9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 1,40,000/- made by the Ld. AO as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That any other relief/deduction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit be granted to your appellant. 4. That the appellant craves leave to urge, add, amend, alter, enlarge, modify, substitute, delete any of the ground or grounds to adduce fresh evidence at the time of hearing of the appeal." 2. Search and seizure proceedings were conducted u/s. 132(1) of the Act dated 21.03.2012 at the business premises of the assessee, i.e., E-2, Maruti Business Park, G.E Road, Raipur. During the course of search proceedings the assessee was found in possession of certain incriminating documents, viz. LPS-1 (Page Nos.1 to 13), which was an 'agreement' executed between one Shri Manish Pinjani and M. Ahuja Project India Pvt. Ltd. As per the aforesaid incriminating material, the ledger a/c of M. Ahuja Project India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in the books of M/s. R.S. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (a non-existing entity) revealed that the following payments were made to M. Ahuja Project India Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee company at Rs. 11,16,420/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the assessment order before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) did not find favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee and dismissed the appeal. For the sake of completeness, the observations of the CIT (Appeals) are culled out as under: "2.3 Facts being as above, the additions have been made on the basis of details found in seized loose paper LPS-9. Additions are Rs. 1,40,000/- in A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs. 3,95,000/- in the A.Y. 2011-12. These are investments/payments made in the two financial years. The assessee has accepted payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- granted as loan to Shri Raju Pinjani. The document LPS-9 was seized from appellant's premises. It was for the appellant to explain the contents of these papers, what is the relation of R.S. Fincap with appellant, if appellant had no connection what soever how these papers were found from his premises. These questions have remained answered in the submission. Appellant contends that the said transactions were never the subject matter of purchase by the appellant and except for loan of Rs. 1 lakh given to Shri RajuPinjani no other investment was made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his consent for transfer of the deposit in favour of Shri Siyawar Saran Tiwari, Raipur. 5. As can be gathered from the contents of the aforesaid incriminating documents that were found and seized during the course of search and seizure proceedings, we find that Shri Manish Pinjai S/o. Shri Raj Kumar Pinjani had vide an undated "agreement" executed on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/- dated 30.08.2010 agreed to purchase a Plot No.47 from M/s. M. Ahuja Project (I) Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 19 lacs. Thereafter, the rights in the aforesaid plot as per an acceptance letter of Shri Sunil Talariya (to whom the same was transferred by Shri Manish Pinjani) were finally transferred in favour of Shri Siyawar Saran Tiwari, Raipur. Also, as observed by us hereinabove, the incriminating materials comprises of a ledger account of Shri Manish Pinjani (supra) as appearing in the books of M/s. R.S. Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd., which as stated by the Assessing Officer was a non-existent concern. Further, we find that the copy of ledger account of Shri Manish Pinjani (supra.) as appearing in the books of R.S Automobiles, Raipur evidencing receipt/repayment of loan of Rs. 1 lac forms a part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid document was found in the course of search proceedings conducted at the business premises situated at E-2, Maruti Business Park, G.E Road, Raipur, i.e., the premises from where the business of M/s. R.S Fincap, a partnership concern comprising of the assessee and Shri Sunil Talariya (supra.) was being run. In view of the aforesaid fact, we are of the considered view, that Shri Sunil Talariya (supra) had at a specific point of time interest in the property in question i.e prior to the transfer of the same to Shri Siyawar Saran Tiwari (supra.) and therefore, the fact that the incriminating document in question which makes a reference of a payment aggregating to Rs. 8,86,000/- (supra) over the years i.e. F.Y. 2009-10 to F.Y. 2011-12 belonged to the said person, viz. Shri. Sunil Talariya cannot be ruled out. Admittedly, apart from the aforesaid seized document i.e. ledger account of Shri Manish Pinjani (supra.) appearing in the books of account of M/s. R.S. Automobiles, Raipur, proprietary concern of the assessee evidencing receipt/repayment of loan of Rs. 1 lacs by Shri Manish Pinjani (supra) to the assessee was also seized in the course of the aforesaid search proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
