9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther no other evidence corroborating those entries are found. In the case before the co-ordinate bench, the pen drive was found during the course of search operations conducted u/s 132(4) of the Act and further the builder has offered the alleged on-money receipts as its income. The coordinate bench has held that the action taken by the builder would not automatically support the presumption that the concerned assessee has paid on money. In the instant case, the facts are not in better footing at all on account of following reasons:- (a) The impugned document was found during the course of survey operations. (b) The accountant and director has admitted the entries in the statement taken u/s 133A of the Act, which does not have any evidentiary value. (c) The dates mentioned in the document did not match with actual dates of allotment or registration. (d) As observed by the co-ordinate bench in the above said case, the entries made in the document falls short of certain material facts, viz. date and mode of receipt of on money‟, who had paid the money, to whom the money was paid, date of agreement etc. Thus, we are of the view that the impugned addition made by the AO is not su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 133A of the Act. Further, Shri Mansukh Shah, Director of the company also agreed with the statement so given by Shri Binesh Balakrishnan. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer called explanations from the assessee with regard to the payment of Rs. 1.61 crores. The assessee did not accept the entries made in the document prepared by the Accountant. The assessee submitted that the date of allotment of flats is mentioned as 07/01/2013 in the document seized from the accountant of the builder. However, the assessee was allotted three flats on 22/03/2011 for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 3.80 crores and the assessee had paid Rs. 40.00 lacs on that date. The flats were finally registered in the name of the assessee in Financial Year 2016- 17. In between the periods the assessee was making payments by way of cheque only and no cash payment was made. Accordingly, the assessee refuted the entries noted down in the document. 5. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the aforesaid explanations of the assessee on the reasoning that the document taken from the accountant clearly depicts the details of cash receipts against flat numbers and name of the assessee. Further, the veracity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examined the addition made in the hands of buyer of flat on the basis of evidence seized from the builder during the course of search operations conducted u/s 132 of the Act. The co-ordinate bench expressed the view that the addition could not have been made on the basis of recording done at the end of builder, when the purchase consideration matches with the market rates and further no other evidence corroborating those entries are found. The relevant observations made by the co-ordinate bench in the above said case are extracted below:- 15. We shall now take up the case of the assessee on merits and deliberate on the validity of the addition of Rs. 2.23 crore made by the A.O on the ground that the assessee had made a payment of on money for purchase of flats from M/s Lakeview developers. We have perused the facts of the case and the material available on record on the basis of which the addition of Rs. 2.23 crore had been made in the hands of the assessee. We have further deliberated on the material placed on record and the contentions of the ld. A.R to drive home his contention that no payment of any on money was made by the assessee for purchase of flats from M/s Lakeview Deve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee would not lead to drawing of adverse inferences as regards the investment made by the assessee for purchase of the property under consideration. We rather hold a strong conviction that the very fact that the consideration paid by the assessee for purchase of the property under consideration when pitted against the market value‟ fixed by the stamp valuation authority is found to be substantially high, further fortifies the veracity of the claim of the assessee that his investment made towards purchase of the property under consideration was well in order. We are of the considered view that though the material acted upon by the department for drawing of adverse inferences as regards payment of on money by the assessee formed a strong basis for doubting the investment made by the assessee for purchase of the property under consideration, but the same falling short of clinching material which would have irrefutably evidenced the said fact, thus, does not inspire much of confidence as regards the way they have been construed by the lower authorities for drawing of adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee. We thus are of a strong conviction that as the material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
