9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not furnish documentary evidence to prove that the same is not affirmative. 2. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 3. The cross objection raised by the assessee read as under: "On the facts and circumstances of the case and Law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the validity of proceeding u/s. 153C without considering the facts that proceeding was initiated and proceeded without jurisdiction and procedure. Hence, proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale agreement, money receipts corroborating these payments were found in the course of search conducted in Marvel Group or from the records of the assessee and (v) there is nothing to contradict the registered price executed in favour of the buyers is not correct. 4.2 The A.O. observed that in the year under consideration the assessee had made investment in Marvel Realtors, one of the concern of the Marvel Group to the tune of Rs. 67,67,600/- and claimed deduction u/s. 54 as investment in Marvel Enigma, Pune, another concern of the Marvel Group to the tune of Rs. 71,41,047/-. Considering the above the A.O. made an addition of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee filed an appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Honavar and it was received from the appellant himself. The third amount of cash of Rs. 9,00,000/- was received for properties - one for Mystique at Honavar i.e. Rs. 7,42,315/- and another for Abnave Hadapsar, i.e. Rs. 1,57,885/- from one Agai. The last amount of cash of Rs. 40,00,000/- has again been received for Abhave Hadapsar property from one Diva. 3.5.5. The A.O. has however, not called for details of the above persons from the Marvel group. There is no statement on record from any person to show that the amount mentioned in Daulat Lutharia's account is the additional and undisclosed income of the Marvel Group. If the cash payment for purchase of the property is to be attributed to the appellant, the receiver has to first acknowledge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 67,67,600/- and claimed deduction u/s. 54 as investment in Marvel Engima, Pune, another concern of the Marvel Group to the tune of Rs. 71,41,047/-. Therefore, the Ld. DR argues that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have deleted the addition of Rs. 74,00,000/- made by the A.O. u/s. 68 of the Act. 7. Per contra the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submits that in the present case notice u/s. 153 C has been issued without jurisdiction. He elaborates that no satisfaction note has been recorded by the A.O. of the searched party u/s. 153C and he has just forwarded the information to the A.O. of the assessee. 7.1 In respect of the deletion of Rs. 74,00,000/- made by the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submits that in the present case the A.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account, the description of cash receipt has been given as under: (a) It begins with cash of Rs. 11,00,000/- shown as receipt for Flat No. 5 in Mystique at Honavar. But no name is mentioned. (b) Against the second entry of Rs. 14,00,000/-, the name of the assessee is mentioned for Flat Mystique at Honavar. (c) With third entry Rs. 9,00,000/- is mentioned as received for property one for Mystique at Honavar i.e. Rs. 7,42,315/- and another for Abnave Hadapsar i.e. Rs. 1,57,685/- from one Agai. (d) Last item - an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- is mentioned as receipt for Abnave Hadapsar from one Diva. Thus we find that the A.O. failed to make any enquiry to know the identity of the people mentioned in the ledger account. No details were called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble. 17. It has further been laid down in V.C. Shukla (supra) as to the value of entries in the books of account, that such statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability, even if they are relevant and admissible, and that they are only corroborative evidence. It has been held even then independent evidence is necessary as to trustworthiness of those entries which is a requirement to fasten the liability." 8.3 Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned here-in-above at Para 8.2, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. The cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed. Order pronounced in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
