9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. These entries have not been disputed by the AO. Therefore, the addition to this extent is not justified.
As regards the cash component assessee has consistently denied making such payment and there is no corroborative evidence brought on record by the AO to substantiate this addition. Therefore, in the absence of any conclusive evidence, the addition is not sustainable.
Appeal of the assessee allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the said data and statements of the searched persons, without supplying copies or allowing cross-examination, made an addition of Rs. 17,22,700/- u/s. 69 of the Act, consisting of a cheque component of Rs. 9,36,250/- and cash of Rs. 7,86,450/-. 3. Aggrieved by the AO's order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A), contending that the proceedings under Section 153C were illegal and invalid as the seized data did not belong to the assessee and the amendment made w.e.f. 01-06-2015 was not applicable. The Ld. CIT (A) held that the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act were valid. While doing so, the Ld.CIT (A) referred the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITO vs. Vikram Sujit Kumar Bhatia & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire investment of Rs. 17,22,700/- in plot no. 177 of NIRVANA scheme of M/s Manushi Land Developers LLP which consisted of cheque component of Rs. 9,36,250 and cash of Rs. 7,86,450/-was unexplained income u/s. 69. 3.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the Id. CIT (A) ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs. 17,22,700/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 when the source of cheque payments of Rs. 9,36,250/- was fully explained. 3.3 The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the first payment by cheque was made on 09.10.2010 and the final purchase deed on 22.08.2013. But no evidence pointed out by AO to prove that the alleged cash payment was made during the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2011-12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g paid the cash component of Rs. 7,86,450/-. 6.1. The Ld.AR further stated that while confirming the addition the Ld.CIT (A) has relied on the excel-sheet found at the time of search and seizure at the premises of H N Safal Group. It was also based on the fact that one of the groups entity Manushi Land Developers LLP from whom assessee purchased plot admitted that 'ON-MONEY' in the form of cash was received by them and this 'on-money' was disclosed by said M/s. Manushi Land Developers LPP, after paying tax and applied before Settlement Commission for relief. He further stated that there is no any proof with the Department that cash was actually paid by the assessee. Even there is no any statement or signature of the person on such exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transaction between the assessee and the developer. 3. We find inherent fallacy in this submission, inasmuch as, there is no basis for conducting proceedings against the assessee merely for the fact that the developer had paid tax on the amount shown in the excel-sheet. There is no adjudication with regard to the payment, which was shown in the excel-sheet to the effect that the same was actually 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
