9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hands on the basis of impounded documents, it should only be to the extent of 75% of ₹ 2,25,000/- i.e. a sum of ₹ 1,68,750/- only. Ld. CIT(A) has given proportionate relief to the assessee on this account by restricting the addition to ₹ 1,68,750/- only. As far as the assessment order for the succeeding assessment year 2009-10 is concerned, it is seen that the income under the head house property has been accepted without any discussion by the Assessing Officer and it is not discernible from the assessment order as to how the income from house property was accepted without any inquiry. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 4221/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2017 - SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer received a report from ADIT(Inv) that a survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 2.2.2010 during the course of which certain incriminating material was found and impounded and was marked as Annexure A-1 to A-13. The documents impounded included an agreement to sale in respect of property no. B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi which had been entered into on 14.1.2008 between the assessee on behalf of M/s Smriti Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Shri Sanjay Parwal and Shri H.S. Saran. As per this agreement, total consideration for the aforesaid property was ₹ 12.95 crores and as per terms and conditions, an amount of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee. 5. The ground taken by the assessee reads as under:- 2. The ld. Add. CIT made additions of ₹ 225000/- being the cash component of rent not declared by the assessee while it has been confirmed by both i.e. tenant and landlord that no such cash rent has been given/taken. The confirmation had already been filed while filing the appeal at page no. 22. So, the fictitious addition should be deleted being against the facts of the case. However, the ld. CIT restricted the addition to 75% of the amount ₹ 118750/- being the shares of assessee. 6. Ld. AR submitted that the addition on account of alleged cash component of rent was based only on the documents impounded during the course of survey. It was furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s addition was made by the AO on the basis of the documents impounded during the course of survey on the appellant, carried out by the Investigation Wing u/s. 133A of the Act on 02.02.2010 at his business premises A-1/84, Chanakya Place, New Delhi. Documents impounded as per Annexure A-11/page 2-4 indicated that Sh. Virender Nehra had rented out a particular property at a monthly rental of ₹ 1,75 lakhs on an understanding that ₹ 75,000/- out of the same would be received by him in cash and the balance Rs.l lac by cheque. The AO has mentioned in the assessment order that page 2 of the Annexure clearly mentions that the appellant Sh. Virender Nehra received ₹ 8.70 lakhs in cash as rent deposit on 24.10.2007. The signature of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n his hands on the basis of impounded documents, it should be only to the extent of 75 /o of ₹ 2,25,000/-, i.e. a sum of ₹ 1,68,750/- only. I have carefully perused the arguments of both sides and I am of the considered opinion that the impounded documents, which were found in the business premises of the appellant and also bears his signatures clearly reveal that the appellant was receiving part of the rental income from his premises in Dwarka in cash. Therefore, the AO was fully justified in making addition of unaccounted rental income received in cash by the appellant. However, the AO should have restricted the addition to the extent of 75% since he has himself given a finding that the appellant was owner of the premises to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
