9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the same cannot conclusively form a basis for concluding that the assessee had made payment of on money for purchase of the property under consideration. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that the adverse inferences drawn by the A.O as regards payment of on money by the assessee for purchase of Flat are based on of premature observations of the A.O, which in the absence of any clinching evidence cannot be sustained. We thus are unable to subscribe to the view of the lower authorities and set aside the order of the CIT (A) sustaining the addition in the hands of the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 7363/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 9-5-2018 - SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department on 11.03.2014. During the course of search, evidence relating to assessee making cash payment i.e. on money for purchase of flat amounting to ₹ 2,42,500/- was found. The AO required the assessee to explain as to why the payment made in cash amounting to ₹ 2,42,500/- for purchase of said office should not be added to total income for the relevant AY 2007-08. The assessee explained before the AO that reference to computation of income, bank statement and other relevant records produced that the assessee has not made any payment of on money i.e. cash to the concern of Hiranandani groups. But the AO has not accepted the contention of the assessee and added the cash i.e. on money payment of ₹ 2,42,500/- for purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pen drive which was seized from the residence of an ex e-employee of the Hiranandani group of cases. In Similar Circumstances, according to the learned Counsel for the assessee, the Tribunal in the case of Anil Jaggi vs. ACIT (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 266 (Mumbai-Trib.) deleted the addition by observing in para 14 as under:- 14. We shall now take up the case of the assessee on merits and deliberate on the validity of the addition of ₹ 2.23 crore made by the A.O on the ground that the assessee had made a payment of on money for purchase of flats from M/s Lakeview developers. We have perused the facts of the case and the material available on record on the basis of which the addition of ₹ 2.23 crore had been made in the ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration remain uncorroborated. We further find that what was the source from where the information was received in the pen drive also remains a mystery till date. We find that Sh. Niranjan Hiranandani in the course of his cross-examination had clearly stated that neither he was aware of the person who had made the entry in the pen drive, nor had with him any evidence that the assessee had paid any cash towards purchase of flat. We have deliberated on the fact that Sh. Niranjan Hiranandani in his statement recorded on oath in the course of the Search seizure proceedings had confirmed that the amounts aggregating to ₹ 475.60 crore recorded in the pen drive were the on-money received on sale of flats, which was offered as additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities for drawing of adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee. We thus are of a strong conviction that as the material relied upon by the lower authorities does not corroborate the adverse inferences drawn as regards the investment made by the assessee, therefore, the same cannot conclusively form a basis for concluding that the assessee had made payment of on money for purchase of the property under consideration. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that the adverse inferences drawn by the A.O as regards payment of on money of ₹ 2.23 crore by the assessee for purchase of Flat No. 2501 from M/s Lakeview Developers are based on of premature observations of the A.O, which in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
