9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eque components. After inclusion of related expenditure, total investment is ₹ 1.35 crores, sum of ₹ 29,60,000/- has already been added in the hands of Shri Ashok Jain on account of his cash contribution though the entries at page 9 in front of his name were 190+1945=2135. In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the said document which beside noting the acts to be carried out by the group of persons related to M/s. SAAR Properties, had talked of some projected figures; on account of such projected figures, no addition can be made in the hands of assessee. In any case, the assessee had advanced sum of ₹ 87,50,000/- by cheques and the breakup of cheques do not tally with the breakup of 110 noted on the said documents. In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in the hands of assessee - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 2116 & 2117/PUN/2014, ITA No. 2243/PUN/2014 - - - Dated:- 17-10-2017 - Ms. Sushma Chowla, JM And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, AM Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue by : Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT ORDER Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;s invalid conclusion. 5. The Revenue in ITA No.2243/PUN/2014, relating to assessment year 2005-06 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in restricting the addition made by the A.O. amounting to ₹ 1,10,00,000/- to ₹ 22,50,000/- thereby ignoring the incriminating documents found during the course of the search proceedings. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in restricting the addition made by the A.O. amounting to ₹ 1,10,00,000/- to ₹ 22,50,000/- as from the seized documents it cannot be said that the amount of ₹ 25 Lacs had already been refunded back to the assessee by M/s. SAAR Properties before the search action. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) should have restricted the addition at least to ₹ 47,50,000/-. 3. The order of Ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action was conducted on 27.04.2005 at the residential premises of the assessee. The assessee was partner in different concerns and dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on with the activities of M/s. SAAR Properties. He further referred to the statement on oath recorded of Shri Ashok jain, wherein in answer to question No.4, he has pointed out that the jottings in figures were estimated contributions of partners and family members in connection with the business of M/s. SAAR Properties. Further, the transactions of M/s. SAAR Properties including both cash and cheque payments were summarized at pages 10, 11 and 12 of Bundle No.1 and the total consideration for purchase of land comprising of both cash and disclosed consideration totaled ₹ 92,10,000/-. The figures jotted against the initial NSJ 110 at page No.9 were not mentioned in the said summaries and hence, the said figures were not real figures. The Assessing Officer rejected the plea of assessee since part of entries were tallying with the books of account of assessee and hence, it could not be presumed that the part of papers were only estimation. The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 1.10 crores as unexplained investment of the assessee. 7. The CIT(A) however, noted that the document was not in the handwriting of the assessee and was also not found at the residence of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ands. He further referred to the notings in page 11 which was confronted to Shri Ashok Jain, who in his statement pointed out that these were estimated figures of amount to be invested and loans to be taken i.e. these were projected figures. Our attention was drawn to different entries on the said document and it was pointed out that in front of NSJ, presumed to be the short name of assessee, figure of 110 was written; in front of another entry of Bora, figure of 50 was written and since he gave loan of ₹ 50 lakhs to M/s. SAAR Properties by cheque, figure of 110 was taken to be ₹ 1.10 crores and the said addition by the Assessing Officer in the hands of assessee. The assessee pointed out that it had given loan to M/s. SAAR Properties of ₹ 87.50 lakhs i.e. by cheque and the CIT(A) presumed that the figure of 110 was correct and he allowed the benefit of ₹ 87.50 lakhs but added the balance sum of ₹ 22.50 lakhs. He further referred to the copy of account of assessee in the books of M/s. SAAR Properties, which is placed at page 22 of the Paper Book and pointed out that cheque amounts differed from the figures written in front of NSJ. He further stressed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le No.1, makes a mention of several acts to be done i.e. (i) obtain Shop Act copy, (ii) Partnership Deed registration receipt, (iii) land related papers, (iv) original demarcation, (v) plaint of V.D. Kulkarni, (vi) colour zoning, (vii) Shop Act, (viii) PAN numbers. After that, there are certain notings of numbers before different abbreviated names which are as under:- SCN - 200 + 500 ASJ - 190 + 1945 - (1500+310+100+35) NSJ - 30+35+25+20=110 Bora - 50 ASJ/VYSJ 125-115 SAAR - 130 Bora / JNA - 60 ASJ 62 SCN 8 ASJ B.No.1 P.No.1 12. There are various notings in the case of various entities and the assessee has explained that some of notings are in the case of partners of the said concern; Bora is separate entity, who had advanced ₹ 50 lakhs in cheque to M/s. SAAR Properties. Both SCN and ASJ are the partners of M/s. SAAR Properties. The said document was confronted to Shri Ashok Jain, who pointed out that these were projected figures for making investments in purchase of land at Katraj. The next document being 10, 11 and 12 of Bundle No.1 which was seized from the premises of Shri Ashok Jain clearly notes the investment made bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the total investment in purchase of property of ₹ 92,10,000/-, which included both cash and cheque components. After inclusion of related expenditure, total investment is ₹ 1.35 crores, sum of ₹ 29,60,000/- has already been added in the hands of Shri Ashok Jain on account of his cash contribution though the entries at page 9 in front of his name were 190+1945=2135. In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the said document which beside noting the acts to be carried out by the group of persons related to M/s. SAAR Properties, had talked of some projected figures; on account of such projected figures, no addition can be made in the hands of assessee. In any case, the assessee had advanced sum of ₹ 87,50,000/- by cheques and the breakup of cheques do not tally with the breakup of 110 noted on the said documents. In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in the hands of assessee. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed and the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 14. The assessee in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
