9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Jayant did not have any right in the property. Preamble of the memorandum of understanding clearly shows that the property is in dispute. The assessee has also explained the other transactions entered into by Mr. Jayant with the assessee. Further the receipt found from the office of the assessee was also not dated and therefore it was not known that on which date the assessee has paid the alleged money to Mr Jayant - there is no signature of another party on the memorandum of understanding itself. Further 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. Thus property did not belong to Mr Jayant, even otherwise he did not have any right to sell this property, property mentioned in the memorandum of understanding remains untransacted, 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, memorandum of understanding not signed by the assessee,confirmation of both the parties th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consequent to that search on residential premises of the assessee was also conducted on 10/2/2012. The office of the assessee was also covered and survey was conducted thereon. During survey 1 memorandum of understanding dated 25/6/2010 along with the receipt signed by one Mr Jayant Ghadia was found. The receipt contains the information that Mr Jayant Ghadia has received INR 2,500,000 by cheque dated 25/06/2010 and INR 7,500,000 in cash. The dispute is about the addition of INR 7,500,000 in the hands of the assessee. On enquiry by the learned assessing officer, Assessee submitted that the cash amount of INR 7,500,000 shown in the receipt appearing at page number 62 of annexure A 1 of the seized document was never paid by the assessee nor received by him. Thus the receipt of Rs. one crore is null and void as by giving the cheque number 894382 dated 25/06/2010 the assessee squared up his account with Shri Jayant as on 25/06/2010 and no amount was receivable 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 bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther 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 person who received the money had no title or interest in the above property therefore the explanation of the appellant that no payment on the strength of memorandum of understanding was made cannot be brushed aside. He further stated that presumption u/s 132 (4A of the income tax act is rebuttable and the assessee has reported it. He further stated that the documents and the MOU in the receipt belong to the appellant and it is for the appellant to explain the contents of the documents and transaction has been the consistent stand of the revenue. He further stated that the memorandum of understanding which is placed at page number 18 of the paper book. Shows that to wound the property belongs to. He further stated that mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... saction executed, nor the memorandum was signed by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings on 11/2/2012, the statement of the assessee was recorded wherein the assessee submitted the complete detail of the transaction with respect to property at A 66, Chittenden Park for which assessee has paid 1,60,00,000 which are recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. However with respect to the memorandum of understanding which is found, he submitted that there is no such transaction which has taken place. He therefore submitted that he has not paid the impugned some as found in the receipt in the memorandum of understanding. He further submitted 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/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
