2016 (12) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 98,36,000/- as undisclosed income on account of alleged profit earned on sale of flat at Ashok Tower, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Appellant by Shri Rakesh Joshi,AR Respondent by Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Sr. DR 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in not appreciating the fact that the profit on sale of flat already been offered for taxation in the hands of Mr. Ravi Kiran Agarwal and the same income cannot be taxed twice in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed for taxation. Again in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 26.03.2010, the assessee stated that the flat at Ashok Tower was merely being looked after by him on behalf of his elder brother Sri Ravi Kiran Agarwal. He further stated that the cash earned on the said deal was also not found with him but at the residence of his elder brother which was later on seized by the Department. Then he stated that though, all his business transactions were from known sources only and duly recorded, so as to buy peace of mind and avoid protracted litigation, he undertook to pay taxes on the said alleged transaction. The AO was not convinced with the above contentions of the assessee as he was the Director of Orbit Corporation Ltd. As per 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

....of Navdeep Dhingra (supra), it has been held that where the assessee has made an admission regarding unaccounted investment and belatedly retracted from the same on the basis that the admission was based on coercion and force without giving any reason, same was not acceptable and addition as undisclosed investment was to be upheld. In the case of Dr. S.C. Gupta (supra), it has been held that burden lay on the assessee to establish that admission made at the time of survey was wrong. 6.1 We may mention here that the above decisions do not dwell on the basic contentions of the assessee that the same income has been taxed twice. 6.2 At this juncture, we start with the facts. We find that Mr. Ravi Kiran Aggarwal has filed a return of income ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aid deal was also with me and found and seized at the time of the search in my hands. Accordingly, I also offer the profit earned thereon in my hands only. However, I would like to clarify that there was no intent not to show the said profit in the return to be filed. It was just that the books of accounts were not updated since the income had only been earned in the end of January 2010 and the search action took place on 11.02.2010." 6.3 After verification of the returns filed, the AO has accepted the returned income of Rs. 22,70,21,590/- filed by Mr. Ravi Kiran Aggarwal. 6.4 To recapitulate, the AO has made an addition of Rs. 98,36,000/- i.e profit on sale of flat at Ashok Tower in the hands of the assessee i.e Mr. Dinesh Kiran Aggarwal....