9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich fact finding was given by the CIT(A). During the appeal the ld. AR furnished the date wise payment in the paper book and the same was not controverted by the ld. DR. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and the same is confirmed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made addition of ₹ 7.02 crores as deemed income u/s 69B of the Act as per discussion made in the assessment order in para 6.8.4 as under: "" The assessee's explanation on this issue is mere repetition of the answer given in the statement before the investigation team. It is relevant that the assessee has after the initial declaration of ₹ 3 crores, reconciled the accounts, appreciated the facts, and revised the declaration in respect of the excess money paid for the purchase of PSP Ltd as ₹ 7.02 crores (22 crores - 14.98 crores). The assessee's retraction of his statement is without corroborative evidence and given after considerable lapse of time. Hence, the amount of ₹ 7.02 crores is assessed as deemed income for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 3 crores was paid from own savings of the assessee on various dates. The assessee furnished cash book entries with the relevant dates of payments made to Smt. Dhanalakshmi and argued that the sources for the entire payment made for purchase of PSP Steels(P) Ltd was explained and there is no case for making any addition as unexplained income. 7. We heard the rival submissions and the material placed before us. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has purchased M/s PSP Steels(P) Ltd for a sum of ₹ 22 crores and ₹ 19 crores was paid through banking channel which was not disputed by the Department. The details of the payments made were furnished by the assessee before the CIT(A) as well as before us in the statement of af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
