9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought on record. There being no evidence to support the revenue’s case that use figure, whatever be its quantum, over and above the figure in the records and accounts changed hands between the parties, no addition could therefore be made under section 69C of the Act to the income of the assessee considering the entire facts brought on record, we have no hesitation to hold that even on merits no addition could be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA 1361/MUM/2014, ITA 1363/MUM/2014, ITA 1364/MUM/2014, ITA 1366/MUM/2014, ITA 1367/MUM/2014, ITA 1368/MUM/2014 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2016 - S/Sh.Rajendra, Accountant Member and Amit Shukla, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Ms. Malathi Sridharan For the Respondent : Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payments was confirmed by Dilip Dherai in the course of search.Later on after two-and-half moths from the date of search,he filed an affidavit before the DDIT(Inv.),on 14. 05.2009,affirming that the statement recorded during the course of search on 05.03.2009 was taken forcibly and under pressure.However,the AO rejected the affidavit by holding it as a self-serving document.Based on scrutiny of the seized documents,total unexplained expenditure incurred in cash on acquisition of lands was estimated by the AO at ₹ 43.46 Crores.The amount of unexplained expenditure incurred in cash as apportioned among all land companies (including the appellant) in the ratio of cost of land purchased by said companies up to 28.11.2008. On the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the AO had considered as undisclosed income of the assessee,that the addition u/s 69C has been made by the AO merely based on certain documents found at the premises of Dilip Dherai who was neither a director nor the employee of the assessee-company, that no reliance could be placed on the documents seized from him,that that the additions had been made on ad hoc/estimated basis and no constructive evidence has been brought on record , that this difference of opinion does not at all warrant the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act. The appellant further submitted that the addition u/s.69C made by the AO had been deleted by the ITAT vide its order dated 22.03.2013. It is submitted that the ITAT had held that the seiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t have been found to have incurred any expenditure to invoke the provisions of section 69C of the Act.However the allegation made by the lower authorities are not supported by actual cash passing hands. The entire addition are based on the sea documents and no other material has been adverted to and which could conclusively show that the huge amount of the magnitude mentioned in the seized documents travelled from one side to other. The revenue authorities have not brought a single statement on record of the vendor of land in different villages. None of the seller has been examined to substantiate the claim of the revenue that extra cash actually changed hands. 24. In the present case none of the sellers have been examined by the AO t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
