9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. AO has not considered the evidences produced by the appellant which clearly establishes that no cash payment was made by the appellant. 4. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence. 3. Consequent to the search conducted in Aerens group of cases on 17.08.2011, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was also conducted at the premises of the assessee on 10.02.2012. A notice u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued and served upon the assessee on 5.09.2013. In response to the same, it was stated that the return filed u/s 139(1) on 11.09.2006 be treated as the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A. Subsequently, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the same, the Authorized Representative of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings and furnished the requisite information, documents, accounts etc. It was observed by the Assessing Officer that the return filed declaring Nil income included income from interest amounting to Rs. 2,41,328/-. The Assessing Officer observed that as per aud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above cash payment out of the books of account and treated it as unexplained income of the assessee. However, before adding back the same, vide notice dated 5.02.2014, the Assessing Officer gave an opportunity to the assessee to furnish a reply. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed reply. The Assessing Officer further observed that in the same excel sheet the name of one Sh. I.E. Soomar, E-405, Greater Kailash-ll, New Delhi also appeared at Sr. No. 39 who admitted the cash investment of Rs. 6.64 crores being made in the said project, and paid the taxes on the same. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee failed to adduce and iota of evidence in respect of the cash investment of Rs. 25,20,884/-. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion and the surrender made by Sh. I.E. Soomar on the basis of similar evidence, the Assessing Officer opined that the cash investment of Rs. 25,20,884/- made by the assessee was out of the income not disclosed by it in its books of account. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the above amount of Rs. 25,20,884/- to the income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources. Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ands of the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A) and argued that no addition can be made as no incriminating material has been found in the search of assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without taking cognizance of the correct facts. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that in one similar matter namely in the case of Subhash Khattar a similar addition of Rs. 3,21,00,000/- has been made by the revenue. In that case also two searches were conducted one at AEZ group on 17.08.2011 and one at Mr Subhash Khattar on 10.02.2012. This addition was also made in respect of investment in Indrapuram Habitat Center Gziabad and on the basis of confession of Shri I.E.Soomar. The appeal of the assessee Subhash Khattar when come up before the ITAT, the Tribunal in ITA No 902 of 2015 held that no addition under section 153A of the Act can be made in absence of any incriminating documents found in search. The Tribunal further gave a finding that merely because some third party has surrendered some amount in his hands that does not mean that such surrender binds all other independent assessees. The Ld. AR submitted that all these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remises Aerens Group, wherein payment through cheque and cash have been mentioned against the name of assesee at Sr. No. 32; Shri I. E. Soomar appearing at Sr. No. 39 of the said hard disc had admitted the cash investment of Rs. 6.64 crores being made in the said project and had paid the taxes on the same; (iii) the said hard disc cannot be relied upon in part as the assessee has admitted the payment through cheque but denied the cash payment shown therein etc. In our view, a hue addition of Rs. 3,21,00,000/- cannot be made in a casual manner without having corroborative evidence in support. It is a prevailing practice in the dealings of immovable properties that cash amount, if any, out of the agreed consideration is paid during the course of execution/registration of the sale deed and admittedly in the present case no sale deed or other mode of transfer has been effected. Merely because name of the assessee is appearing in the said hard disc and amongst other investors are investor Shri I. E. Soomar appearing in the said hard disc has admitted payment of cash amount, cannot be a basis for arriving at a definite conclusion, in absence of corroborative evidence in support, that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
