TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one paper was seized. This paper reveals that the assessee had booked a shop No.118 admeasuring 909 sq. ft jointly with his wife Mrs.Tushra N Nagda, Shri Premchand J Nagda, Shri Chandan P Nagda and Shri P Nagda at M/s Little World Mall, Plot No.21, Sector 2, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai for a total consideration of Rs. 87 lakhs. However, agreement was registered only for Rs. 50 lakhs, which was reflected as the component given by cheque by the assessee in the whole transaction. The said shop is reflected in the balance sheet of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 and the consideration of the cheque component as per the registered agreement the said payment has been paid by the assessee during the year under consideration. The statement o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....revealed that the appellant has booked a shop jointly with his wife for a total consideration of Rs. 8700000/ - whereas the agreement was registered for only Rs. 5000000/-. Further, statement of the key managerial personnel of M/s.Siddhi Group was also recorded wherein he stated that the difference between registered value and the value of the total consideration was received in cash. Based on this, A.0. took the view as mentioned in para 4 of the order u/s.143(3) rws 147 that assessee had paid cash of Rs. 3700000/ - to the builder M/s.Siddhi Group for acquiring the shop. In response during the course of assessment proceedings, the A.0 asked the appellant to explain the same. The appellant vide letter dated 26.11.2013 denied any su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal vs. TRO Range 3 Pune (47 Taxmann.com 293 Pune Trib). In case of ACIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (97 ITR 969) Hon'ble Bombay High Court." 2.3 I have considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant carefully. It is undisputed fact that appellant purchased immovable property from one Siddhi group for a consideration shown to be at Rs. 50,00,000/-. During the course of the search operation on Siddhi group, a paper was seized wherein it was recorded that assessee had paid cash of Rs. 37,00,000/- over and above Rs. 50,00,000/- towards purchase of the property. This fact is confirmed by Key Person of the Siddhi group Mr. Kantilal M Patel in his statement recorded during the course of searc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment had forwarded a note that the assessee had paid Rs. 37 lakhs for the purchase of property, as allegedly evidenced by the paper seized during the course of search and seizure on the Siddhi Group; that apart from the paper and the statement of Mr.Kantilal M Patel, no other evidence was found against the assessee; and that therefore, the addition made is illegal. The assessee placed reliance on the following case laws : A) Addl.CIT V/s Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696) (Bom); B) Straptex (India) Ltd (P) V/s DCIT (2003) 84 ITD 0320; C) ITO V/s Jitendrakumar Shantilal Sheth (2014) 42 CCH 0080 Ahd Trib; D) ITO V/s Ram Prakash Patel, (2011) 142 TTJ 0069 (UO) Indore Tribunal; E) ACIT V/s Shri Amit Dayanand Irshid in ITA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e not sufficient to prove that assessee had received money in „black' for which, she did not issue a receipt. The additions were deleted. The Hon‟ble High Court held that entries in day-book or ledger would be a corroborative piece of evidence and once direct evidence of persons having made payments in 'black' was disbelieved, no value could be attached to those entries. The Tribunal was, accordingly held justified in deleting the additions. In the present case, apart from the papers seized in the search conducted, not on the assessee, but on the Siddhi Group, and the statement of Shri Patel, who is a key person of the Siddhi Group and has nothing to do with the assessee, there is no evidence to implicate the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he addition of alleged on money. In this regard, no evidence, worthwhile is brought on record regarding proof of any payment of on money by the assessee. Merely on the basis of the paper seized in the search conducted on the Siddhi Group, which is not connected with the assessee in any manner, and on the basis of the statement Mr.Patel, who had nothing to do with the assessee, in the absence of any evidence of payment of on money by the assessee, is unsustainable in law. 7. In the case of "Ram Prakash Patel" (supra), the assessee was the owner of the land to the extent of one half portion of 3.92 acres and one Tajendra Singh & Sons made investment of the impugned amount as a builder as per the agreement executed between the assessee and ....