TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is always paid before execution of registered-deed because in the present case, the registered-deed is for plot and cash-component (even if believed to paid) was for construction-work and not for plot. In any case, the seized document Page No. 58 of LPS-1 clearly shows date of 05.11.2013 which falls within previous year 2013-14 relevant to AY 2014-15, therefore the Ld. AR is very much correct and justified in arguing that there was no cash-payment during the previous year 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14. Hence the addition made by AO in AY 2013-14 is patently wrong and unsustainable. Being so, we are inclined to delete the addition made by AO on this reasoning itself. Appeal of assessee is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 48 (copy of reasons is filed at Page No. 19-20 of the Paper-Book) that he received an information through the insight portal, uploaded by DCIT(Central)-II, Bhopal, which revealed that the assessee purchased a property called DV (Dream Vila)-11, Bhopal for Rs. 2,53,50,000/- but the purchase-consideration shown in the registered-deed was Rs. 1,97,50,000/- only. Thus, the assessee has paid unaccounted on-money of Rs. 56,00,000/- [Rs. 2,53,50,000 (-) Rs. 1,97,50,000] in cash from undisclosed sources. Accordingly, the AO believed that the income of Rs. 56,00,000/- chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Therefore, the AO issued show- cause notice dated 31.03.2021 u/s 148 to re-open case u/s 147. During re- assessment proceeding when the AO con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment-order which DRP rejected. Ultimately, the AO passed final assessment-order making the addition of Rs. 56,00,000/-. 5. With this factual background, Ld. AR contended that the impugned documents seized from Shri Goswami are dumb documents and the department has not allowed even cross-examination of Shri Goswami to assessee. Therefore, those documents do not have any evidentiary value and could not have been used against assessee. That apart, Ld. AR also submitted that the first-document does not contain any date or year of alleged on-money payment. And if the second-document is believed by department, it clearly mentions the transaction date as 05.11.2013 which falls within previous year 2013-14 relevant to AY 2014-15 and not at all wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2013. Thus, the cash payment must have been made before 19.03.2013 only as in practical life, the cash component is always paid before execution of registered sale-deed. Therefore, taking into account the date of 19.03.2013, the AO is very much justified to make addition in previous year 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14. 8. We have considered submissions of both sides and perused the material held on record including the Paper-Book filed by assessee. After a careful consideration, we firstly scan and re-produce the second-document being "Page No. 58 of LPS-1" extracted by AO on Page No. 5 of assessment-order: 9. On perusal of above document, we find two important contents therein, namely (i) Cash as per Bindra Sir at 05.11.2013 - Rs. 56,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 58 of LPS-1" clearly shows date of 05.11.2013 which falls within previous year 2013-14 relevant to AY 2014-15, therefore the Ld. AR is very much correct and justified in arguing that there was no cash-payment during the previous year 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14. Hence the addition made by AO in AY 2013-14 is patently wrong and unsustainable. Being so, we are inclined to delete the addition made by AO on this reasoning itself. Ordered accordingly. 11. Since we have already deleted addition in foregoing paragraph on the aspect of relevant previous-year/assessment-year, it would be unnecessary to go into other contentions raised by Ld. AR. Therefore, other contentions are kept open and undecided at this stage. 12. Resultantly, this ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|