9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 132(4A) of the Act has been rebutted by the assessee. 3. The assessee submits that the assessee has duly rebutted the same. It is further submitted that the ITAT has upheld the same income arising out of alleged sale of Goregaon property is taxed again and again which defeats the concept of real income. That the assessee has relied upon several case laws, which have not been elaborated upon as to why they are not applicable on the present case. That no income pertaining to Hyderabad property had accrued in A.Y. 2008-09 though the ITAT has confirmed the same. That the ITAT has ignored the applicability of Accounting Standard-9 on Revenue recognition. That the ITAT has placed reliance on unaudited financial statements than on audited financial statements. 4. Per contra, learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee is seeking review of the order of the ITAT in the garb of rectification of mistake apparent from record. The learned DR submitted that the ITAT has passed an elaborate order and has reversed the order of learned CIT(A). He submitted that the ITAT order contains all the reasoning. He submitted that a review of the order of the ITAT is not permissibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt obtained have an evidentially value. We may gainfully refer to the provision of section 132(4) in this regard as under: Search and seizure. 132. (4) The authorised officer may, during the course of the search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statement made by such person during such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the exami-nation of any person under this sub-section may be not merely in respect of any books of account, other documents or assets found as a result of the search, but also in respect of all matters relevant for the purposes of any investigation connected with any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act. 21. Further, the documents found during search have evidentiary value. This is duly reflected in the provision of section 132(4A) of the Act which reads as under: Search and seizure. 132. (4A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enquiries of sales recorded) Cr. 1,26,65,61,454 24. Firstly we note that the figures in the so called detail and the so called wrong journal entries do not match. Hence, the veracity of this is not acceptable. Further, if such a huge error entry was made at the end of the year, and it remained undetected till the date of search, i.e., 09.07.2008, is totally improbable. That such wrong over stated sales of more than Rs. 100 crores being twice of that of actual income was stated in the accounts and the director was not aware when he signed the account, is also not acceptable. These are clearly an afterthought of the assessee. The assessee has tried to make an explanation that unsold items have been accounted for sales without proper evidence. The ld. CIT(A) has devoted his entire order in referring to the assessee's evidence as to how these plots have remained unsold. In our considered opinion, these are clearly an afterthought of the assessee with no iota of evidence. The view that the assessee has only made an afterthought to reduce the profit is evident by the fact that it is not a case of wrongly accounting for certain sales. Fully aware that such reversal of sale will res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under: "The figures given therein indicated that the tenants were to be settled for the amount of Rs. 9,01,00,000/- and the facilitators were to be paid 16.05 crores. However, the figure indicated in the page 85 is Rs. 26.87 crores. The application to the Bank for issue of Pay Order/DD also indicated only the amount totaling to Rs. 25.06 crores, leaving an amount of Rs. 1.81 crores unexplained. No additional evidences or material have been submitted or furnished in this regard and the stand taken by the Assessee Company's CMD that this was proposed project and payments indicated in the banking documents are correct, cannot be accepted on the face value and hence the difference of Rs. 1.81 crores is added to the income of the Assessee Company as unexplained investment under the provisions of section 69 of the Act." Upon the assessee's appeal, the ld. CIT-A deleted the addition holding that the assessee might have further negotiated with the payees and settled for a lesser amount than that which was apparent from the seized material. He further observed that the assessing officer should have brought further material that assessee has paid the impugned sums from other s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
