9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the information contained in the data by the assessee. See Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia [ 2024 (3) TMI 1339 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] In the facts of the present case also, other than the data relating to the assessee found during the search on the third party and the admission of the third party, before the Settlement Commission, of having received on-money, there is no other evidence with the Department for holding that the assessee had paid on-money to the builder. The request for cross-examination of the builder was also held to be untenable by the ld.CIT(A) on the ground that no statement of the builder had been recorded during the search or later, with respect to the incriminating material. However it is fact on record that HN Safal Gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judicial authorities; and without verifying as to how the dots between the said seized document were connected with the untenable findings of the AO. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 84,35,930/- that was arbitrarily made by the AO while passing the assessment order. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended before us that the sole issue in the present appeal relates to addition made to the income of the assessee of Rs. 84,35,930/- allegedly being on-money paid in cash by the assessee to the developer for purchase of a property, source of which remained unexplained. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the only effective ground of appeal is ground no.2. 4. Drawing our atten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this issue is no longer res integra , having been dealt by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia, R/Tax Appeal No.20 of 2024 dated 6.3.2024, wherein, he pointed out that the Hon ble High Court had categorically held that there was no basis at all for conducting the proceedings against the assessee merely for the fact that the developer had paid taxes on the amount shown in the excel-sheet; that merely basis excel-sheet without any corroborative evidence, the addition could not have been made to the income of the assessee. Our attention was drawn to the contents of the order as under: 1. Having noted the findings of the facts returned by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CITA&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally paid by the assessee to the developer. Even otherwise, the concurrent findings returned by the CITA and ITAT are that the document found from the premises of the third party namely excel-sheet, which is the basis of the proceedings was without any signature and there is no corroborative material to substantiate the said document. The nature of the document has not been explained by the Assessing Officer while proceeding against the assessee. The statements of the persons recorded during search with reference to the alleged, seized material, was not provided to the assessee and hence, the entire proceedings under Section 153C of the IT Act of 1961 stood vitiated. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not successfully demolish the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cash made by him, as contained in the data. The contention of the ld.DR was that this excel-sheet was sufficient evidence for making addition in the hands of the assessee. He pointed out from the order of the ldCIT(A) that there was no statement recorded of the searched person with respect to the incriminating material relied upon by the AO, and therefore, there was no need for providing cross-examination of the builder to the assessee also. In this regard, he drew our attention to para 6.15 of the CIT(A) s order holding so. He stated that the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court, therefore, was distinguishable, wherein it was noted that the assessee had not been provided opportunity of cross-examination 10. We have heard both th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble High Court had noted that besides corroborative evidences, the assessee also ought to have been provided opportunity of cross-examination to the builder. In the facts of the present case also, other than the data relating to the assessee found during the search on the third party and the admission of the third party, before the Settlement Commission, of having received on-money, there is no other evidence with the Department for holding that the assessee had paid on-money to the builder. The request for cross-examination of the builder was also held to be untenable by the ld.CIT(A) on the ground that no statement of the builder had been recorded during the search or later, with respect to the incriminating material. However it is fact o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
