9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of undisclosed sources. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in making the addition of Rs. 6,20,00,000/- as investments out of undisclosed sources. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in not giving credit of cash seizure of Rs. 32,00,000/- and wrongly computing interest u/s 234A, B & C on the same. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming all the above additions. [B1 Relief Prayed: The appellant therefore prays follows, 1. To quash the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A on the basis of invalid order passed u/s 127. 2. To delete addition of Rs. 1,38,38,000/- as expenditure incurred out of undisclosed sources. 3. To delete addition of Rs. 6,20,00,000/- as investments out of undisclosed sources. 4. To give credit of seized cash of Rs. 32,00,000/- while calculating interest u/s 234A, B, C. 5. To qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the books of accounts. Accordingly, he brought to tax said amount, as it remains unexplained. Similarly, the Investigation Wing of the Department also during the course of search and seizure operations found and seized incriminating material in the form of loose papers no.1 to 28 marked as Annexure- A/5 at page no.62 to the said documents containing handwriting notings made in Pen Drive under the head 'Deelip Koteha'and 'Sanjay Kotecha'. The notings also indicated sale of shares of M/s S.V. Electricals noted commission paid and profit booked. As per the notings found in the loose sheets, Shri Deelip Kotecha i.e. appellant before us had to make a total payment of Rs. 6,26,58,771/-. Out of the sum of Rs. 7,88,400/- was paid by cheque and balance of Rs. 6,18,70,371/- was to be paid in cash and there is a clear noting indicating that, the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 6,20,00,000/-. When this information/material was confronted to the appellant on 21.01.2014, he denied having paid any amount in cash. He also confirmed the transactions of sale of sale of shares of M/s S.V. Electricals recorded in the books of accounts. However, the above contention had been rejected by the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in the case of Shivabhai Khodabhai Patel vs. CIT, 244 ITR 457 (Guj.-HC). The Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Steel Engg. & Processing Works vs. Union of India, 243 ITR 721 (Pat.-HC) after referring to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pannalal Binjraj (supra) held to the same effect by holding as under :- "19. But this is not all. The facts as are emerging from the records of this case cannot be lost sight of, which have been elaborately pleaded and described by the respondent-revenue in its counter-affidavit and also in the reply affidavit to the rejoinder affidavit stating that the proceeding for transfer of the case from Patna to Ranchi was initiated at the instance of the petitioner-assessee himself and it was he, who suggested that the entire records and books of account are at Ranchi and so it will be convenient for him to co-operate with the assessment at Ranchi. Besides laches in approaching the Writ Court, the assessee-petitioner also submitted to the jurisdiction of the transferee authority at Ranchi. 20. This being so, the party once acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the transferee Court, all statutory rights which the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Rs. 6,20,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure. Therefore, he submitted that the lower authorities were justified in drawing adverse inference against the assessee. 11. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. As regards to the addition of Rs. 1,38,38,000/-, the ld. AR submitted that the impugned addition was made based on the loose papers found and seized from the residential premises of the appellant as a result of search and seizure operations. We have carefully gone through the said loose documents which is also extracted by the Assessing Officer vide para no.8 of the assessment order, wherein, the documents dated 31.01.2011 indicates total payment of Rs. 1,38,38,000/-. Obviously contents of the notings clearly indicate the payment of interest which means the appellant either repaid the loan with interest or made advance of loan for interest. Notings found therein represents the unexplained income out of which the loan or advance was made warranting addition under the provisions of section 69 of the Act. When this information/material was confronted to the appellant, the appellant had failed to explain the contents of the documents. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
