2016 (4) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to Rs. 5,018/- made by the AO on account of excess cash found during the course of survey. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Alwar has erred in law as well as on the facts circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,50,000/- made by the AO on account of unrecorded transactions. 3. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Alwar has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in restricting the addition of Rs. 25,27,000/- to Rs. 58,005/- made by the AO on account of investment in house property." 2. The first ground of revenue's appeal is against restricting the addition Rs. 5,018/- as against the addition made by the AO at Rs. 3,20,018/-. The AO observed the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....998. After considering the assessee reply the Ld.AO has held that the assessee during the course of survey in statement question no21 & 27 had accepted income of Rs. 3,20,018/- from unaccounted sale from 07.10.2009 to 12.10.2009 further the assessee while answering the Question No. 8 had stated that all the cash available in the premises was related to the business of the assessee. The cash reconciliation made by the assessee before the AO was not acceptable. He further held that assessee made make believe theory to explain the source of excess cash. It is difficult to believe that cash withdrawn from bank before 3 days was not remembered at the time of statement by the assessee. The assessee's submission that Rs. 6 lac were withdrawn from ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....O has made the addition of Rs. 5.50 lacs on the basis of statement recorded at the time of survey." 4. Now revenue is before us the Ld.D.R. vehemently supported the order of AO. The Ld.CIT(A) has not considered that assessee had made unaccounted sale from 07.10.2009 to 12.10.2009. The explanation given by the assessee is after thought. Therefore addition made by the AO is to be confirmed. At the outset Ld.A.R. vehemently supported the order of the CIT(A) and argued that statement recorded u/s 133A is not binding on the assessee. It does not have evidentiary value as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further he argued that the assessee immediately after survey had retracted from the surrendered and explain the cash found during the cours....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....63,380/-. There was a difference of Rs. 58,005/-. However, the AO made addition of Rs. 5,50,000/- on the basis of miscellaneous unaccounted transactions and Rs. 25,27,000/- on account of investment house property. 7. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the both the addition by observing that assessee as has disclosed 10 lac an additional income on account of loose paper/diary found during the course of survey. The Ld.AO further addition of Rs. 5.5 lac was not based on any incriminating documents or evidences. The Ld.CIT also held that when DVO Report is available on the residential house property. There is only difference between investment made by the assessee & valuation made by the DVO at Rs. 58,005/-. Therefore this addition has been confirmed par....