9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 132(4) of the Income-tax, 1961 has admitted that the amount received from members in cash as well as cheques were utilized for the construction of the flats. 2. On the facts and circumstances whether the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made on account of undisclosed income on purchase of flat relying upon the decision of the Hon ble ITAT which is not the order of the Jurisdictional ITAT. 3. On the facts and circumstances whether the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made on account of undisclosed income on purchase of flat relying upon the decision of the Hon ble ITAT which has been challenged by the department before Hon ble AP High Court in ITTA No.563/2011 ITTASR 2026/11. 4. On the facts and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee. This admission is not in respect of the assessee alone but in respect of all others who have purchased flats from the society. Further, he has surrendered the amount taken in cash from buyers of the flat and even paid Income Tax thereon. In the present case, the AO had received information that the assessee had made payment in respect of the flat and consulted the assessment record of the assessee. Having not found any mention of payment of flat and payment made in cash hereof, the AO had a reason to believe that the income had escaped assessment. From the admission of the Secretary of the Society, it is clear that the assessee paid ₹ 11.50 lacs in cash (in addition to the amount of ₹ 7 lacs paid by cheques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... document on the basis of which the AO had made the addition. We concur with the views of the ld. CIT(A) that except for the only document i.e. page No.66 of Annexure-50 seized from M/s. Dreamland Co-operative Society, a third party, there is nothing else to suggest that assessee had in fact paid an amount of ₹ 11,50,000/- in cash to the society. It is undisputed that the document is not seized from assessee. It is also undisputed that the document is not in the handwriting of assessee and did not belong to assessee. It is also not disputed that there is no date of alleged payment mentioned in this loose document. It is a fact that as per sale deed dated 11.01.2007 the flat was sold by the society to the assessee for a full and final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he list of the payment. We concur with the views of the ld. CIT(A) and the cases relied upon by him that presumption is available against the person from whose possession a seizure is made but the same cannot be extended to others. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO and we find no infirmity in his order. Thus, all the grounds of the Revenue are dismissed. 7. As regards C.O. No. 23(Asr)/2012 of the assessee, the ld. counsel has relied upon the decision of Amritsar Bench in the case of Income Tax Officer vs. Arun Kumar Kapoor (2011) 140 TTJ 249 and a copy of the same has been placed on record, where it has been held that reassessment on the basis of incriminating material found in search of third pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
