9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he documentary evidence filed by the assessee clarifies the transactions. No other efforts were made by the revenue authorities to confront Shri Shardendu Kumar Mishra. We find no justification in the action of the Ld. A.O making the addition of unexplained cash investment since the addition made by the Ld. A.O seems to be made merely on the suspicion and surmises. We accordingly set aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition u/s 69B of the Act and allow Ground No.4 of the assessee s appeal. Cash and foreign currency found u/s 69 - unexplained cash and foreign currency - HELD THAT:- Since the cash amount has been accepted to have been received by the assessee cash found at the residential premises and locker of the assessee get duly explained and in the cash flow statement also the amount seized by the Income Tax Department has been considered. Since the revenue authorities have failed to challenge the correctness of the cash flow statement and were merely questioning that why the cash was kept in locker and not deposited in bank are not good ground to make addition for unexplained cash in the hands of the assessee - since assessee has successfully explained th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse of search. Short-term capital gain u/s 50C by adopting cost of acquisition - HELD THAT:- Expenses, brokerage incurred by the assessee at the time of purchase of plot were not considered by Ld. CIT(A) which includes transfer charges paid to the society, bank charges for draft preparation and legal fees. These expenses have been incurred in connection with purchase of the property and this form the part of total cost of the land and same deserves to be allowed against the sale consideration received by the assessee. Revenue authorities have not challenged the genuineness of this expenditure, we therefore allow the deduction of ₹ 1,42,103/- and for the remaining amount of ₹ 44,375/- the addition for Short Term Capital Gain stands confirmed. Unexplained investment in the renovation of house situated at Shahpura, Bhopal - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) only clinic was constructed and there was no other construction at the time of purchase of the house do not have any merit. The DVO has estimated the total valuation of the renovation of the house which is also not justified since only the renovation of the clinic was in question. However looking to the fact that details pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advance cash received during the Assessment Year 2011-12 from Bansal Group. Addition of cash investments - HELD THAT:- No merit in the contention of the assessee and submission made before lower authorities. No documentary evidence filed to show that loan of ₹ 1,25,000/- and ₹ 25,000/- was received for purchase of equity shares from Smt. Bharti Patel and even the notice issued to Shri Bharat Patel at the address shown by the assessee was not served. In all the facts and circumstances of the case wherein the assessee has not denied that the transaction appearing in the loose sheet and explanation given is not sufficient to justify the submission made by the assessee, we find no reason to interfere in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and thus confirm the addition. Unexplained cash bribes given on the basis of seized document - HELD THAT:- Where the alleged documents primarily seems to be projection for different type of colleges to be established in future and there is no iota of evidence to show that any such investment in colleges has been made, then in such situation no addition could be made for the proposed bribes mentioned in the document. Ld. CIT(A) erred in no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount of unexplained foreign expenditure u/s 69C as discussed by the learned DCIT in Para No.11.4 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 3. That the addition of ₹ 40,00,000/- on account of voluntary disclosure u/s 132(4) against the cash received from Bansal Group for sale of shares of Ayushman Medical Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. as discussed by the learned DCIT in Para No.20.9 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 4. That the addition of ₹ 4,50,000/- on account of undisclosed cash investment u/s 69B as discussed by the learned DCIT in Para No.14.4 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 5. That in the alternative and without prejudice to the Grounds stated above the additions made be held to be highly unreasonable and excessive and be reduced. 6. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. That in the alternative and without prejudice to the Grounds stated above the additions made be held to be highly unreasonable and excessive and be reduced. 9. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the case. (b) Dr. Neeraj Gupta IT(SS) No.66/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2006-07 1. That the assessment made u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act be held to be bad in law and on facts and be quashed. 2. That the addition of ₹ 13,00,000/- maintained and confirmed by CIT(A) made on the basis of Page No.122 of LPS-3 found from the office premises of Ayushman College be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 3.That in the alternative and without prejudice to the Grounds stated above the additions made be held to be highly unreasonable and excessive and be reduced. 4.The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the case. IT(SS) No.67/Ind/2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances of the case and be quashed and deleted. That in the alternative and without prejudice to the Grounds stated above the additions made be held to be highly unreasonable and excessive and be reduced. 8. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the case. 3. Since most of the issues raised and facts and circumstances raised are common, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. First we will take up IT(SS) No.64/Ind/2017 relating to the assessee namely Shri Ashok Gupta for Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 5. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that 3 Doctors namely Dr. Ashok Gupta, Dr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta and Dr. Gopal Batni were running hospital in the name of M/s. Ayushman Medical Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd (herein after called Ayushman). This hospital was sold to Bansal Group through its key person namely Shri Sunil Bansal. Search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the business and residential premises of Bansal Group on 02.06.2011. Since the appellant(s) were having business connection with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the learned DCIT in Para No.11.4 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 9. In the above ground assessee has challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of ₹ 75,000/- on account of unexplained foreign expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. Various incriminating material were found during the course of search showing that the assessee has carried out foreign travelling. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. A.O made addition for unexplained expenditure at ₹ 75,000/- u/s 69C of the Act for the foreign travel to Thailand for two persons which took place on 30.11.2010 to 04.12.2010 observing as follows:- II. Vide reply dated 21.02.2014 assessee has stated that the above expenditure was neither recorded in his books of accounts nor in the books accounts of his family members. III. The assessee is also not having any confirmation regarding the claim of assessee that the above foreign trip was sponsored by other companies for attending medical conferences. IV. The assessee has not offered the above expenditure for taxation, during the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition for unexplained expenditure for foreign travel at ₹ 75,000/-. We find that similar addition were made in the hands of the assessee for unexplained foreign expenditure for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2010-11 and that issue came before us for adjudication in appeal vide IT(SS) No.59 to 63/Ind/2017 and in the order dated 24.10.2019 we have decided this issue observing as follows:- 15. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The common issue raised for 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 relates to addition of foreign tours expenditure of following amounts; Assessment Year Amount 2007-08 ₹ 68,763/- 2008-09 ₹ 1,12,500/- 2009-10 ₹ 1,50,000/- 2010-11 ₹ 72,737/- 16. The enquiry about the foreign tour expenses was initiated against the assessee during the course of search as foreign currency in US dollar and Thailand currency was found at the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted to offer unaccounted foreign expenditure. He has also accepted that the amount of ₹ 66,000/-, ₹ 84,000/-, ₹ 1,12,000/- and ₹ 62,400/- was incurred on his foreign tour which is not recorded in the books of accounts nor offered as income in the returns filed. Relief has only been claimed for the package rates wrongly applied by the Ld. A.O for the preceding years. We find merits in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Ld. A.O ought to have applied lower package rates for the preceding years and should not have uniformly applied the package rate as on 21.02.2014. Therefore the assessee deserves the relief requested by him before the first appellate authority. We accordingly delete the addition of ₹ 2763/-, ₹ 28,500/-, ₹ 38,000/- and ₹ 10,337/- for Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010- 11. Thus this common issue is partly allowed. In the result the assessee s appeal for 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 is partly allowed. 15. After perusing the above finding we find that for Assessment Year 2011-12 assessee has not requested for any relief in the written submission filed before Ld. CIT(A). The re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the completion of mutation in favour of Smt. Alka Gupta the cheques were to be returned to Shri Shardendu Kumar Mishra. 18. Ld. A.O was not convinced with the submissions and he made the addition u/s 69B of the Act for unexplained cash investment of ₹ 4,50,000/-observing as follows:- 14.3 The submission of the assessee has been considered and examined but the same is not acceptable :- I. The assessee has not submitted any material evidence to substantiate his claim. II. The above loose papers shows that the assessee has made cash loan to M/5 Universal Agro Farm and taken cheque of ₹ 4,50,000/- form M/s Universal Agro Farm as security. The above cheques relevant for F. Y.201 0-11 relevant for A. Y 2011-12. III. The above cheques have been received by the assessee against the cash loan, which was not recorded in the books of accounts. IV. This cheques has been found and seized from the residence of the assessee. Therefore, in view of provisions of section 132(4A) of the Income tax Act, 1961, it is presumed that the transactions recorded in this loose paper pertain to the assessee and the content of these transactions is true. 19. Aggr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistries clearly indicates this fact. The assumption of the Ld. AO that the cash loan was given to him against which the cheques are received is totally based on suspicion and surmises. It is therefore prayed that the additions may please be deleted. 22. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities. 23. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and gone through the written submission made by the assessee. The issue relates to unexplained investment u/s 69B of ₹ 4,50,000/-. Two cheques bearing No. 862874 and 862875 issued by Shri Shardendu Kumar Mishra, Prop. M/s Universal Agro Farm drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Bhopal for ₹ 2,00,000/- and ₹ 2,50,000/- respectively were issued in which the name of recipient was not mentioned. The allegation of the revenue authorities is that the assessee may have given cash loan to Ms/ Universal Agro Farm and has kept the blank signed cheques as security. However there is no other material evidence on record which could prove that cash loan was given to Shri Shardendu Kumar Mishra. On the other hand the submissions made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd (In Rs.) Seized (In Rs.) 1 H.No.B-253, Shahpura, Bhopal 2,65,030/- 2,01,000/- 2 5000 USD and Thai currency 2,62,000/- - 3 Locker No.2/23 State Bank of India, PB Branch Area Colony, Bhopal in the name of assessee 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 4 Locker No.10 Karnataka Bank, M.P Nagar, Bhopal in the name of assessee 9,00,000/- 9,00,000/- Total 16,27,030/- 13,01,000/- 29. When the assessee was directed to explain the source of cash and foreign currency, the assessee vide its reply dated 02.01.2014 stated that; a. During the course of search the cash of Rs..2,65,030/- found at the residence of the assessee at B-253, Shahpura, Bhopal can be understood with reference to the cash professional receipts and the cosh received from Bansal Group before the date of search. The cash flow chart for all the relevant years are enclose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is therefore not substantiated with supporting documents satisfactorily. 10.4 In sections 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, what is provided is that if an assessee is found to be the owner of any money, jewellery or any other valuable articles not recorded in the books of account and fails to offer any explanation about the 'nature and source thereof or in case any such explanation, if offered, is not satisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, then this may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. Ultimately; therefore, it would be dependent on the nature of the explanation submitted by the assessee and the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer about the acceptability thereof, which is the sine qua non for invoking the provisions contained in sections 69A of the Act. It is in this context that the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer about the correctness and completeness of the books of account maintained by the assessee in accordance with the provisions contained in section 145 of the Act eo-relates with the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer arrived at under sections 69A of the Act. Considering the facts of the case, the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... currency. In view of the above the addition amounting to US$ 5000 is confirmed. Regarding 90 bhat amounting to ₹ 133/- being a very small amount the addition on this account is deleted. Therefore, the cash found in lockers and the balance foreign currency of US-$ 5000 found during the course of search totalling to ₹ 16,26,897/- is unexplained cash and foreign currency and the addition of ₹ 16,26,897/- made by the A.O U/S 69A for A.Y 2012-13 is confirmed. 32. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 33. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written submissions:- Ground No. 2 : Addition of ₹ 16,26,897/- being cash found and the foreign currency found - The Ld. AO has made the addition at Page 12, Para 10. The cash was found at ₹ 13,65,030/-- from the residence and bank locker along with the foreign currency in USD of ₹ 2,62,000/-. It was explained to the Ld. AO that the assessee has received ₹ 2.15 crore in April and May 2011. From the said amount the cash in hand was kept and was available. Regarding foreign currency, it was submitted that it belonged to the friend of the assessee Dr. Akhil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pent in wedding. This statement of Dr. Akhil Kumar is self serving and explained the transaction as well as source of US $ 5000. Revenue authorities failed to take note of this statement in the finding given in their orders. Along with this statement given before Income Tax authorities bank certificate has also been filed placed at page 50 of the paper book paper book A-4 showing cash withdrawal of US $ 10000 from Al-Raj hi Bank. We are thus satisfied with the documentary evidence and facts before us and in our considered view both the lower authorities erred in making addition for unexplained foreign currency of US $ 5000 and the same deserves to be deleted. 38. As regards remaining cash of ₹ 13,65,030/- which was found in the house and locker, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to the cash flow statement placed at Page 22 of the paper book. It is noteworthy that the assessee accepted to have received cash of ₹ 2,15,00,000/- from Bansal group as advance for sale of equity shares held in Ayushman Medical Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. This cash amount of ₹ 2,15,00,000/- was received during April and May, 2011 i.e. just before a month of date of search. In the cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.O however wrongly calculated the difference amount of ₹ 1,40,914/- and made the addition for the same while completing the assessment. Against the addition of ₹ 1,40,914/- the ground raised by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) did not get any relief and the addition was confirmed by him observing as follows:- I have perused the submissions of the learned AR and the assessment order. The appellant assessee voluntarily declared u/s 132(4) to have professional receipts of ₹ 25,00,000/- and admitted to have received a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- in the name of Dr Alka Gupta (Wife of the appellant) as income under the head income from other sources. However perusal of the return filed by the assessee for A.Y 2006-07 to 2012-13 it is seen that the assessee has offered following additional undisclosed income for taxation. A.Y Returned income u/s 193(1) (In Rs.) Declared income in Return u/s 153A Income (In Rs.) Additional income offered by the assessee (In Rs.) 2006-07 3,64,253/- 3,69,380/- 5,127/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total declaration out of the professional receipts and other sources were declared on an estimated basis. The additions made on hypothetical grounds purely on the basis of declaration without finding any paper deserve to be deleted. 44. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supported the orders of both the lower authorities. 45. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. 46. Through this Ground No.3 for Assessment Year 2012-13 assessee has challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of ₹ 1,40,914/- being the difference between the amount admitted to be offered during the course of search and the amount actually offered to tax in Income Tax return. Against the income admitted to be offered at ₹ 35,00,000/- assessee declared only ₹ 33,39,086/- spread over various years. Though the difference works to ₹ 1,60,914/- the addition was made at ₹ 1,40,914/- and even before Ld. CIT(A) finding was only relating to ₹ 1,40,914/- . 47. We find that it is not the case that against undisclosed income surrendered during the course of search u/s 69B of the Act no actual income has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee is dismissed. 48. Now we take up Ground No.6 of IT(SS) No.161/Ind/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 which reads as under:- 6.That the addition of ₹ 13,00,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C as discussed by the learned DCIT in Para No.12.6 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on / the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 49. Brief facts relating to this ground are that During the course of search at the residential premise of assessee located at B-253, Shahpura Bhopal dairy as per annexure-A-11l Page No. 9-10 found and seized. These pages are related to cash expenses of ₹ 13,00,000/- for the month September, October, November, December. In the above paper various expenses were also shown i.e. land advance, house hold etc. Further calculation shows that 1 lakh has been advanced towards house, 2.00 lakhs for land, ₹ 22,000/- for Kitchen, ₹ 38,000/- for house hold items and other calculation of ₹ 800/- (means ₹ 80,000/-), ₹ 82500/-(means ₹ 8.25 lakhs). The totalling of calculation was shown to ₹ 13,00,000/- etc. Vide show cause notice u/s 142(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. A.O was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) observing as follows:- The plea taken by the assessee that the sum ₹ 13,00,000/- belongs to Smt. Sudha Jain and Shri Bharat Jain being sale consideration of different properties sold by them and was kept to buy a suitable property for them. The appellant failed to furnish any confirmation in this regard from Smt Sudha Jain and Shri Bharat Jain. The appellant assessee was also asked to produce Smt. Sudha Jain and Shri Bharat Jain however they were not produced before the A.O nor any inability in this regard was shown. No document or any material evidence was produced by the appellant assessee to prove his claim either at the assessment proceedings or at the appellate stage. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the A.O and addition of ₹ 13,00,000/- for A.Y 2012-13 on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C is confirmed. 53. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 54. Ld. Counsel for the assessee made following written submission:- Ground No. 6 (Page 51 of PH A-4); Addition of ₹ 13,00,000/- on account of unexplained expenditu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stment made by assessee s wife Mrs. Alka Gupta on behalf of her parents i.e. Shri Bharat Jain and Smt. Sudha Jain. After going through the paper book and various documents including the affidavit of Smt. Sudha Jain placed at page 88-89 and copy of sale deed of agriculture land sold by Shri Bharat Jain and Smt. Sudha Jain placed at Page No. 62 to 87 of the paper book, we find that Shri Bharat Jain and Smt. Sudha Jain sold agriculture land on 29.01.2007, 02.12.2010 and 22.12.2010 for which an aggregate sale consideration of ₹ 46,38,300/- was received. Out of this sale consideration some amount was planned to be utilized for purchasing a duplex house at Bhopal and to purchase a plot at Gram Borda, Bhopal. The parents of Mrs. Alka Gupta were residing at Satna, Madhya Pradesh and since the daughter was living in Bhopal they gave her cash amount for doing necessary purchase of house/plot and to incur certain expenses for up keep of the house. It was also placed on record that against the excess amount incurred, Smt. Alka Gupta was also reimbursed by her parents by depositing cash amount in her bank held with HDFC Bank on 10.12.2010 and 12.12.2010 of ₹ 98,000/-. Shri Bharat Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessment Year 2012-13 which reads as under:- 7.That the addition of ₹ 1,86,478/- maintained and confirmed by CIT(A) on account of short-term capital gain u/s 50C by adopting cost of acquisition at ₹ 59,76,625/- in place of ₹ 61,23,103/- as discussed by the learned DCIT in Para No.17.5 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 59. Brief facts relating to this ground are that assessee sold residential plot bearing Khasra No.85, 296, 85/2 measuring 2324 sq.ft at Ravishankar Nagar, Bhopal on 27.02.2012 to Shri Vinod Kumar Bhatia for consideration of ₹ 86 lakhs. Assessee claimed deduction for cost of acquisition at ₹ 61,23,103/- and expenditure on transfer at ₹ 10,31,295/-. Short Term Capital Gain of ₹ 14,45,602/- declared in the Income Tax Return. Ld. A.O after considering the details was not satisfied with the deduction claimed by the assessee and after disallowing certain deductions recomputed the Short Term Capital Gain and made addition of ₹ 12,17,773/-. Against this addition on account of Short Term Capital Gain, assessee preferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this plot. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.l0,31 ,295/- at Page 71 of the order. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the transfer charges of Rs.l,08,073/- paid to the society and MC charges of ₹ 11,030/- paid to the bank for drafts prepared and ₹ 23,000/- paid to the advocates. The details have been given at Page 70 of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. It is humbly submitted that all these payments are made which constitutes the cost of the plot. The difference of ₹ 40,000/- between the valuation of the stamp duty authorities and actual consideration received is disallowable. 62. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supported the orders of Ld. CIT(A). 63. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The short facts of issue raised in Ground No.7 of the assessee s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 relates to addition of ₹ 1,86,478/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain. From perusal of the submission made by the assessee as well as details placed before us, we observe that expenses, brokerage incurred by the assessee at the time of purchase of plot were not considered by Ld. CIT(A) which inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchase of property from shri Devdendra kumar Singh who was a practicing surgeon and residing in the same house does not show that the investment as estimated by the D.V.O is incorrect. The copy of the map of the house med by the appellant only shows that the clinic portion existed at the time of purchase of the house, it does not give any detail as to the quality of construction and renovation done. The renovation was done later and the estimate made by the D.V.O is in order. No evidence regarding the same was filed either before the A.O or during the appellate proceedings, the investment in the renovation of the clinic relates to the period F .Y 2011- 12. In view of the above, the estimate taken by the A.O as per the valuation report calls for no interference and the addition of ₹ 4,46,086/- on account of unexplained investment in construction u/s 69B is upheld. Ground of appeal is dismissed . 66. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 67. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written submissions:- Ground No. 8 (Page 140 to 186 of PB A-4}: Addition of ₹ 4,46,086/- on account of valuation of renovation of house - The Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty on 30.04.2003 there stood constructed house with ground floor measuring 204.46 sq.m, first floor 46.67 sq.m and second floor 49.72 sq.m. Page No.3 of the deed further reads that seller built the house on the said plot of land after taking permission from Bhopal Municipal Corporation on 13.7.88. So the finding of Ld. CIT(A) only clinic was constructed and there was no other construction at the time of purchase of the house do not have any merit. The DVO has estimated the total valuation of the renovation of the house which is also not justified since only the renovation of the clinic was in question. However looking to the fact that details prepared by the assessee for the expenditure incurred on renovation is not fully documented, we therefore being fair to both the parties and looking to the smallness of the issue confirm the addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- for the undisclosed investment and delete remaining amount of ₹ 3,36086/-. Thus the assessee gets partial relief. Ground No.8 of the assessee s appeal is partly allowed. 71. Now we take up Ground No.3 for Assessment Year 2011-12 and Ground No.4 5 for Assessment Year 2012-13 of Appeal No. IT(SS) No.64/Ind/2017 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IG-3, Lake View Apartment, Shahpura, Bhopal referred as Page No.30 of LPS-6 conducted on 2.6.2011. The said paper is the Memorandum of Understanding (In short MOU) entered into between the Directors of Ayushman Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd (AMDPL) and the representative of Bansal Group regarding transfer of 100% equity shares of the said company. This MOU was executed on 24.10.10 and referes to the gross consideration of ₹ 26.75 crores from which the liabilities of the company were to be adjusted. In consequence of this MOU the share purchase agreements were later executed on 13.8.2012. Subsequent to entering into the MOU the share holders of AMDPL namely Dr. Ashok Gupta, Mrs Alka Gupta, Dr. Gopal Batni , Dr. Neeraj Kumar and Smt. Charu Kumar received various consideration through cheques. Apart from consideration in cheque cash sum of ₹ 2.15 crores was received by Dr. Ashok Gupta in April and May 2011, cash of ₹ 90 lakhs and ₹ 50 lakhs was received by Dr. Gopal Batni during 3rd quarter of2010-11 and April, May 2011. Dr. Neeraj Kumar also received cash of ₹ 90 lakhs during 25.10.2011 to 31.3.2011 and ₹ 55 lakhs during April and May, 2011. When the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on account of MOU, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but did not find any favour. Before Ld. CIT(A) it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there is no dispute with regard to the consideration received in cash and cheque but since due to certain disputes with M/s Wockhard Hospital Ltd due to which the deal with Bansal Group came to a halt and finally after the arbitration award when the matter was settled, equity shares were transferred. In the submission before Ld. CIT(A) it was made clear that total consideration received in cash and cheque has been shown as sale consideration of the equity shares sold by the assessee and due taxes paid after claiming indexed cost of acquisition in the return of income filed for Assessment Year 2013-14 but this submissions of the assessee did not find any favour and the action of the Ld. A.O was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) observing as follows:- I have perused the submissions of the learned AR, the assessment order and case record. During the course of search at the office premises of Dr. Neeraj Kumar loose papers were found and seized, this document is MOU dated 24.10.2010 between Aushman Medical diagnostics Pvt. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted as under: S.No. Name of the Director A.Ys period Amount 1 Dr. Gopal Batni A.Y. 2011-12 (25/10/2010 to 31/12/2010) A.Y. 2012-13 (April May 2011) ₹ 90,00,000/- ₹ 50,00,000/- 2 Dr. Neeraj Kumar A.Y. 2011-12 (25/10/2010 to 31/12/2010) A.Y. 2012-13 (April May 2011) ₹ 90,00,000/- ₹ 55,00,000/- The above details show that Dr. Gopal batni and Dr. Neeraj Kumar have accepted to have received an amount totaling to Rs. I.8 crores for A.Y. 2011-12 and RsJ 1.05 crores for A.Y 2012 -13 respectively. Therefore, balance amount of RsJ 40,00,000/- for AY 2011-12 and ₹ 1.75 crores for AY 2012-13 have been received by Dr. Ashok Gupta. 'Ihe above version has also been corroborated by the statement recorded u/s 132(4) during search. The said amount totaling to ₹ 2.15 crores was also voluntarily disclosed u/s 132(4). l1owever, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ib; (2002) 76 TTJ 0339 (TM) it has been held: .. T had made a confessional statement before the search party of the department, who were not police officers. Therefore, the admission made by him of search was admissible against the assessee. Looking to the aspect of the matter from another angle, T was a famous doctor. While making a statement, it was not expected of a person highly educated and highly placed in the society to make a statement without realising its implications. It was also found that there was no allegation of coercion or pressure for making a statement by him at the time of search and this allegation had also not been made before the Assessing Officer . The appellant assessee is highly educated and highly placed in society . Once the appellant assessee has accepted receipt of money at the time of search and the retraction is not based upon sound reasoning and corroborative evidence, mere denial is not enough. In retraction of surrender burden of proof is on the person retracting and hence, the onus is on him and not on the department. In view of the above, the submission of the appellant that the entire amount of ₹ 2.15 crores having b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis. Ayushman initially invested about ₹ 8.17 crores during the FY 2007-08 and 2008-09 for construction of building and acquisition of equipments and plants. Ayushman acquired huge loans from the banks and MPFC of approximately ₹ 7 crores for the said investments. Wockhardt initially invested about ₹ 4 crores but subsequently, it backed out for any further investments because of their financial constraints and marketability. During this period Wockhardt sold nearly ten hospitals which were run by them. M/s Ayushman requested Wockhardt and tried to persuade them to takeover the management and further invest the money but M/s Wockhardt continuously avoided for making any investments. Since M/s Ayushman had obtained a huge loan, it was very difficult to manage the hospital with the interest burden thereon and the responsibility of repaying the loan. Up to 31 st of March 2011 the liability for paying interest rose up to 246 lacs and other expenses capitalized were up to 100 lacs. Because of financial stringency the hospital was practically closed in the beginning of the year 2010. M/s Wockhardt wanted to modify the original agreement and enter into a fresh agreemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invested in building about 3.87crores from 01/04/2007 to 31/03/2008 (Pg.140 of PB) and ₹ 8.18 crores up to 31/03/2009 (Pg.155 of PB). iii. The assessee raised loans for construction of building and the position of loans are 96.50 lakhs on 31/03/2007; ₹ 475 lakhs on 31/03/2008 (Pg. 137 of PB) and ₹ 924 lakhs on 31/03/2009 (Pg. 152 of PB). iv. The profit for the 5 financial years and interest capitalized is as under 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Profit 16.3Olakhs Pg.124 22.491akhs Pg.138 26.531akhs Pg.153 30.821akhs Pg.174 5.741akhs loss Pg.190 Interest Capitalized - 10.891akhs Pg.143 76.731akhs Pg. 158 1591akhs Pg.178 2461akhs Pg. 195 v. 24/10/2010 - Memorandum of understanding with Bansal group regarding transfer of shares for a total consideration of ₹ 13.5 crores. Total amount of tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een shown in the books of accounts. As per MOU dated 24/10/2010 all amount of ₹ 26,75,00,000/- is paid by Bansal group to Dr. Gopal Batni, Dr. Neeraj Kumar Dr. Ashok Gupta. Therefore ₹ 1,85,00,000/- is required to be added in the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13. He therefore made addition on the hypothetical ground that the assessee has received this amount. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has merely repeated the conclusions of the Ld. AO and without appreciating the arguments advanced has summarily dismissed the appeals. The Ld. CIT(A) merely stated that the appellant has simply retracted from the disclosure but the fact remains that the assessee has received these monies in cash and as such it is taxable. Arguments It is humbly submitted that the additions made by the Ld. AO on hypothetical grounds and on pure surmises are totally illegal and bad in law. The MOU clearly demonstrates that an amount of ₹ 13.5 crores would be paid as a consideration against the sale of shares. The said amount has been offered as a capital gain in the respective hands of the directors when the shares were actually transferred III the name of the Bansal Group. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is humbly prayed that the same may kindly be consider while passing the order. (v) The papers all are disclosed to the various courts and has been adhered to and as such no adverse view can be taken since it is not an incriminating document. In view of this, it is humbly prayed that the additions made by the Ld. AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are bad in law and deserves to be deleted. 76. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that :- This addition has been made as per Para No. 20.9 (Pg. No. 28-35) of the assessment order and is on account of cash received by the assessee as advance from Bansal Group against the sale of 71135 nos. equity shares held by the assessee in AMDPL. It is submitted that during the course of search a MOU dated 24-10-2010 was found and seized from the Office Premises of AMDPL situated at HIG-3, Lake View Apartment, Shahpura, Bhopal. This MOU was compiled by the Department as Pg. No. 30 of LPS-6 and copy of which is available on Pg, No, 29 of the assessment order. It was submitted by the assessee before the AO that this paper is MOU reached between the Directors of AMDPL and the representatives of Bansal Group regarding transfer of 100 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-08-2012 of Uco Bank 3,99,000 Total 3,99,000 Dr. Goptal Batni S.No Particulars Amount a Chq No. 852253 dated of Uco Bank 25,00,000 b Cash received from 25.10.2010 to 31.12.2010 90,00,000 c Cash received in April and May 2011 50,00,000 d Chq No.8070088 dated 01.05.2012 of Uco Bank 75,00,000 e Chq No.870132 dated 11.05.2012 of Uco Bank 50,00,000 f Chq No.871133 dated 27.06.2012 of Uco Bank 30,00,000 g Chq No.863608 dated 13.08.2012 of Uco Bank 25,00,000 h Chq No.863609 dated 13.08.2012 of Uco Bank 25,00,000 i Chq No.863610 dated 13.08.2012 of Uco Bank 25,00,000 j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also accepts this fact and there is no dispute that the cash was received as Advance against the transaction for transfer of equity shares in AMDPL to the Bansal Group members. The learned AO also does not disputes the fact that out of total ₹ 5 crores received by the aforesaid 3 persons, the cash amount received by the assessee was ₹ 2,15,00,000/-. The learned AO has presumed that out of the total amount of ₹ 2,15,00,000/- Dr. Ashok Gupta received ₹ 40,00,000/- in FY 2010-11 and Rs.-1,75,00,000/- in FY 2011-12. The learned AO has based his presumption on Pg. No. 3 4 of LPS-4/2 seized from the Business Premises of Bansal Group located at 3rd Floor, Tava Complex, Bittan Market, Bhopal. Copy of these seized documents were not provided to the assessee and no query regarding the same was put to the assessee for explanation. Scanned image of these seized papers are available on Pg. No. 32 of the assessment order. From these scanned image it can be seen that total ₹ 5 crores were paid in cash by the Bansal Group to the aforesaid 3 doctors but the dates of payment are not available on the scanned images. It cannot further be identified that which particula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove the total sale consideration of 71135 nos. equity shares was ₹ 4,05,46,950/- out of which only ₹ 215 lakhs had been received by the assessee in cash. The remaining amount was received through cheques. No amount over and above the said amount of ₹ 4,05,46,950/- was either received or was receivable. No evidence to support the presumption made by the learned AO was found during the course of search. The learned Aa has presumed that since the amount of ₹ 5 crores had been received by the assessee, Dr. Gopal Batni and Dr. Niraj Kumar in cash therefore the remaining amount of ₹ 7.50 crores was also receivable by the said persons in cash out of which the share of the appellant was ₹ 185 lakhs. On the basis of said presumption the learned AO has made the addition of₹ 185 lakhs in the income of the appellant for AY 2012-13. The cheque payments received against the sale of equity shares have totally been ignored. This addition being entirely based on presumptions and surmises and being devoid of any evidence is requested to be deleted. 77. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supported the orders of both the lower auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring Financial Year 2006-07 AMDPL entered into an agreement with Wockhardt Hospital Ltd, Mumbai (In short WHL ), on 10.07.2006. As per the agreement against the consideration to be received from WHL, M/s AMDPL took up the work of civil construction of various parts of hospital. AMDPL invested the amount during the Financial Year 2007-08 and 2008- 09 for construction of building and acquisition of equipments. M/s WHL initially invested ₹ 4 crores subsequently backed out for any further investment. As stated by Ld. Counsel for the assessee M/s AMDPL after securing loans from Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation invested approximately about 8.17 crores during Financial Year 2007-08 and 2008-09. When M/s AMDPL tried to persuade WHL to take up the management and further invest the money, some disputes arises between the two. Because of these financial stringencies the hospital was broadly closed in the beginning of Financial Year 2009-10. M/s WHL wanted to modify the agreement and enter into a fresh agreement but the parties could not came to the consensus on any of the terms. On account of this distress conditions M/s. AMDPL decided to transfer the management and accordingly ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bansal Group. During the course of assessment proceedings and subsequent to search carried out u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act (which was completed on 14.3.2014) when the Ld. A.O confronted the assessee with the MOU, complete details were filed by the assessee regarding the amount received from Bansal Group in cash as well as cheque which totalled to ₹ 12,28,37,850/- received by the share holders against the number of shares held in the following manner :- Name of Shareholder No. Of shares held Amount received Dr. Ashok Gupta 71135 4,05,46,950 Mrs. Alka Gupta (w/o Dr. Ashok Gupta) 700 3,99,000 Dr. Gopal Batni 71835 4,09,45,950 Dr. Niraj Kumar 70640 4,02,64,800 Mrs. Charu Kumar (w/o Dr. Niraj Kumar) 1195 6,81,150 Total 215505 12.28,37,850 82. The above sum of ₹ 12,28,37,850/- includes the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Ld. A.O making addition during Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 tantamount to double addition since amount received towards sale of shares has been offered and assessed to tax in the Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2013-14. 83. On examining all the facts and the view taken by both the lower authorities firstly there remains no dispute about the cash and cheque amount received by the assessee on account of the MOU entered into between M/s AMDPL and Bansal Group. However it seems that both the lower authorities have only taken note of the amount of cash or cheque received by the assessee as per MOU but they have not dealt the amounts received as part of the transaction of sale of equity shares. As per the audited Balance Sheet of Financial Year 2006-07 placed at Page 122 to 133 of M/s. AMDPL paid up capital was ₹ 26,54,800/- against 126548 equity shares allotted. As on 31.03.2009 as per the audited Balance Sheet of M/s. AMDPL 213448 equity shares were issued for paid up capital of ₹ 2,13,44,800/- against the authorised share capital of ₹ 2,25,00,000/-for 22500000 of equity shares of ₹ 100/- each. When the deal was struck between M/s. AMDPL a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012. The deal with M/s Bansal Group happened in between on 24.10.2010. Part of the consideration was received in cash and cheque by the Directors on various dates which is also mentioned in the preceding paras in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. So the crux of the series of facts is that till 08.02.2012 there was no surety of honouring the MOU entered into between M/s. AMDPL and Bansal Group. Therefore all the amounts received by all the Directors or share holders were merely in the shape of an advance and in case of contrary outcome between M/s AMDPL and M/s WHL the sale of shares could not be completed. In the instant case transaction of sale of equity shares of M/s AMDPL held by assessee falls in the category of transfer provided in Section 45(1) of the Act which reads as follows:- Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income- tax under the head Capital gains , and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The Exceptions provided in Sub Section 2 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to ₹ 10,80,150/- which constitutes two share holders namely Dr. Ashok Gupta at ₹ 3,99,000/- and Smt. Charu Kumar at ₹ 6,81,150/- and the same is claimed to have been offered to tax during Assessment Year 2013-14. It is further brought to our notice that the assessment for Assessment Year 2013-14 in the case of Dr. Ashok Gupta as well as Dr. Neeraj Kumar was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2016 and the income under the head Long Term Capital Gain for sale of equity shares of AMDPL has been accepted by Ld. A.O. Thus there remains no dispute to the fact that total sale consideration of ₹ 12,28,37,850/- towards sale of equity shares held in AMDPL by the three Directors including the assessee have been offered to tax and have been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 91. One more fact brought to our notice that the alleged cash of ₹ 5 crores paid by Bansal Group to the 3 Directors have also been offered to tax during Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 by the Bansal family. Ld. Counsel for the assessee as Officer in Court has given this information in writing along with the certificate issued by Shri Anil Bansal wherein information a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shok Gupta for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed. 94. Now we take up the case of Dr. Neeraj Kumar for Assessment Year 2006-07, 2011-12 and 2012-13 vide IT(SS) No.66,67 162/Ind/2017. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. Neeraj Kumar is also the Director and shareholder of M/s. AMDPL. Residential premises were also subjected to search along with the search conducted at Bansal Group and other Directors and share holders of M/s. AMDPL on 02.06.2011 and some loose papers were seized. In response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act Income Tax Returns were filed for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2011-12. 95. We will first take up the appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 wherein four grounds of appeal have been raised which reads as follows:- 1.That the assessment made u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act be held to be bad in law and on facts and be quashed. 2. That the addition of ₹ 13,OO,OOO/- maintained and confirmed by CIT(A) made on the basis of Page No.122 of LPS-3 found from the office premises of Ayushman College be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of ₹ 13,00,000/-, which is treated by the A.O as undisclosed cash receipt for A.Y 2006-07 is confirmed. The argumentJ taken by the appellant that the sum of ₹ 13,00,000/- relates to years prior to A.Y 2006-07 has no has no evidence regarding the same was filed either before the A.O or at the time of late proceedings and is therefore, rejected. The ground of appeal is partly allowed. 99. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 100. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to following written submission:- AY 2006-07: Addition of ₹ 13 lacs (Page 3 of PB B-l) The Ld. AO, in Para 13.4, Page 13 of the Assessment Order, has made the addition of ₹ 16,40,600/-- on the basis of loose paper LPS-3 Page 122. The said paper is a calculation of investments made by the group directors in the case of the Company. It also indicates the dividends of ₹ 3,40,600/- being declared to the director. The Ld. AO has remarked in Para 13.3 that the assessee has not submitted any evidence to substantiate its claims about the share investments and also the dividends received. He further observed that the assessee has received cash and dividend of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... books of accounts. We therefore set aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition of ₹ 13,00,000/- and allow Ground No.2 for Assessment Year 2006-07 in IT(SS) No.66/Ind/2017. 104. Ground No.3 4 are general in nature which needs no adjudication. 105. In the result appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed. 106. Now we take up IT (SS) No. 67/Ind/2017 for Assessment Year 2011-12 in the case of Dr. Neeraj Kumar wherein following grounds are raised:- 1.That the assessment made u/s 153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Income-Tax Act be held to be bad in law and on facts and be quashed. 2. That the addition of ₹ 90,00,000/- made on the basis of Page No.30 of LPS-6 found from the office premises of Ayushman College be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 3. That the addition of ₹ 1,52,000/- made on the basis of Page No.61 of BS-1 found from the office premises of Ayushman College be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 4. That in the alternative and without prejudice to the Grounds stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made the addition of ₹ 1,52,000/- observing as follows:- 14.3 The submission of the assessee has been considered and examined but the same is not acceptable:- i The above loose papers shows that the assessee has received cash of ₹ 1,52,000/- from Mr. Bharat Patel for share in the month of September 20 1 O. The above expenditure has not been entered in the books of accounts of assessee. ii. The above loose papers shows that the assessee has received cash of ₹ 1,52,000/- from Mr. Bharat Patel for share in the month of September 2010. The above expenditure has not been entered in the books of accounts of assesee. iii. On request of assessee summon u/s 131 has been issued to Shri. Bharat Patel on 26/12/20 13, however he has not attended the proceedings till date. iv. This handwritten loose paper has been found and seized from the residence of the assessee. Therefore, in view of provisions of section 132 (4A) of the Income tax Act, 1961, it is presumed that the transactions recorded in this loose paper pertain to the assessee and the content of these transactions is true. v. The explanation offered by the assessee has not been supported with any docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r A.Y 2011-12 and the addition made by the A.O on this count is confirmed. The ground of appeal is dismissed. 111. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and referred following written submissions:- Ground No. 3 (page 7 of PB B-2): Addition of ₹ 1,52,000/- on account of alleged cash investments.- The Ld. AO has made the addition at Page 14, Para 14.4 on account of entry in BS-l Page 61. The said writing states cash received paid to Bharat Patel for shares. It was explained to the Ld. AO that the assessee had made the payment of Rs.l,50,000/- to Smt. B.S. Patel for acquiring 1000 shares of Ayushman. The shares were transferred in the name of the assessee. The assessee has further made the payment of Rs.l,50,000/- to Bharat Patel which was received from Bansal Group. Since, in the paper it is mentioned about the receipt and payment, no income arises to the assessee and as such no addition can be made on this account. It is therefore prayed that the additions may please be deleted. 112. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supported the order of both the lower authorities. 113. We have heard rival cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following grounds of appeal were raised:- 1.That the assessment made u/s 153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Income-Tax Act be held to be bad in law and on facts and be quashed. 2. That the addition of ₹ 1,93,040/- maintained and confirmed by CIT(A) made as per Para NO.9.5 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 3.That the addition of ₹ 55,00,000/- made as per Para No.15.15 of . the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 4.That the addition of ₹ 2,80,00,000/- made as per Para No.15.16 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 5. That the addition of ₹ 15,00,000/- made as per Para No.1 0.6 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 6. That the addition of ₹ 39,500/- made as per Para NO.11.4 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the. books of accounts. Besides, the appellant assessee has not been able to give the reasons for receiving such huge amounts in cash and then keeping the same in bank locker. Therefore, the cash found at residence and locker during the Course of search amounting to ₹ 1,93,040/- is unexplained cash. The addition made by the A.O U/S 69A for A.Y 2012-13 is confirmed. 7.2 Regarding the foreign currency found during the search the plea taken by the appellant that US$ 24 belongs to his younger brother Shri Pankaj Gupta who is a US citizen is reasonable. In view of the status of the appellant and the amount being very small the addition on account of US$ 24 is deleted. 120. Aggrieved assessee is appeal before the Tribunal against the addition of ₹ 1,93,040/-. 121. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the written submissions filed before Ld. CIT(A) and also submitted that assessee received cash sum of ₹ 1,45,00,000/-before the date of search towards advance amount on account of deal for sale of equity shares held in AMDPL to Bansal Group. The source of cash in hand is from the advance so received. 122. Per contra Ld. Departmental Represen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00,000/-. 126. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed as the impugned addition was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) observing as follows:- I have perused the submissions of the learned AR, the assessment order and also perused the case record. The submission of the appellant that the loose paper page no 14 of annexure BS-3 found and seized from the premises from Ayushman college at HIG-3, Shahpura, Bhopal contains only rough calculations regarding proposed investment in nursing college has no merit. The paper was seized from the premises of the appellant whereby clear cut detail of expenses relating to bribes (local 5lakhs + 10 lakhs) to VVM nursing college has been mentioned. The said expenses has been made in cash. No evidence or details as to that the said loose paper contains only rough calculations has been produced either before the A.O or at the appellate stage. The paper is handwritten and the claim of the appellant that it is a 'rough working' is in afterthought. The findings of the A. 0 that it is a concocted story made by the appellant, calls for no interference and the addition of ₹ 15,00,000/- made by the A.O is confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of ₹ 15,00,000/- made by Ld. A.O for the alleged unexplained cash bribes given on the basis of seized document BS-3 Page 14 to 17. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the alleged seized documents depicts rough calculation for the projections made by the assessee for putting up colleges for Nursing/Pharmacy/Homeopathy and Ayurvedic. Both the lower authorities have not accepted this contention. 131. On perusal of the alleged seized document we find that at Page-14 there is some calculation about the nursing college. This calculation includes area of land, number of beds, area of building in sq.ft, period of course, fees for various terms. In the middle of the document it is mentioned that bribes to local ₹ 5 lakhs plus ₹ 10 lakhs. Below this fronts monthly salary of the staff and number of staffs is mentioned. Page 15 talks about Pharmacy college and the fees of the Principal and fees for B.Pharm and D. Pharm. Page 16 talks about Homeopathy college and the infrastructure to set up. Page 16 also talks about the Ayurvedic college and the infrastructure required for the Ayurvedic college. At Page 17 it summarises the investment so made in all the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant has no merit in view of the above reply which is unreliable and vague and he has no explanation to offer in this regard. The handwritten loose paper has been seized from the residence of the appellant assessee at the time of search. The said handwritten loose paper clearly shows that the expenditure amounting to ₹ 39,500/- has been incurred in cash by the appellant assessee and which is not been entered in the books of accounts. No evidence what so ever was filed either before the A.O or during appellate proceedings to substantiate the claim that the above handwritten jottings relating to bill, stamp, notary and fees do not relate to the appellant. The addition made by the A.O on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C for A.Y 2012-13 amounting to ₹ 39,500/- is confirmed. 134. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 135. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written submissions: Ground No. 6 (Page 16 of PB B-3): Addition of ₹ 39,500/- on account of unexplained expenditure - The Ld. AO has made this addition at Page 9 and 10, Para 11 on the basis of loose paper LPS - 3, Page 123. This is a dumb do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (40%) paid by cash. Vide show cause notice u/s 142(1) dated 17/02/2014 the assessee was required to explain the above cash payment for purchase of property and reconcile the above with his regular books of accounts. The assessee was also required to show cause why the amount of ₹ 21,16,800/- not be treated as undisclosed income and added to the income of assessee for A. Y 2012-13. The assessee vide reply dated 21/02/2014 stated that:- Regarding Page No. 125 to 128 of LP S-3 seized from the premises of Ayushman College at HIG- 3, Shahpura, Bhopal it is submitted that these papers relate to proposal for purchase of shop at Great India Place Mall, Koiar Road, Bhopal Some representative from the said Mall had visited the assessee and had explained the proposal on these papers. However, the assessee did not purchase any shop at the said Mall and no such investment as you have mentioned in this Para of your questionnaire was made by the assessee either through cheques or cash. 139. The submission of the assessee were not found acceptable and Ld. A.O completed the assessment making addition of the alleged cash payment of ₹ 21,16,800/- for the purchase of some property. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns the proposal of estimated figures which mentions the figures of 15, 75 and 10. The assessee has neither purchased any shop nor has entered into any agreement. No paper was found which could show that the assessee has purchased or entered into the agreement or has paid any money. These are all estimated proposed offer. The assessee has neither made any payment nor entered into any agreement. The addition made on the hypothetical ground that the assessee has made cash payment is based on surmises and conjectures and no addition can be made on this ground. The addition deserves to be deleted. 142. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supported the orders of both the lower authorities. 143. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Through Ground No.7 assessee has challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the Ld. A.O making addition for unexplained cash investment of ₹ 21,16,800/-. This addition was made by the Ld. A.O on the basis of his interpretation of the seized document page 125 to 128 of LPS-3 which are placed at page 17 to 20 of the paper book PB/B-3 dated 14.06.2017. The assessee s conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
