9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 10-02-2012 was without jurisdiction and not based on any incriminating material on record. Therefore, the proceeding; initiate erroneous and without jurisdiction, deserves to be quashed. 2. a) All the transactions of the appellant with Mr. Jayant Ghadia were duly recorded in the books of accounts. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong on facts and in law in sustaining the addition made by the assessing Officer of a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- as unexplained income of the appellant based on a receipt of Rs. 75,00,000/- given by Mr. Jayant Ghadia to the appellant as a security. b) The consequent addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- made by the assessing officer and sustained by Ld CIT(A) being illegal, erroneous and without jurisdiction, deserves to be delete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for him at that time. However the learned assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee stating that the explanation given by the assessee is not satisfactory and no evidence whatsoever has been given by the assessee relating to the correspondence between the assessee and Sri Jayant regarding the negotiation of other properties. The learned AO noted that the MOU and receipt are duly signed by Sri Jayant and 2 witnesses from the office of the assessee. One of the witness also confirmed that he along with another witness has signed the document on the direction of assessee and Mr Jayant. Therefore the learned assessing officer noted that it clearly shows that INR 7,500,000 has been received by Shri Jayant from the assessee. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33A of the income tax act. He submitted that in case of a survey addition u/s 6960 9C can you made if explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory. Merely on the basis of the memorandum of understanding without further collaborating the material no addition can be made. He further relied upon the decision of Harish Daulatram Inanni vs deputy Commissioner of income tax (2008) 24 SOT 541 (MUM). He further submitted that from the bare reading of the memorandum of understanding dated 25/6/2010 it is evident that no person would give INR 7,500,000 on the security of documents referred to in the memorandum of understanding. He further stated that property K - 2036, CR Park belong to the other person who died on 8/4/1992. And therefore the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower authorities and submitted that there is a receipt which is being found by the income tax department which clearly shows that assessee has paid a sum of INR 7,500,000 to the Shri Jayant. Therefore the addition has been correctly made by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the learned CIT - A. 9. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Admittedly during the course of survey the office of the assessee 1 memorandum of understanding and 1 receipt was found. Based on this the addition has been made by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the learned CIT - A. The brief fact shows that there is an memorandum of understanding dated 25/6/2010 with respect to the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the payment of INR 2,500,000 by cheque number 894382 dated 25/6/2010 was not in respect of the property at a - 2036, Chittenden Park, New Delhi referred to in MOU dated 25/6/2010 but it was that the payment of INR 2,500,000 due to Mr Jayant. Therefore the stand of the assessee before the learned assessing officer that the payment was of only INR 2,500,000 on 25/6/2010 and there is no payment of cash of INR 7,500,000. The learned assessing officer further recorded the statement of Mr Jayant on 06/03/2014. He also confirmed that he has not received any payment in cash of INR 7,500,000 from assessee. He also explains the nature of the transaction as explained by the assessee. It is very important to note that had this transaction ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther on the receipt also the signature of these 2 parties have been obtained, however none of the parties confirmed that in fact there witness to the payment of INR 7,500,000 by assessee to Mr Jayant. 10. In view the fact that i. property did not belong to Mr Jayant, ii. even otherwise he did not have any right to sell this property, iii. property mentioned in the memorandum of understanding remains untransacted, iv. no enquiry by the learned assessing officer with respect to the original title deed of the property mentioned in the memorandum of understanding along with the receipt but not found during the course of search v. memorandum of understanding not signed by the assessee, vi. confirmation of both the parties that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
