9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no statement indicating that the assessee had given any cash amount. There is no finding in the case of Marvel Group about the destination of these amounts. The A.O. failed to consider that the assessee purchased the property in Marvel Enigma whereas the ledger account mentions the project at “Mystique at Honavar” and “Abnave at Hadapsar”. - CIT(A) has rightly deleted the additions - Decided against the revenue. - I.T.A. No. 2/Mum/2015, Cross Objection No. 20/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2017 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) For The Revenue : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR For The Assessee : Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seizure action u/s. 132 was carried out in the Marvel Group on 22/05/2008. The information was that the assessee had purchased the flat from the Marvel Group and had paid ₹ 1,25,00,000/- as part consideration in cash. Consequently, the A.O. issued a notice u/s. 153C to the assessee on 12/09/2011 requiring him to prepare a true and correct return of his total income for the impugned assessment year in accordance with the provisions of section 140 of the act. In response to it, the assessee filed a letter dated 05/02/2011 stating to treat the return filed originally as return of income, without prejudice to his right to challenge the aforesaid proceedings before the appropriate authority. 4.1 In response to a query raised by the A.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additional ground of appeal filed by assessee. 5.1 Regarding the addition of ₹ 1,25,00,000/- made by the A.O. u/s. 68 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) has found that out of the addition of ₹ 1,25,00,000/-, an amount of ₹ 51,00,000/- pertains to the financial year 2007-08 relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 and the same cannot be added in the assessment year 2007-08. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the amount of ₹ 51,00,000/- in the assessment year 2007-08. 5.2 As regards the balance amount of ₹ 74,00,000/-, the Ld. CIT(A) held as under: 3.5.4. As regards, the balance amount of ₹ 74,00,000/-, I find that in the ledger account description of cash receipt has been given. The first cash of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt has been treated as income of Marvel Group. Therefore, when the A.O. has not established that the amount of ₹ 74,00,000/- has been considered as income in the hands of the person from where the above document was found, the same cannot be per se, i.e. without any evidence attributed to the appellant. I also find that in the assessment order, the A.O. has referred to deduction u/s. 54 claimed by the appellant as investment in Marvel Enigma at Pune, belonging to Marvel Group. However, the ledger refers to the project Mystique at Honavar and Abnave at Hadapsar. The A.O. has not brought any evidence on record to show that the appellant has entered into an agreement for purchase of above properties from the Marvel Group. I, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e DCIT. It is stated that the ledger account relied on by the A.O. is disputed. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC), CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram (2006) 155 TAXMANN 454 (Mad), (2007) 164 TAXMAN 78 (SC), Common Cause (A Registered Society) vs. Union of India (2017) 77 taxmann.com 243 (SC). 8. We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. We take up first the issue of notice u/s. 153C of the Act. The same issue was raised before the Ld. CIT(A). We find the Ld. CIT(A) has dealt the issue at para 2.1 of the appellate order dated 28/10/2014 passed by him and noted that the DCIT CC(1)(1) has rightly followed the procedure for informing the A.O. fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Enigma whereas the ledger account mentions the project at Mystique at Honavar and Abnave at Hadapsar . To sum up the A.O. has not made any enquiry or verification to find out the authenticity of page no. 116 of the ledger account. 8.2 A similar issue arose in Common Cause (A Registered Society)(supra). It relates to section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961 r.w.s. 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to its decision in C.B.I. vs. V.C.Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 held as under: 16. With respect to the kind of materials which have been placed on record, this Court in V.C. Shukla s case (supra) has dealt with the matter though at the stage of discharge when investigation had been completed but same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
