9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nducted on 01-09-2004 in the business as well as residential premises of the assessee. In consequence of the search and seizure action, assessment of the assessee has been framed u/s.153A r.w.s.143(3). 4. So far as the issue of addition of ₹ 5 lakhs is concerned the Assessing Officer has observed that one agreement was seized between Shri Doke and the assessee. As per the said agreement Shri Doke agreed to sell a plot to Shri Savedi being Survey No.232, Plot No. 2 to 17. The contents of the agreement are not in dispute. It was found that as per the notings on the reverse side on the page of the said agreement, the assessee has paid ₹ 10 lakhs upto 20-03-1997 and as per the agreement the balance amount of ₹ 5 lakhs was to be paid within six months from the date of agreement dated 20-03-1997. As observed by the Assessing Officer Shri Doke has given acknowledgement of receiving ₹ 5 lakhs in cash on 04-10-1998 on the same page which is duly signed by both the assessee and Shri Doke. As the said amount was not recorded in the books of account, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 5 lakhs. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 5. We have heard the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actum of the transaction has not been denied. Shri H.S. Doke was paid ₹ 5 lakhs in cash on 04-10-1998. Admittedly the said transaction was not recorded in the books of account by the assessee. The justification of the assessee is that even if the said cash transaction is not recorded in the books, but on the date of payment, i.e. 04-10-1998, the assessee had sufficient cash balance and hence, there is no justification to make the addition. It is not demonstrated as to how the cash balance of more than ₹ 5 lakhs was maintained consistently and how there was addition and deletion to the cash balance from 04-10-1998. Even though it is claimed that the amount was received back from Shri H.S. Doke on 04-12-1998, that is also not recorded in the books of account. Burden is on the assessee to demonstrate that between 04-10-1998 to the alleged date of receipt of the said amount, i.e., 04-12-1998 the assessee s cash balance was sufficient to cover up the other transactions also. In our opinion, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is justified. We accordingly confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the ground taken by the assessee. II. ITA No.88/P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sional receipts to the extent of 25% which was related to the operations. The assessee has himself offered the income of ₹ 18,32,000/- in the Asst. Year 2003-04 after search. The Assessing Officer estimated 25% of the disclosed income as suppressed income from the profession. Accordingly the Assessing Officer has worked out the undisclosed professional receipts of ₹ 32,45,485/- and after giving the benefit of set off of ₹ 5,04,600/- offered by the assessee in the return of income, the difference of ₹ 27,40,885/- was added as undisclosed income. 13. The assessee challenged the said addition before the Ld. CIT(A) but without success. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition whose reasons can be summarized as under : As per the evidences found during search, it was noticed that the assessee was engaged in suppression of professional receipts for the period prior to the block period and considering the evidences regarding suppression of income in the subsequent period and also the fact that the payments of ₹ 20 lakhs have not been recorded in the books of the assessee, the addition made is reasonable. The assessee being engaged in medical profession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co. 67 STC 101 (Orissa) 15. Alternatively he submits that the payment made to Shri Doke is from the unaccounted professional receipts and hence when the evidence is only to the extent of ₹ 20 lakhs then the addition should be restricted to ₹ 20lakhs and as the assessee has offered ₹ 5,04,600/- hence, after set off of said amount the addition should be restricted in respect of the balance amount of ₹ 14,95,400/-. He further alternatively argued that the entire addition of the estimation is made in the hands of the assessee, when admittedly the assessee and his wife both were involved in the operations and they were bifurcating the receipts at 70:30, hence, if at all the addition is to be made, then the same should be restricted to 70% of the estimated receipts. We also heard the Ld. DR 16. Admittedly in this year an agreement was found which was in respect of purchase transaction of the plot of land. It is not disputed that the consideration mentioned in respect of the said land transaction was ₹ 20lakhs. As per the statement recorded from Shri Doke, who is a party to the said agreement, he stated that the transaction could not be materialized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e total income at ₹ 31,23,003/-. The Assessing Officer has estimated the suppressed professional receipts at 20% of the total estimated receipts of this year. In the opinion of the Assessing Officer incriminating evidence is found against the assessee showing the suppression of his professional receipts during the course of search. The Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee has made unaccounted investment. The total operational receipts shown by the assessee for the year under consideration were to the extent of ₹ 87,06,900/- and the Assessing Officer has estimated receipts at 20% as suppressed professional receipts and worked out the total professional receipts earned from the operations at ₹ 1,08,83,625/-, after reducing the declared receipts of ₹ 87,06,900/-, arrived at the suppressed receipts of ₹ 21,76,725/-. The addition has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 22. We have heard the parties. The Ld. counsel submits that no incriminating evidence was found against the assessee in this year showing the suppression of the operational receipts. The Assessing Officer has made the addition by placing reliance on the evidence found pertaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IV. ITA No.90/PN/2011 (Asst. Year 2002-03) : 25. The assessee has taken the following effective ground : The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming and sustaining the addition of ₹ 14,30,225/- made by the AO as suppressed Professional Income . 26. The assessee has also filed an application seeking the leave of the Tribunal to raise the following additional grounds : 1. Without prejudice to the grounds of appeal raised in A.Ys. 1999-2000 to 2001-02, the assessee submits that if at all, the additions made in those years are sustained, the income there from was available with the assessee for making payment of ₹ 40 lakhs to Shri Chandusheth Revanikar and accordingly, no addition was required to be made of ₹ 40 lakhs while determining the income of the assessee for this year. 2. The assessee further submits that if at all, the addition on account of estimation of income is sustained for the period from Ist April 2001 to 30th June 2001, the said income is available for explaining the amount of ₹ 40 lakhs paid to Shri Chandusheth Revanikar and no addition be made on that account . 27. We have heard the parties on the admission of the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der. The assessee voluntarily offered ₹ 24,45,510/- towards suppression of professional receipts, i.e. operational receipts. On the basis of the incriminating evidence found showing the conclusive proof that assessee was indulged into suppressing the receipts, the Assessing Officer made further addition of ₹ 14,30,225/- over and above the amount declared by the assessee. The addition was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 33. We have heard the parties. The Ld. counsel submits that the assessee has admitted the unaccounted payment of ₹ 40 kakhs to Shri Renavikar but as on the date of payment to Shri Rsvanikar the assessee had cash balance of ₹ 10,22,850/- and hence, it is to be presumed that the said cash was utilized for the purpose of making payment to Shri Renavikar. He submits that assessee himself voluntarily offered ₹ 29,77,150/- out of the ₹ 40 lakhs which were not recorded into regular books of account. He submits that in respect of the transaction that Shri Doke which addition is made in the Asst. Years 1999-2000 and 2000-02 in respect of the plot of land as the deal was not materialized and hence the entire amount was returned by Shri Doke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... except the statement of Shri Doke that the amounts were returned. Presuming that transaction was not materialized and amounts were returned, but there is no supporting evidence to show that Shri Doke returned the amount on or before the date of the transaction with Shri Renavikar. This contention of the assessee is also dismissed as not maintainable. 38. Now the alternate contention of the assessee is that additions are made in the Asst. Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 the benefit of set off may be given. 39. So far as Asst. Year 2000-01 is concerned, addition is sustained to the extent of ₹ 20 lakhs which was the payment made by the assessee to Shri Doke. So far as the Asst. Year 2001-02 is concerned the estimation of the suppressed professional receipts is restricted to 10%. There cannot be a presumption considering the long gap of the transaction that the assessee had maintained cash which was utilized for making the payment to Shri Renavikar. We, therefore, dismiss the said alternate contention of the assessee also. 40. So far as the addition on account of the suppressed professional receipts of ₹ 14,30,225/- is concerned, admittedly for the substantial period t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s at 20% of the total accounted receipts. As per the Assessing Officer the assessee has suppressed the income to the extent of ₹ 31,01,412/-. The identical issue has been decided by us in the Asst. Year 2001-02. Following our reasoning, we direct the Assessing Officer to sustain the addition at 10% of the total accounted operation receipts in place of 20%. Accordingly the assessee s ground is partly allowed. VI. ITA No.92/PN/2011 (Asst. Year 2004-05) : 45. The assessee has taken the following effective ground : The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming and sustaining the addition of ₹ 11,04,743/- made by the AO as suppressed Professional income . 46. In this year also the assessee is challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of ₹ 11,04,743/- towards suppressed professional receipts. In this year in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.153A, the assessee has declared undisclosed income of ₹ 40,68,215/- in respect of the period for which the evidence has been found. During the course of the search incriminating evidence was found and seized against the assessee which was in the nature of Kaccha Register ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
