9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving document, not corroborated by any evidence and this letter cannot be acted upon - hence addition made by the AO is to be confirmed. - I.T.A. Nos. 246 to 248/Coch/2016 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2018 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , AM AND GEORGE GEORGE K., JM For The Assessee : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Adv. For The Revenue : Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR ORDER Per CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-IV, Kochi dated 24/02/2016 for different assessment years. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The first ground in ITA No. 246/Coch/2016 is with regard to addition of ₹ 15,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had added a sum of ₹ 15,00,000/- as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer passed the order without considering the submissions made by the assessee genuinely substantiating the receipt of funds as shown in the cash flow statement as investment contribution received from Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration of the affidavit in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. For this proposition, we place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mehta and Parikh Company vs. CIT (30 ITR 181). Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 246/Coch/2016 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. The first ground in ITA Nos. 247 248/Coch/2016 is with regard to addition of ₹ 59,45,000/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and ₹ 10,48,000/- for the assessment year 2010-11 made u/s. 68 of the Act. 7. The facts of the case in these assessment years, as in the earlier year are that the assessee was said to have received ₹ 59.45 lakhs from the following parties: AY Name of the person Investment made (Rs.) 2007-08 Mr. Abdul Latheef 15,00,000/- 2009-10 Mr. Abdul Latheef 13,00,000/- 2009-10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cash on his behalf The balance amount of ₹ 4,28,000/- was arranged out of his savings from earning in KSA. Abdul Gafoor : As sworn by Abdul Gafoor in his affidavit, he is an NRI based in Qatar doing multifarious businesses. During the Assessment Year he has contributed ₹ 33,84,000/- in cash for the purpose of share investment Parathode Granites The copy of NRE bank statement of Shri Abdul with Canara Bank with account No. 16236 and Federal bank with account no. 13211 was placed on record. The transactions deposed from the said bank statements towards the above investments is as below:- CANARA BANK Date Amount Nature of Transactions with remarks 03/112008 50,000 Cash withdrawn vide cheque no. 00416305 and paid to Abdul Azeez 10/11/2008 25,000 Cheque paid to P. Gopalan who was the person authorized by Abdul Azeez to receive cash on his behalf 14/11/2008 10,00,000 Cash withdrawn vide cheque no.00416308 and paid to Abdul Azeez ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmed Shabeer maintained with SBT with account No.20809 was placed on record. The transactions deposed from the said bank statements towards the above investments is as below: Date Amount Nature of Transactions with remarks 22/05/2008 7,000 Cash withdrawn vide cheque no. 0044792 and paid to Abdul Azeez 16/06/2008 10,000 Cash withdrawn vide cheque no.0044794 and paid to Abdul Azeez 18/06/2008 20,000/- Cash withdrawn vide cheque no.0044795 and paid to Abdul Azeez 29/08/2008 5,000 Cash withdrawn from ATM and paid to Abdul Azeez 17/10/2008 I 3,000 Cash withdrawn from ATM and paid to Abdul Azeez 22/10/2008 1,000 Cash withdrawn from ATM and paid to Abdul Azeez 28/10/2008 7,000 Cash withdrawn from ATM and paid to Abdul Azeez 14/11/2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd. in which assessee was the Managing Director. However, in the books of account of the company, the Ld. DR submitted that the name of such creditors does not appear which means that the contents of the affidavit was actually incorrect that the investments were made with M/s. Parathode Granites Pvt. Ltd. The company came into existence on 27/10/2009 and the alleged investments as per the affidavit was made during the period prior to the incorporation of the company. The Ld. DR also disagreed with the view that the funds for allocation of shares was lying with the company subject to pendency of the allotment of shares as it was not supported with any of the accounts of the company or in the sworn statement of the assessee. Thus, the Ld. DR submitted that the contents of the affidavit were not correct and it is only a make believe story that the investments were made towards allotment of shares and were kept pending by the company. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld DR submitted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 for a sum of ₹ 15 lakhs for the AY 2007-08 , ₹ 59,45,000/- for the AY 2009-10 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that since the agreement was signed by the assessee on behalf of the Company as the Managing Director, for the purchase of land, the assessee was not able to explain it in his individual capacity. According to the Ld. DR in the sworn statement, the assessee had accepted of having spent ₹ 95 lakhs in respect of the purchase of 28.75 acres of land for ₹ 5,65,00,000, for which the agreement was during the course of search from the premises of Shri Sainulabdheen which is reflected in the sworn statement recorded on 11/03/2011. The Ld. DR submitted that there was no mention whether the purchase of land was meant for the company and the payments were sourced from the books of account of the company or from the company s bank account. In such a case, it was submitted that the assessee has failed to discharge his obligation to explain the source for such investment. Accordingly, the Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition of ₹ 95 lakhs as unexplained investment. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. The assessee in his sworn statement recorded on 11/03/2011 stated that there was investment of ₹ 1 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
