2012 (8) TMI 496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rmulated the following questions of law for the consideration of this court.   (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs.8.65 lacs made by the Assessing officer by holding that the there was no evidence on record to prove that any cash has been paid by the assessee over and above the documented consideration of Rs.71,35,000/- on the purchase of Candy House property even though the seized material shows the value of Candy property as Rs.80/- lacs? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.22,75,000/- made by the Assessing Officer being amount introduced by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....held the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal held that there was no evidence on record to prove that any cash had been paid by the respondent-assessee over and above the document at consideration of Rs.71.35 lacs to purchase the property at Candy House. Further the noting on the paper were in the handwriting of the father of the respondent-assessee and not of the assessee herself. 3) Mr. Vimal Gupta, Advocate for appellant revenue contends that the amount of Rs.8.65 lacs being the difference between Rs.80.00 lacs shown in the seized document and Rs.71.35 lacs shown in the document evidencing to purchase of Candy House property represents unexplained cash paid by the respondent for purchase of the Candy House....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cess of Rs.71.35 lacs was paid for the purchase of the property. The aforesaid findings are not alleged to be perverse. Consequently no substantial question of law arises. Therefore, question (A) is dismissed.   Re-Question (B):   5) So far as Question(B) is concerned, during the course of assessment proceedings for the block period, the Assessing officer found that for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 the respondent had received gifts aggregating to Rs.22.75 lacs. The gifts were given to the respondent by her cousins. The Assessing officer by his order dated 31/3/2005 found that the gifts were not genuine and they were also given by persons who were younger cousins of the respondent. Accordingly, in the assessment o....