition, in the case of CIT V/s Lata Mangeshkar (supra), relying on the evidence in the form of statement by two persons, to the effect that they had paid money in black to the assessee, as well as entries in the books belonging to them regarding the alleged payment, the AO made addition to the assessee‟s total income as income from undisclosed sources . The Tribunal, having found that the evidence tendered suffered from serious infirmities, held that mere entries in accounts regarding payments to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchase of the property. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that M Was not even clear on the exact quantum of consideration. The Tribunal held that the statement of M was not supported by any evidence; that the AO did not make any attempt to confirm that such money was paid by the assessee; that mere statement of third party could not be made the basis for making the addition; that nothing was found on record to suggest that the assessee had made payment of on money in the investment in land. The facts of the present case are in para-materia with those in the case of Jitendrakumar Shantilal Sheth (supra). Here also, other than the foretasted evidence, nothing has been employed by the authorities below for making the additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
