9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebited to the books of account of the assessee. Assessee has no answer to the question as to whether the sum of ₹ 60,000 was recovered from the vendor. We are, as such, of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Tribunal affirming the addition is an unimpeachable order. Therefore the challenge on the ground of perversity is altogether unmeritorious. - Decided against assessee - I. T. A. No. 416 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 15-4-2016 - Girish Chandra Gupta And Asha Arora, JJ. For the Appellant : Ananda Sen, Swapan Kumar Khamaru and Sabyasachi Mandal, Advocates For the Respondent : M. P. Agarwal, Advocate JUDGMENT 1. The subject matter of challenge in the appeal is a judgment and order dated October 7, 2004 passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, D Bench, Calcutta in respect of the block period 1989-90 to 1998-99 and April 1, 1998 to August 19, 1998. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal by which the addition of a sum of ₹ 4,82,750 on the ground of undisclosed income was upheld. The assessee has questioned the order of the learned Tribunal on the basis of the following question of law : Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se and where the court is of the opinion that justice of the case so requires, the court is entitled to interfere and set aside the finding of the Tribunal on any question of fact. In such cases, the court holds that there is an error of law on any of the above grounds. 4. In the light of the views quoted above, one has to find out whether the views taken by the learned Tribunal are perverse. 5. Mr. Sen, learned advocate, appearing for the assessee submitted that an order is perverse when irrelevant evidence or irrelevant material has been taken into account and an order can also be perverse when the relevant evidence has been ignored. Even assuming that Mr. Sen is correct, he was unable to demonstrate that the learned Tribunal in arriving at its conclusion either took into account any irrelevant evidence or material or ignored any relevant material or evidence. What we find is that certain investments appeared to have been made by the assessee from the papers seized during the search which were marked exhibit A-1/1. The books of account maintained by the assessee marked exhibit A-3/31 and 32 did not reflect the investments appearing to have been made by the assessee from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anation as no evidence was produced by the assessee in support of the contentions. 4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has observed that the assessee has claimed that ₹ 60,000 was paid for acquiring the land and the amount was said to have been recorded in the books of Barelia Coke Industries. Since the deal did not materialise, the amount should have been returned to Barelia Coke Industries. The assessee did not submit any evidence regarding return of money from the prospective seller of land. He, therefore, did not accept the explanation of the assessee as it was not substantiated by any evidence. Therefore, the addition of ₹ 60,000 was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). As regards addition of ₹ 3,30,000 and ₹ 92,750, the assessee admitted that it had entered into trans action for acquiring land. It was also true that the said land was low land and the assessee had to incur substantial expenditure in filling of the land and for the development of the land. The amount as per seized paper marked A/1 in respect of the transactions dated July 29, 1996 is ₹ 5,16,000. The addition of ₹ 3,30,000 is based on the material f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orroborated with the seized books of account. Further, it is also admitted fact that the paper was seized from the possession of the assessee and primarily it has to be presumed that it belongs to the assessee. As the fact of purchase of land as entered in the seized paper has been corroborated with that of the seized books of account, the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer that the sum of ₹ 3,30,000 was paid over and above the amount of ₹ 1,86,600 which is out of the undisclosed source of the assessee is found to be a plausible one. No agreement or material could be produced to show that the price of land were re-negotiated as claimed by the assessee. The explanation of the assessee that the purchase of land is supported by purchase deeds is of no relevance as the undisclosed amount paid for acquiring the land would definitely be not reflected in the said purchase deed. Therefore, in view of the seized paper and in the absence of any convincing evidence, the argument of the assessee that on re-negotiation on the ground that as the said land was a low land, a lesser price was paid for the acquisition of the land cannot be accepted. For the same reason, in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
