AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppreciating the facts of the case in right perspective. The addition so made and confirmed deserves to be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the authorities below have factually and legally erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 14,99,000/- under Section 69B of the Act on account of the alleged undisclosed investment in the alleged purchase of plot No. 168, Shyampuri, Kalwad Road, Jaipur without appreciating the facts of the case in right perspective. The so made and confirmed deserves to be deleted." 2. Ground Nos. 1 and 3 of the assessee's appeal are against confirming the addition of Rs. 14,99,000/- U/s 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The ld Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is having income from house property, business and other sources. He further observed that a search and seizure operation was carried out U/s 132(1) of the Act on 16/11/2007 at the business and residential premises of the assessee. During the course of search and seizure operation, documents/loose papers were found and seized. The assessee filed return for income on 20/01/2009 declaring income of Rs. 2,18,600/-, which inter alia included i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee that subsequently this agreement to sell was cancelled without cancellation of this sale agreement no sale deed could have been executed, in fact the appellant was competent to execute sale deed at his own. Further it is also noted that after purchase of plot the appellant had shown this property in the books of account i.e. P&L account as closing stock and purchase consideration of Rs. 16 lacs is also shown. The vital question is that if the appellant was not having complete interest in such property how the property can be shown in the books of account as closing stock. The ld CIT(A) also reproduced P&L account submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings and concluded that plot No. 168 Shyampuri has been disclosed in closing stock at Rs. 16 lacs. Whereas the same amount is shown in the purchase account in debit side. The P&L account so furnished is sent by the appellant himself. The said documents furnished by the appellant during the assessment proceedings further proved that the plot was defacto purchase and only possible inference was accordingly that the remaining payment of Rs. 14,99,000/- was made in unaccounted manner. The revenue has discharged ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri Shankarlal Khandelwal of Jaipur where search operations were carried out on 16/11/2007 and 17/11/2007. In assessment, the ld Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,01,000/- U/s 40A(3) of the Act for making cash payment towards the purchase of plot and Rs. 14,99,000/- U/s 68B of the Act for alleged undisclosed investing in the purchase of plot No. 168 Shyampuri Kalwad Road, Jaipur. The addition made U/s 40A(3) of the Act at Rs. 1,01,000/- was deleted by the ld CIT(A) whereas remaining addition of Rs. 11,893/- i.e. 1/3rd disallowance of expenses and Rs. 14,99,000/- U/s 69B was confirmed by the ld CIT(A). The assessee filed the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short the Rules), which has been ignored by the ld CIT(A) on the basis of additional evidence not permissible under Rule 46A of the Rules. The ld CIT(A) has not admitted the additional evidence on the ground that these evidences should have been produced before the Assessing Officer and also Shri Murlidhar Purohit was not produced before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings. The assessee's case prima facie is not covered under Rule 46A, therefore, he did not take....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as disclosed this plot in purchase as well as closing stock in P&L account and balance sheet submitted before the CIT(A) during the appeal proceedings. The affidavit filed by the appellant has partly considered by the ld CIT(A), which also goes against the fact of the case that Shri Murlidhar Purohit filed affidavit on 02/5/2011 and admitted the possession of plot with him. However, the registered deed with the third party was dated 20/10/2008, which is contradictory the fact of affidavit. We have considered view that this issue required further investigation from the side of seller of plot, from Shri Ramesh Sharma purchaser of plot, actual possession of plot etc. The Assessing Officer is directed to take final decision on the basis of enquiry and evidences. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is set aside for de novo. The Assessing Officer is directed to give sufficient time to the assessee before deciding this issue. 7. The 2nd ground of appeal is against confirming the addition of Rs. 11,893/- on account of 1/3rd disallowance out of taxi running expenses of Rs. 37,540/-. The ld Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had never disclosed any income from the taxi business. Du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ques. The issue is also stated to be covered by the decision of Hon'ble ITAT. On careful consideration of relevant fact it may be noted that the appellant has definitely not produced supporting vouchers in respect of such claim of Rs. 35680/- though the ledger detail of such expenses appear to have filed. The important issue to be noted that such claim of expenses of Rs. 35680/- was made by the appellant and the basic responsibility and onus was on the appellant prima facie prove by furnishing reliable documents in form of bill etc. in support of such claim. Simply filing ledger copy of detail of such expenses cannot said to be a proper justification for such claim. As regards the contention of the appellant that such issue was covered by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Sh. Mohan Lal Khandelwal Vs. ACIT, it may be noted that the issue in case of Sh. Mohan Lal Khandelwal Vs. ACIT was totally different inasmuch as in that case the Hon'ble ITAT has held that in the case of income being taxed U/s 153A, then the assessee can agitate the issue. The Hon'ble ITAT has referred to the decision of Bombay Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Eversmile Construction Pvt. Ltd. in....