9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 47,00,000/- made u/s 69 on account of alleged "on money" paid for the purchase of flat. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not holding that no addition could be made based solely on the scrap of loose papers found in the course of survey action in the case of Dev Sharda Developers Pvt.Ltd. It is submitted that the said loose papers had no evidential value. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that there were ample other evidences to show that the Appellant had not received "on money" as alleged and hence no addition was tenable u/s 69 or otherwise. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest levied u/s 234A/B/C. 6. The appellant craves leave to leave to alter, to amend, to add, or to delete any or all of the grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 on 24.03.2008, declaring total income of Rs. 1,53,713/- and agriculture income of Rs. 87,055/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal No. 1 is thus dismissed as not pressed. The ld. A.R took us through the "Agreement to Sell‟, dated 23.06.2005, vide which he had had purchased the Flat No. 2002, Kent Garden, Borivali (W), Mumbai, during the year under consideration. The ld. A.R taking us through the relevant extract of the agreement at Page 19 of the "APB‟, therein drew our attention to the fact that the area of the flat was 68 Sq. mtr. That in the backdrop of the aforesaid fact the ld. A.R took us through the impounded document, viz. Annexure A-2 - Page 37 & Page 105. The ld. A.R submitted that the A.O had drawn adverse inferences and further alleged payment of "on money" of Rs. 47,00,000/- by the assessee on the basis of the figure of Rs. 72,50,000/- which stood mentioned as against a figure of "1120" multiplied by six thousand at Page 37 and alleged payment of certain cash commission as per impounded Page 105. The ld. A.R submitted that the A.O had whimsically inferred the payment of "on money" of Rs. 47,00,000/- by the assessee by referring to the vague notings in the said impounded documents, viz. Page 37 & Page 105 . The ld. A.R submitted that there was no basis for the A.O to have conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on M/s Dev Sharda developers, therefore, the addition of Rs. 47,00,000/- was rightly made by the A.O. 6. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We find that the addition of Rs. 47,00,000/- had been made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the notings in Annexure A-2 - Page 37 & Page 105 ,which are the pages of a diary that was impounded during the course of survey proceedings on the company M/s Dev Sharda developers, in which the assessee is a director. We have deliberated at length on the notings mentioned in Annexure A-2 - Page 37 & Page 105, and find that the adverse inference as regards payment of "on money" Rs. 47,00,000/- for purchase of the flat (including commission) was made by the A.O by referring to the figure of Rs. 72,50,000/- which stood mentioned as against a figure of "1120" multiplied by six thousand in the said document, and certain rough notings marked as "Commission‟ at Page 105. We are of the considered view that though there is no mention of the amount of Rs. 47,00,000/- in the aforesaid document, the A.O however had inferred the payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court of Bombay in the case of Surendra M. Khandhar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors (2010) 321 ITR 254 (Bom) relied upon by the ld. D.R is distinguishable on facts. We find that in the case before the High Court a zerox copy of a document signed by two parties, revealing payment of a loan of Rs. 20 lac by the assessee to them and the manner as per which the amount was to be received back was seized from the premises of the assessee during the course of Search & seizure proceedings. The assessee in the said case neither at the first available opportunity, nor at any subsequent stage of appeal or before the High Court denied the document, but had only claimed that the transaction mentioned therein was not given effect to. We find that it was in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that the High Court held that once a document was seized in the premises under control of the assessee, the presumption under s. 292C as also that under s. 132(4A) followed, and it was for the assessee to rebut that presumption. The High Court observed that as in the case before it, neither the presumption created by the document was rebutted nor had the assessee denied the loan amount, thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
