9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rought on record in the form of agreement to sale, wherein it was agreed that the total sale consideration of ₹ 29,38,000/- was agreed by the assessee to be paid to Shri. Chunche Gowda, out of which ₹ 5 lakhs was paid to him as advance. Neither Shri. Chunche Gowda was examined nor any other document was produced on record. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, the additions were made merely on the basis of statement recorded during the survey. In our view, it is the duty of the AO to bring on record the corroborative evidence for the purpose of making the addition. Merely on the basis of the statement recorded during the survey or after survey, the addition cannot be made as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt before the authorities below and the said report of approved valuer was not disputed or rejected by the authority below. Hence relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Khader Khan Son (supra), we are of the opinion that this addition made by the authorities below also was without any basis. Therefore the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. - Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. - I.T.A No.1050/Bang/2015 - - - Dated:- 9-6-2017 - SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI. LALIT KUMAR, JUDICIAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri. H. Guruswamy, ITP For The Revenue : Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT ORDER PER LALIT KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has filed an appeal before the CIT (A). 04. The CIT (A) has confirmed the order passed by the AO. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us on the grounds reproduced hereinabove. 05. At the outset, it is stated that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT (A) were without any corroborative and cogent evidence, except the sworn statement recorded on 04.02.2010. The Ld. AR has taken us to the order passed by the authorities below. He also drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [(2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC)], in support of his argument that no addition can be made in the absence of any cogent evidence. Paragraph 66, of the above judgement, on which r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (A) confirmed the addition. 06. The Ld. AR submitted before us that Smt. Giriyamma, had expired. However, in respect of Shri. Chandre Gowda and Shri. Chunche Gowda, it was mentioned that they were out of station. On the basis of this, it was submitted that the addition made by the authorities below with respect of Shri.Chandre Gowda, Shri. Chunche Gowda and Smt. Giriyamma, was without any basis. In respect of the addition made for investment in construction of house, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the order passed by the authorities below was without any basis and it was purely based on conjectures and surmise. The Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the Valuation Report filed before the authorities below and before us, to show t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of any evidence, the additions were made merely on the basis of statement recorded during the survey. 09. In our view, it is the duty of the AO to bring on record the corroborative evidence for the purpose of making the addition. Merely on the basis of the statement recorded during the survey or after survey, the addition cannot be made as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Khader Khan Son (supra), as also so notified by the Board vide Circular, F. No.286/98/2013 IT (Inv.II), dt.18.12.2014. Thus the additions for ₹ 25,00,000/-made on account of advances given to Shri.Chandre Gowda and Shri. Chunche Gowda are deleted. In respect of Smt. Giriyamma, it is also the case of the AO that the assessee has paid a su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anation given by the assessee is plausible and can be accepted. In view thereof, we uphold the order passed by the CIT (A) with respect to addition of ₹ 8 lakhs. 11. With respect to the difference in cost of construction of residence, as well as upstairs, in this regard, the authorities below had made an addition of ₹ 7 lakhs to the total income of the assessee, under the above two heads on the basis of statement recorded from the assessee, during the course of survey. 12. The Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the Valuation Report submitted by the assessee giving the cost of construction at Hammasandra as well as in respect of the first floor of the residence on a property bearing No.898, Joggihalli Road, 1st Stag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
