9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 crores. 2.The effective ground of appeal is about upholding the addition of Rs. 71 lacs. During the assessment proceedings it was found that the assessee had purchased a shop (No.105, Little World Mall at Kharghar, Navi Mumbai) along with his son and that the value declared in the sale agreement was Rs. 50 lacs,that the shop was purchased from M/s. Gayatri Homes, that the agreement was signed by Mayur Patel, a partner of M/s. Gayatri Homes, that an action u/s. 132(1) of the Act was carried out in the case of Siddhi Group on 19.02.2009, that during the course of search an incriminating paper was seized from the premises of the key persons of the group, that the paper revealed that the assessee had booked a shop for a total considera -tion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheque,that they had admitted such cash receipts of sale consideration as there undisclosed income, that assessee was not able to refute any of the contents of the seized paper, that he had made a payment by way of cash amounting to Rs. 71 lacs to the vendors.Accordingly, the AO made an addition of Rs. 71 lacs to the income of the assessee treating it as undisclosed income as per the provisions of the section 69 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA)and made elaborate submissions.Before her,the assessee submitted that he had written to the AO to summon the builder for cross examination,that a remand report should be called from the AO after the builder wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the assessment proceedings, that the document had to be read in full and not in part. Finally,the FAA held that the AO was justified in making the addition of Rs. 71 lacs. 4. During the course of hearing before us, the Authorized Representative (AR) argued that the assessee had paid Rs. 50 lacs only to the builder, that as per the seized document the price of the shop was Rs. 41 lacs,that the assessee had denied to paid cash to the builder when his statements were recorded on 20.2.2009, that the paper seized by the department was a mere loose paper,that the statement of third party was not binding on the assessee, that Kirti Patil had,later on,stated that in each case cash was not charged. He referred to the case of Synthetic Hydro C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal raised by the AO,before the Tribunal read as under: ""On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 52,26,000/- made by the AO as the assessee had made payment of unaccounted money of Rs. 52,26,000/- for acquisition of Shop No. 119 in Little World, Khharghar, Navi Mumbai." The Tribunal narrated the facts of the case as follow: 3. The facts giving rise to the grievance of the Revenue show that a search and seizure action U/s. 132 was conducted in the case of Siddhi Group on 19.2.2009. During the course of the search, some documents were seized from the premises of key persons of the group in which it was found that M/s. Synthetic Hydrocarbons (assessee) had booked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee in respect of cash amounting to Rs. 52,26,000/- paid against the purchase of Shop No. 119 at Little World. The assessee requested for cross examination of the builder who had stated that cash has been received from Shri Utpal B. Shah (partner of M/s. Synthetic Hydrocarbon (assessee). An opportunity to cross examine Shri Kantilal M. Patel was afforded to the assessee. 5. The AO concluded that on analysis of the statement recorded during the cross examination proceedings, it is established that the said builder has received total cash amounting to Rs. 12.05 crores from the parties who had purchased shop at Little World from M/s. Gayatri Homes and in the seized documents, it is mentioned against Shop No. 119, the name of Shri U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d exhibited at pages 17 to 19 of the paper book filed by the assessee, we find that the said Shri Kantilal M. Patel has not given any specific answer which could point out that the assessee has actually paid Rs. 52,26,000/- over and above the purchase consideration paid by cheque. On the contrary, we find that Shri Kantilal M. Patel has stated that the seized document is a computer generated paper and he is not aware of who has prepared it. He has offered the cash receipt amount as his additional income to purchase peace of mind and to avoid litigation. 10. Be that as it may, we do not find any material brought on record by the AO to substantiate his claim that assessee has actually paid Rs. 52,26,000/- over and above the cheque amount fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
