https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772702 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772702 Addition u/s 69 - seizure and seizure operation has been conducted in the business premises of the assessee's Firm as per the loose sheets found there are several cash transactions involved and the same was confronted to the assessee and a sworn statement was recorded u/sec.132(4) - HELD THAT:-Contention of the assessee that, the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the basis of a 'dumb document' cannot be accepted, we find that, the assessee himself has admitted the entries made in the seized document in his sworn statement recorded u/sec.132(4) of the Act dated 07.02.2020 which co-relate to the payment made to M/s. Vandana Infra Developers Private Limited as advance for purchase of property. Therefore, the document impounded cannot be treated as 'dumb document' and, therefore, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee is rejected. Coming to the case laws Assessee relied on the decisions of Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. [2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, when no incriminating material found or seized during the course of search, no addition could be made. But, in the instant case, the incriminating material found and seized from the business premises of assessee's Firm was confronted to the assessee and in the sworn statement recorded on oath u/sec.132(4) the assessee admitted that he along with his wife have made the alleged payment of Rs. 50 lakhs in cash to M/s. Vandana Infra Developers Private Limited as advance for purchase of property and balance sum of Rs. 50 lakhs was paid by cheque out of funds from his Firm viz., M/s. Srinivasa Infrastructures. Further, loose sheets found during the course of search and seizure is also supported by the agreement of sale of property entered into between the assessee and his wife with M/s. Vandana Infra Developers Private Limited for purchase of open plot of 83 sq. yards and 248 sq. yards situated at Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal. As per the sale agreement, the assessee has paid Rs. 50 lakhs through cheque and an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs on 27.01.2020 by way of cash for purchase of property. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that addition made by the Assessing Officer is not supported by any incriminating material found as a result of search and further, the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer is a 'dumb document' and cannot be treated as incriminating material is devoid of merit and thus, rejected. Assessee claims that he has paid consideration for purchase of property out of funds drawn from partnership firm, but, in our considered view, the learned CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding that, the appellant has drawn a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs and his wife Smt. Krishna Veni Kandala has drawn an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs from the partnership firm and further, the respective drawings has been already accounted for as the amounts given to Sri KSR [father-in-law of Sri D. Srinivasa Reddy] of Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs to Smt. Kousalya [mother-in-law of Sri D. Srinivasa Reddy]. Therefore, in our considered view, the arguments of assessee that, source for payment made for purchase of property is out of amounts withdrawn from the partnership firm is also not supported by any evidence and thus, rejected. We find that, since the entries in the document seized co-relate to the payment made by the assessee and in absence of sufficient documentary evidences furnished by the assessee that, the impugned sum has been paid out of his known sources of income, the addition made by the AO u/sec.69 of the Act and sustained by the CIT(A) are in accordance with law. We, therefore, inclined to uphold the order of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530