9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments which is also extracted by the AO wherein, the documents indicates total payment - 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 Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition. Thus, we confirm the addition - Thus, the ground of appeal no.2 raised by the appellant stands dismissed. Unexplained expenditure - Receipts and payments made in connection with the purchase and sale of share of M/s S.V. Electricals and it reflects the name of Shri Deelip V. Kotecha, the appellant before us, had paid cash to the agent involving in booking of accommodations entries. CIT(A) had clearly narrated the transaction that would have taken place the findings recorded by CIT(A) remains uncontroverted by the appellant. When this matter was confronted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penditure incurred out of undisclosed sources. 3. To delete addition of ₹ 6,20,00,000/- as investments out of undisclosed sources. 4. To give credit of seized cash of ₹ 32,00,000/- while calculating interest u/s 234A, B, C. 5. To quash the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A without giving proper opportunity of being heard. [C] General: The appellant reserve rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion. This appeal is filed in time and may please be allowed in full. A Detailed paper book along with case laws will be submitted at the time of hearing. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is an individual deriving income from the business in execution of civil contracts and investments in stock market. There was a search and seizure operations were conducted in the business and residential premises of the appellant on 09.08.2011 by DDIT (Inv.), Jalgaon. Subsequently, the jurisdiction of the assessee s case was transferred from Jalgaon to Nashik by the Commissioner Income Tax-II, Nashik vide order dated 02.12.2011 passed u/s 127 of the Act. The notice u/s 153A was is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/-. 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 Officer by holding that since the cheque part of the consideration for purchase of these shares had been accounted for in the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer believed that cash portion of consideration had been paid. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer brought to tax a sum of ₹ 6,20,00,000/- as an unexplained income . 4. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that : As regards to the sum of ₹ 6,20,00,000/- was paid in cash as part of the accommodation entries for purchase of shares and bogus capital gains in respect of sale of shares of M/s S.V. Electricals. As regards ₹ 1,38,38,000/-, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition by holding that the seized papers/documents revealed the transaction of advance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 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 assessee gets by virtue of section 127 vanish and, therefore, the assessee cannot assert that without affording opportunity as required under section 127, the case has been transferred. In this regard see Halsbury s Laws of England, Vol. II, 3rd Ed., page 140, Pr. 265 and also the case in O.A.O.K. Lakshmanan Chettiar v. Commissioner, Corporation of Madras AIR 1927 Mad. 130, which are referred to in the decision in the case of Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India [1957] 31 ITR 565 (SC). 21. In the case of Pannalal Binjraj (supra), which is a Constitution Bench decision, the Supreme Court lays down the law to the effect that, if an assessee has acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to whom a case has been transferred, he cannot subsequently object to the jurisdiction of the officer and seek to get the order of transfer quashed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition. Thus, we confirm the addition of ₹ 1,38,38,000/-. Thus, the ground of appeal no.2 raised by the appellant stands dismissed. Similarly, as regards to the addition of ₹ 6,20,00,000/-, the ld. AR submitted that this addition is based on the contents of page no.62 found and seized during the course of search and seizure operations marked as Annexure- A/5. We have carefully gone through the said page which is placed at page no.33 of the Paper Book, which clearly indicates the receipts and payments made in connection with the purchase and sale of share of M/s S.V. Electricals and it reflects the name of Shri Deelip V. Kotecha, the appellant before us, had paid cash of ₹ 6,20,00,000/- to the agent involving in booking of ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
