2015 (11) TMI 1435

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a property dealer in real estate business. A survey action was taken at his business premises u/s 133A of the Act. During the course of survey, the assessee surrendered an additional income of Rs. 40 lac in his statement recorded on the same day. Such surrender was made on the basis of impounded documents as per Annexure A-2, page 32 and 33. However, while filing the return, the assessee disclosed additional income of Rs. 11,49,500/- only as against the originally surrendered amount of Rs. 40 lac. The AO made addition of Rs. 28,50,500/- (Rs.40 lac minus Rs. 11,49,500/-). The ld. CIT(A) reduced the addition to Rs. 26,50,500/-, against which the assessee has come up in appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs. 40 lac as undisclosed income. 5. In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting total surrender to Rs. 38 lac as against Rs. 40 lac offered by the assessee, because evidence was only for a sum of Rs. 38 lac and the remaining amount of Rs. 2 lac is not represented by any evidence/document found at the time of survey, except the bald statement of the assessee, which cannot be relied upon. The Revenue is rightly not in appeal against the deletion of addition of Rs. 2 lac. 6. In so far as the total cash payment of Rs. 38 lac not recorded in the books of account of the assessee is concerned, we find that the assessee, after making a categorical admission in this regard at the time of survey, tried to make out ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ipt showed the name of Shri Amit Chauhan as the recipient and not Shri Mohammed Jamil. When this discrepancy was pointed out by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not explain anything. However, on a later date, an affidavit from Shri Amit Chauhan was filed denying the above transaction. Similarly, for Rs. 25 lac, the assessee filed a letter along with an affidavit in the name of Shri Atul Jain stating that he had not received the said amount from the assessee. In our considered opinion, these affidavits filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) are self serving documents having no evidentiary value, when seen in the backdrop of the facts that the two documents evidencing the assessee having made payments of Rs. 25 lac and Rs. 13 lac were ....