9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mate one the credit and the debit would both be disclosed in the accounts. Here the payment alone was reflected in the accounts of the assesssee. The explanation offered by the assesssee as to the credit was not credible and hence disbelieved by the A.O. The first appellate authority rightly found that the cheque payment was a debit as seen from the accounts of the assessee and there was no reason to assume an unexplained credit. We perfectly agree with that and find no question of law arising therefrom. The first two questions of law has to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Insofar as the first appellate authority having not remanded the matter, on facts it is seen that the first appellate authority specifically called for a remand report from the AO; along with the documents produced by the assessee-firms before the first appellate authority. The AO even then did not carry out a proper enquiry. We, hence, find that the third question of law does not arise at all from the order of the Tribunal. Undisclosed income - balance consideration received from five purchasers of apartments in the assessee firm's project 'Cordial Tower' - corroborative evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer in the context of fresh materials, by way of sale deeds with reference to which the undisclosed investments were found, having been produced by the assessee before the first appellate authority? 3. The proceedings were a direct consequence of the search conducted in the business premises and the residential houses of the partners of one M/s.Artech Group which had close connections with the assessee-firms. One of the partners of M/s.Artech Group was also a partner in the assessee-firms. Documents were recovered in the search conducted in that other firm which related to the assessee-firms as also its partners. On the basis of those documents, notice was issued under Section 153C read with Section 153A. The assessee's first failed to respond, but however later on, on a subsequent notice, filed a nil return. 4. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the documents recovered showed both black and white payments having been made to M/s.Artech Group, obviously in pursuance of the purchases made of landed properties for the purpose of the assessees' project, M/s.Cordial Regency. The AO found that there were entries in the books of accounts and the bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e evidence disclosed from the said orders. The proposal as extracted in the assessment orders would indicate that the AO had been relying on certain handwritten notes made by one of the partners of the assesseefirms (Sri.Ayyappan Unnithan) as an evidence against the assessee-firms. However, it is not clear as to what was the admitted handwritten document, which was verified by the AO to find that the documents seized from another firm showed the handwriting of one of the partners of the assessee-firms. The learned Standing Counsel would argue that such strict rules of evidence may not apply in the case of assessment for income tax. We do not find any strict rule being applied herein, since what we have indicated is only the fundamental aspect which has to be verified when a handwriting is said to be of one of the partners of the assessee-firms. It has to be verified necessarily from an admitted document, where the handwriting of that partner appears. The learned Standing Counsel has referred to the document produced along with ITA No.366/10 as Annexure-A3 which is a cheque said to have been issued by the said partner. However we do not see any cross verification having been made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vered in search from that person whose premises was searched. The initial burden necessarily has to be discharged by the department especially when the additions are proposed on one, other than the person whose premises were searched from where the documents were recovered. 11. As to the addition made of ₹ 7,48,750/- the assessee had no satisfactory explanation was the finding of the A.O. The fact that the amounts were paid to Sri. T.S.Asok by way of cheque was admitted by the assessee firm. The explanation was that it was refund of excess amounts paid by the said Asok. The A.O found that if the transaction was a legitimate one the credit and the debit would both be disclosed in the accounts. Here the payment alone was reflected in the accounts of the assesssee. The explanation offered by the assesssee as to the credit was not credible and hence disbelieved by the A.O. The first appellate authority rightly found that the cheque payment was a debit as seen from the accounts of the assessee and there was no reason to assume an unexplained credit. We perfectly agree with that and find no question of law arising therefrom. 12. The first two questions of law has to be answer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actual purchase price of the flat was ₹ 1,33,06,300/-. The actual price was evidenced by seized document [A33 page 72], which is a printed sheet giving the details regarding payments received for flat booking of Cordial Tower. In that particular sheet, the amount received by cheque is clearly shown and the balance to be received is worked out. From the initial balance amount shown outstanding of ₹ 59,21,300/-, an amount of ₹ 40 lakhs was subtracted and the balance shown is ₹ 19,21,300/-. Similar workings were seen in the case of the other four persons also. The total of the amounts subtracted in each of the 5 purchasers came to ₹ 64,22,800/-. The figures tallied to the last pie. These were the documents recovered from the asessee's premises and there is presumption in so far as such documents, which squarely applies as against the assessee under Section 292C of the Act. 17. The statement made by one of the purchasers, we find, is a self serving statement, which would not dispel the fact of receipt, of excess amounts, evidenced by documents recovered from the assessee's premise itself. On the specific transactions for which addition was made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
