TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 882
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....10.96. Consequent on the search, notice under Section 158-BC was issued on 3.4.97 and was served on the assessee on 7.4.97 for the block period 1.4.1986 to 15.10.96. Assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 158-BC was completed on 29.10.97. In the said assessment, the undisclosed income of the assessee was fixed at Rs. 1,14,94,610/-. 3. In I.T.(S&S)A. No.76/97 filed by the assessee, the Tribunal passed order dated 29.3.2000 setting aside the order of assessment and directing that appropriate orders shall be passed afresh, in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered, assessment order dated 27.3.2002 was passed. In the said order, total undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period was determined at Rs. 1,11,42,021/-. This order was impugned by the assessee by filing I.T.(S&S)A.No.10/02 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed and some of the additions made in the assessment order were deleted. I.T.A.No.3/04 is filed by the assessee aggrieved by the order to the extent some of the additions were sustained by the Tribunal while I.T.A.No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the undisclosed income from the purchase of land for the Sree Sankarachayra University of Sanskrit could not be assessed at the hands of the assessee? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the preponderance of probabilities and the onus that is required to be discharged by the assessee and the failure of the assessee to discharge his burden the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that there is nothing on record to show that the assessee has received any amount from this deal", this amount cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee and are not the findings wrong, against facts considering the proof required of and possible of? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case; i. Did the assessee discharge the burden of proof? ii.The Tribunal is right in law and fact in deleting the two additions of undisclosed income in the absence of the assessee being put to proof and his failure to prove the same?" 6. We heard the Senior Counsel for the assessee and the learned Senior Standing Coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om these findings. 8. The other issue that was raised by the counsel for the assessee was regarding the order of the Tribunal upholding the conclusion of the Assessing Officer that the source of income of Rs. 3,00,000/- was not properly explained by the assessee and, therefore, the said income is the undisclosed income of the assessee. Insofar as this issue is concerned, reading of the impugned order show that the Tribunal, on appreciation of the facts, came to the following conclusion in paragraph 52 of its order: "52. Hearing rival submissions, we are of the view that the addition is to be confirmed. First of all it is to be seen that the letter written by Smt.Kalavathy was seized from the residence of the assessee, in which she express thanks to 'Sir' and Smt.Lakshmi. There is no reason to say that the conclusion of the assessing officer that the word 'Sir' appearing in the letter is none other than the assessee himself. Smt.Kalavathy stated before the revenue authorities that she received the money from the assessee's wife and she was not known to Shri.Suresh. Smt.Lakshmi R.Nair 's claim is that she had not received Rs. 3 lakhs from Shri Suresh. If....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n record and the explanations of the assessee, we are of the view that the additions were made by the assessing officer only after applying his mind. The mere fact that it has been reproduced verbatim of the previous assessment order does not mean that the assessing officer had not applied his mind. It is the duty of the assessee to explain the source of the money that came into his account. The only explanation of assessee's daughter that the demand drafts were purchased in the name of her father because it was easy to get the car on priority basis if it was booked in her father's name, of course, is an explanation to be accepted provided the source of the money was properly explained with such precision. It has not been done so. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this addition made by the assessing officer is to be confirmed. Ordered accordingly." 11. These findings again are also completely factual and by no stretch of imagination can it be said that these findings give rise to any question of law for the consideration of this court within the scope of an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. 12. Lastly, it was cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of land for a total consideration of Rs. 2,39,250/- was entered into with one Suresh Babu and an advance of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid on 2.4.96. Another agreement was also entered into on 3.4.96 with Smt.Dakshayani for the purchase of 1.29 acres of land for a total consideration of Rs. 3,54,750/- and an advance of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid. Yet another agreement was also entered into on the same day with Sri.Manikandan for the purchase of 1.31 acres of land for Rs. 3,60,250/- and an advance was paid on 3.4.96. Similarly, one more agreement was entered into on the same day with Sri.Rammohan for the purchase of 3.95 acres of land for a total consideration of Rs. 10,86,250/-. Advances of Rs. 5,00,000/- each were paid on 4.3.96 and 4.4.96. It is found by the Assessing Officer that on the day when these agreements were entered into, the vendors were not the actual owners of the properties agreed to be sold and the vendors acquired the properties much later and for far lower prices. It is on that premise alone the Assessing Officer has arrived at a conclusion that the differential amount (the difference between the agreed sale consideration and the actual amount paid by the vendor) has reac....