TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch and held to be irrelevant when part of the notings in the same document was found and accepted as correct ?" (II) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,85,000/= made on account of undisclosed investment in IVPs and accrued interest thereon amounting to Rs. 14,20,832/=, ignoring the fact that the Annexure A-14 contains the details of investment upto April 1999 only and the search u/s. 132 (1) was conducted in the case of the assessee on 11th February 2002 and that the assessee had invested further amount in the IVPs and KVPs then those mentioned in Annexure A-14 ?" (III) "Whether on the facts and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stand that the document Annexure A-14 seized during the course of search recorded details of investment upto April 1999 and that page-59 of Annexure A/16 contains the details of investment made after April 1999. CIT [A] observed that, "there is no base to come to such absurd conclusion. There is no evidence in the seized material to show that Annexure A-14 written upto April 1999 and Annexure A-16 contained the investment made even after April 1999. On the contrary, Annexure A-14 pages 17 to 20 are more reliable as they give comprehensive details of investment made in IVPs on different dates. Last investment in IVPs as noted in Annexure 14 is not for April 1999 but it is for 4.9.1999." Such decision of CIT [A] came up for consideration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed investment in IVPs in a sum of Rs. 46,25,000/= which is based on the seized papers. The assessee also explained the bifurcation given in Annexure A/1 page 42 that investment in IVPs was only Rs. 92,50,000/=. It would show that the A.O merely presumed that since the IVPs mature after period of 5½ years at double the value of investment, therefore, investment would be of Rs. 55,10,000/=. Such a presumption of the Assessing Officer was not based upon the evidence or material on record. The learned CIT (A) therefore, on going through the seized papers and material on record rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 8,85,000/= being the difference of Rs. 55,10,000/= and Rs. 46,25,000/=. This ground of appeal of the revenue has no merit and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs out of the undisclosed income of M/s. GNP Auto Cassettes which was included in the total disclosure of Rs. 15,00,000/= made by the firm. Such being the conclusion of CIT [A] which was also upheld by the Tribunal, in our opinion, the issue being factual in nature, no question of law arises. The sole surviving Question IV pertains to addition of Rs. 25.87 lakhs [rounded off] made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed investment in purchase of agricultural land situated at village Hadiwada. The Assessing Officer had carried out investment and had collected statements of the sellers of the land in question to establish that they had received cash payment from the assessee towards sale consideration. He provided such statement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r cross examination, but the Assessing Officer deliberately did not allow the assessee to cross examine the statements and materials collected at the back of the assessee cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. The assessee pleaded before the Assessing Officer that confirmation of sellers are not reliable because there was difference in Bighas of land and land sold to the assessee. None explained how much land sold to the assessee and how much consideration was received by them. Some confirmations were not of sellers. Assessee gave instances of sale consideration of comparable cases showing more or less same rates. The comparable case cited by the Assessing Officer was of non-agricultural land but in the case of the assessee, it wa....