9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the CIT(A), the same is upheld. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No. 29/VNS/2020 - - - Dated:- 4-11-2022 - SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra , CIT DR ORDER SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO , J. M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.12.2020 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed when this appeal was called for hearing despite the fact that on the last date of hearing, the matter was adjourned at the request of the assessee. Accordingly, we propose to hear and dispose of this appeal ex parte. The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal:- 1. Because the Ld. CIT (A) has erred, as per law as well as on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in affirming the addition of Rs.15,00,000/- made by the Ld. AD as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act on the basis of dumb document found from the premise of third party. 2. Becau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f FSI in Block No. 1 at I.T. Park-2, Ansal, Lucknow to M/s Tulsiani Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. The said amount has not been recorded by the assessee in the books of accounts and accordingly, the AO made the addition of the same under section 69A of the Act. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) but could not succeed. 5. It is gathered from the submissions of the assessee before the authorities below that the assessee took the stand that it has received a sum of Rs. 74,23,937/- from M/s Tulsiani Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd., through cheques and the same is reflected in the bank account as well as in the books of accounts of the assessee. The assessee denied the receipt of alleged amount of Rs. 15 Lac as recorded in the seized material. The statement of facts as filed before the CIT(A) contains submissions of the assessee as under:- 1- The set, a company, derives income under head Profits and Gains from Business and Profession and is engaged in the business of real estate. The assessee had filed return u/s 139 on 29.09.2012 showing total income at Rs.9,340/-. 2- Search was conducted in the business premises of the assesse gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so made addition in the hands of M/s Tulsiani Construction Developers Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 15,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 ignoring the fact that no two persons can be the owner of the same money of Rs.15,00,000/-. Besides, the addition has also resulted in double addition on the same amount which against the Principle of Law and Equity. For the said impugned addition, the other company, namely, M/s Tulsiani Construction Developers Pvt. Ltd. has also filed appeal before your honour. 9- The Ld. Assessing Officer while making the addition has ignored the settled position of law that no addition can be made on the basis of dumb/bald documents/note book/loose slips found during search in the absence of any other material. 10- It is also a settled law that any presumption of transaction on some vague, tenuous and dubious entries in a sheet of paper is not rational, unless there is corroboration by corresponding entry in regular accounts of both the parties to the transaction. 11. The inference of the A.O. that the assessee has received unaccounted payment of Rs.15 lakhs is merely based on suspicion and surmises and there was no material whatsoever to su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the seized material except one entry of Rs. 15 Lac cash. The AO has reproduced the seized material in para 5.1 as under:- 5.1 On perusal of seized material, it was noted that, one of the pages contained entries related to transaction of sale of properties. It was observed that following payments were mentioned against the name of seller i.e. the assessee for property, namely, Block-1 of IT Park-02. 1100000(VIA CHEQUE) 1500000(IN CASH) 1500000(VIA CHEQUE) 4823937/- (Image-1) Details of Property in Lucknow S. No. Details of Property Name of Seller Broker Contact No. Value of Property Amount Balance 1 Block-1 At IT Park-2 for Hotel G.S. Express way limited Director: Sandeep Anand Piyush Bansal 19295750/ - 1100000(VI A CHEQUE) 1500000(IN CASH) 1500000(VIA CHEQUE) 4823937/- 8923937.00 10,371,813.00 The assessee was provided a mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he hands of M/s Tulsiani construction Developers Pvt. Ltd. and it is incorrect. In view of the reason that same amount cannot be owned by two persons. The contention of the appellant is incorrect as in this case one party l.e. M/s Tulsiani construction Developers Pvt. Ltd. has paid the amount and the other party i.e. the appellant has received the amount and both have denied the payment and receipt of the amount. The payment has been made in cash and hence the addition has been made in the hands of both the parties. 15. In view of the above find that the appellant has failed to correctly justify the information disclosed in the seized material accordingly the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/ made by the AO is justified and is hereby upheld. 9. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly observed that the assessee cannot claim the seized material as dumb document when all other entries are recorded in the seized material are accepted by the assessee. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the CIT(A), the same is upheld. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
