TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 1086
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 52,26,000/- made by the AO as the assessee had made payment of unaccounted money of ₹ 52,26,000/- for acquisition of Shop No. 119 in Little World, Khharghar, Navi Mumbai." 3. The facts giving rise to the grievance of the Revenue show that a search and seizure action U/s. 132 was conducted in the case of Siddhi Group on 19.2.2009. During the course of the search, some documents were seized from the premises of key persons of the group in which it was found that M/s. Synthetic Hydrocarbons (assessee) had booked a shop at 119, Little World, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai for which the total consideration of the shop was ₹ 92,26,000/- as per the seized document. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh has been received from Shri Utpal B. Shah (partner of M/s. Synthetic Hydrocarbon (assessee). An opportunity to cross examine Shri Kantilal M. Patel was afforded to the assessee. 5. The AO concluded that on analysis of the statement recorded during the cross examination proceedings, it is established that the said builder has received total cash amounting to ₹ 12.05 crores from the parties who had purchased shop at Little World from M/s. Gayatri Homes and in the seized documents, it is mentioned against Shop No. 119, the name of Shri Utpal B. Shah (partner of the assessee firm) and amount of cash received as ₹ 52,26,000/-. According to the AO, this cash payment amounting to ₹ 52,26,000/- for the purchase of shop No. 119....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sentative strongly supported the findings of the AO and submitted that any incriminating paper found on a computer hard disc of which print is taken, there cannot be any question of having signature on it. The Ld. DR further submitted that the builder Shri Kantilal M. Patel has confirmed in his statement that he has received cash over and above the registered value of the shop purchased by the assessee. The same cannot be brushed aside lightly. Rebutting the arguments and submissions of the Ld. DR, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the entire addition has been made solely on the basis of some documents found at the premises of the builder. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the cross examination of the builder and su....