9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . AO has erred in considering the amount as on-money payment by the assessee. Excel Sheet was found in the premises of M/s. Meenakshi Agro Chemicals for which the assessee is not at all related. We also observe from the order of the Ld. AO that no incriminating material has been seized from the premises of the assessee. We also find that Ld. AO has not conducted any independent enquiry on the contents of the Excel Sheet by linking it to the assessee and bringing any material on the record that the assessee has transferred cash to the sellers. As relying on the case of K.V. Lakshmi Savitri Devi [ 2012 (12) TMI 1111 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] we find that the CIT(A) has rightly concluded by deleting the addition made by the AO we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground - Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon ble Judicial Member And Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon ble Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri MV Prasad, AR For the Department : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Sr. AR ORDER PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onse to the notice, assessee vide letter dated 09.12.2023 denied he paid on-money except the consideration of Rs. 1,62,80,000/- as recorded in the sale deed and made through banking channels. Thereafter, Ld. AO forwarded the Annexure A/MAC/RES/GNT/01 to the assessee stating that the four brothers have filed return of income admitting capital gains on account of sale of land to the assessee considering the entire sale consideration including the on-money payment received from the assessee. Assessee finally vide his letter dated 30.01.2024 objected to the proposed addition stating that he has not paid any additional amount as on-money. Ld. AO by not relying on the assessee s reply concluded that, as per the sworn statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, two of the key persons has accepted on-money received as additional consideration for the sale of land, therefore, the Ld. AO brought Rs. 3,80,05,000/- under tax under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Similar submissions were made before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers retracted from the statements given by them, but in the present case none of the sellers retracted from their sworn statements, but filed returns of income, by admitting additional income and paid relevant taxes pertaining to the issue. Thus, the leamed CIT(A) has wrongly applied the Legal position to the facts of the present case. 7. The CIT(A) has erred in not considering existence of incriminating material in the form of seized material (print out of excel sheet from laptop) and sworn statement of the person u/s132(4) who has prepared the said excel sheet, which proves the cash transaction between the assessee Sri Yerra Rajesh and sellers. 8. The CIT(A) has erred in not considering the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities in this case, the laptop. Reference is invited to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd Vs, KS Infraspace LLP Limited and Another in Civil Appeal No(s). 9346 of 2019 dated 6th January, 2020, wherein pertaining to watsapp evidence, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that The WhatsApp m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ased on the seized material evidence. 13. The CIT(A) has erred in considering the assessee's submissions, which were not presented before Assessing Officer in unconsidered and imbalanced way. The CIT(A) ought to have remanded the matter to Assessing Officer for his comments, before considering the new submissions filed by the assessee for the first time, by following the principles of natural justice. 14. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 5. The only issue emanating from the above grounds of appeal is with respect to deletion of addition of Rs. 3,80,05,000/- by the Ld. CIT(A). On this issue, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short Ld. DR ] submitted that based on the seized material found in the form of Excel Sheet which was created on the date of Registration of the sale deed certain cash transactions were recorded by the sellers of the property. Further, sellers have also admitted through their sworn statement that they have received on-money payment of Rs. 3,80,05,000/- from the assessee. Ld. DR also referred to question No. 36 29 as extracted in the assessment order stating that bag wise and denomination wise details were entered in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee apart from the Excel Sheet seized from the third party or by relying on the return of income filed by the sellers of the property. On perusal of the seized annexure in the form of Excel Sheet, we find that the contents does not have any nexus to the assessee such as name of the assessee or details of the property purchased by the assessee. We also find that the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of K.V. Lakshmi Savitri Devi (supra) held as follows: - We are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the registered document dt. 21.8.2006 under which the respondent purchased the above property showed that only Rs. 65.00 lakhs was paid to the vendor by the respondent; that there was no evidence to show that the respondent had paid Rs. 1.00 crores in cash also to the vendor; that no presumption of such payment of Rs. 1.00 crore in cash can be drawn on the basis of an entry found in a diary / loose sheet in the premises of C. Radha Krishna Kumar which is not in the respondent s handwriting and which did not contain the name of the respondent or any date of payment or the name of the person who made the payment. It rightly held that the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
