AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 1293
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. While doing so the ld. Authorities Below had heavily relied upon the deaf and dumb document in violation of the principles of Evidence Act. In fact, the papers containing rough jottings do not contain evidentiary value until and unless supported by any corroborative documentary evidence. In the present case, no supporting documentary corroborative documentary evidence was forthcoming. In the circumstances, such paper did not contain any evidentiary value. However, the Authorities below have over looked this vital legal aspect of the case and have made and confirmed this addition, which being bad in law deserves to be deleted summarily. Without prejudice to such contention, it would also be worth mentioning here that while making such addition, the authorities below have over-looked the vital fact and principle of working of the additional income on account of the so called incriminating document. They had proceeded to make addition of the entire turn-over as undisclosed income, whereas in the body of the assessment order itself they have mentioned that there had been suppressed 'purchases' and 'sales'. Meaning thereby, on-money had passed the hands-on accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In absence of any supporting vouchers, the AO rejected the books of accounts and completed the assessment exparte u/s 144 of the Act. 2.3 The assessee during the course of search operation admitted that he has made transaction of purchases and sales in benami names in all the financial years falling in Block Period: The assessee has not complied with the notice for making personal appearance during the assessment proceedings. The AO therefore, computed the income from various sources. The AO made the addition of Rs. 1,38,70,000/- which represented suppression of sale consideration in respect of the properties sold. From assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09, the assessee has sold 24 properties on which the AO concluded that the assessee has received excess consideration as compared to consideration shown in the books of accounts. The details of all the 24 properties have been mentioned been by the AO at pages 3 and 4 of the assessment order. The chart contains the name of the property, assessment year, date of sales, sales shown as per books, actual sales and the difference. For ascertaining the difference, the AO has relied upon the seized paper No. 25/23 of Annexure A-25. The as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04. The Ld AO has accepted the purchase cost of this plot and no body can sale the plot of Rs. 250000/- for the huge amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- within few days. The finding of the AO is against human probability and possibilities. The matter should be considered by applying human probabilities. Reliance is placed on Sumati Dayal Vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC), Therefore, addition on account of suppressed sale in respect of the plot no 164 Kalyan Kunj was made on surmises and conjectures. c) 49 Agarsen Nagar alleged sale for Rs. 150000/- as against declared sales at Rs. 210000/- The seized paper shows the rough working in respect of Agarsen Nagar as under:- Sold Agarsen Nagar 15 x 4 Therefore, there is no entry on the seized paper in respect of plot no. 49 Agarsen Nagar. The Figure 15 denotes the estimated value of the complete constructed house. The assessee has not made out complete construction over the plot but some minor construction in 325 sq ft area was carried out which involved investment of Rs. 86993/-only. Further the assessee purchased this plot only for Rs. 1,00,000/- on 26/03/2004. The Ld AO has accepted the purchase cost of this plot and no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, addition on account of suppressed sale in respect of the plot no 98 Chitrakoot was made on surmises and conjectures. f) 34 & 35 Chitrakoot Colony alleged sale for Rs. 22,00,000/- as against declared sales of Rs. 21,50,000/- The seized paper shows the rough working in respect of Chitrakoot Colony as under: - Chitrakoot colony 31 = 22x2 Chirtakoot Colony 9 45 Therefore, there is no entry on the seized paper in respect of plot no. 34 & 35 Chitrakoot Colony. Plot numbers of Chitrakoot colony are clearly mentioned which are 31 and 9. Figure 22 or 45 denotes the estimated value of the constructed house and figure 2 denotes to number of plots. Further, the Ld AO failed to appreciate that the word "Sold" is not mentioned against these plots. Therefore, addition on account of suppressed sale in respect of the plot no 34 & 35 Chitrakoot Colony was made on surmises and conjectures. g) 52 Ram Nagar alleged sale for Rs. 21,00,000/- as against declared sales of Rs. 6,00,000/- The seized paper shows the rough working in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....axworld 684 ITAT Jaipur It was held that addition cannot be made on the basis of vague figures found noted on seized loose paper without proving that the alleged amount are receipts and income of the assessee. (c) ITO Vs Mannalal Jhalani (ITA No. 250 TO 260/JP/1998) 22 Taxworld 551 ITAT Jaipur. It was held that addition cannot be made simply recovery of some papers found and seized during the course of search without making necessary verification and examination. (d) Ashwani Kumar Bhardwaj Vs DCIT 21 Taxworld 358 ITAT Jaipur. It was held in para 29.6 that no addition can be made on the basis of deaf and dumb documents. (e) Mohd. Illias Choudhary Vs DCIT 25 Tax World 394 ITAT Jaipur. It was held that the addition cannot be justifiably be made as undisclosed income on the basis of certain entries found recorded on a seized paper without making any inquiry and investigation and without examining the assessee. (f) Aswani Kumar Vs ITO 39 ITD 183 Del. It was held that no addition can be made on the basis of dumb documents. (g) Moonga Metals Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT (All.) 67 TTJ 247 Burden is on the revenue to establish that figures appearing on lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed documents or with the appellant and some of them was also furnished before the A.O. Thus, it is not at all a dumb, ambiguous and unspecific document. The document is well self-speaking. Accordingly, the argument of the appellant in this regard is rejected. The A.O. was justified in holding that rates have been written in coded form. 6.3.1 Various decisions cited by the A.R of the appellant are on the issue that no addition can be made on the basis of dumb document. As in the instant case, the document relied on by the A.O. has been held to be not a dumb document and rather held to be loud speaking document, the ratio of the cases cited by the A.R. is not applicable in the instant case. 6.3.2 It is clear that in the agreement to sale, the different sale amount for same area of plot (with construction) is shown to accommodate the purchaser as per the availability of accounted fund with him and that is why in the sale agreement construction details are not shown so that different rates of sale shown in the agreement may not be questioned on the ground of parity by any Govt. Authority. 6.3.3 When the loose paper is speaking and same was found from the pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mention of the plot number in the loose paper is not relevant, in view of the fact that the appellant did sold plot in Agrasen Nagar Colony. One plot in Agrasen Nagar belonging to Sh. Tikam Khandelwal sold during A.Y 2005-06 has been considered in his hand and sale value of Rs. 15 lakhs has been upheld by the undersigned. Considering the aforesaid fact and legal position the A.O. is justified in taking sale value of Agrasen Nagar Plot at Rs. 15 lakhs. The argument of value being against human probability has already been discussed and rejected in the earlier paragraph. iv) Regarding Shyamapuri Colony plot arguments of the A.R that the plot no. 173 is not mentioned is not mentioned is not relevant in view of the fact that sale value of plot no. 170,177 has been very specifically mentioned on page 25 of Ann.A-25 in the third hand written line at Rs. 15 lakhs each. Therefore the A.O was justified in taking the sale value of plot no. 173 at Rs. 15 lakhs being of the same size and being adjacent to the above mentioned plots namely 164- 165, 170-177. The argument regarding double addition by the A.O. in the case of Shnkar Khandewal the appellant as well as Sh. Tikam Khandelwal, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l the main person of the group, admitted additional income on account of unrecorded investment in different properties including the cash found at the time of search. Such unrecorded investments admitted were to the extent of Rs. 375.28 lacs. However, immediately after the search operations, the assessee informed the Department vide letter dated 20th Nov. 2007 and 21 Nov. 2007 that he was a cancer patent and at the given point of time, he was not in proper frame in mind due to his illness, anxiety and recent family functions which was performed only on the previous night of the search operations. The assessee never intended to make huge disclosure of the additional income as published in the local dailies. The assessee disclosed the additional income while filing the returns in compliance to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act. The disclosed additional income in respect of different individuals is as under: - 1. Shri Shankal Lal Khandelwal Rs. 160.34 lacs 2. Shri Guman Khandelwal Rs. 19.12 lacs 3. Shri Tikam Khandelwal Rs. 35,93 lacs 4. Shri Mohan Lal Khandelwal Rs. 7.94 lacs 5. Total Rs. 223.33 lacs 2.9 During the course of proceedings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per seized paper and sales consideration shown as per books is taken as income received which has not been recorded. During this year, the appellant had suppressed the sales in respect of the sale of the above referred properties. This difference amount as shown at S.N0. 20 to 24 of the list mentioned in the order at page no. 4 amounting Rs. 1,38,70,000/- was added to the income of the assessee as undisclosed income. In appeal also, the learned CIT (A) did not dwell upon the point at length and confirmed the said addition summarily holding therein that the ld. AO was correct in holding the remark 'sold' as the property actually sold and the simple digits denoted the sale consideration in 'lac'. Accordingly at page no. 2 of the appeal order the honorable CIT (A) concluded that 'therefore the assessee has 'suppressed' the sale consideration of Rs.1,38,00,000/- (against correct figures of 1,38,70,000/-) which he confirmed as income of the assessee'. Obviously the findings of the Authorities Below on the point are factually incorrect and are devoid of merits for the following reasons: (a) On careful study of the paper under consideration (page 23 & 25 of ex.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne part for Rs.9,30,000/- on 2.05.2007 & second part for Rs.10,21,000/- on 25.3.2008 (as per copies of the registered sale deeds submitted in the paper book at page no. 90 to 109) totaling Rs. 19,51,000/- as against Rs. 15 lac taken by the ld. AO by taking into account the sale of one part only and ignoring the sale of second part as evident from the deeds submitted in the paper book. This is a very strong documentary instance demolishing the entire working of the alleged suppressed sale as envisaged by the ld. AO & CIT (A). Thus the amount of suppressed sale as taken by AO is factually incorrect on the face of such documentary evidences. Actually there were no suppressed sales at all as the plot was sold more than the price as taken by the AO. As such no addition is called for on account of such alleged sale. (2) 52, Kalyan Nagar Rs. 8,00,000/- Again on careful reading of the jottings, it would be noted that there is no mention of such property 52, Kalyan Nagar specifically in these jottings. There is however a general reference to the properties of Kalyan Nagar, but it did not refer to this property particularly. In absence of any specific narration of any property, no v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g merely the name of Vijaysingh Pathik Nagar is immaterial and irrelevant conveying no meaning at all. (5) 1, 2, 3, & 24, Mitra Nagar Rs. 96,00,000/- Again in the jottings, there is no specific mention of the properties shown as 1, 2, 3, & 24, Mitra Nagar. It is not understood as to how and from where the ld. AO could deduce and work out the amount of the suppressed sales. In absence of specific mention of the plot No. of a particular Scheme, no definite and logical inference could be drawn on the basis of such rough jottings mentioning the name of the Scheme only. In the circumstances, the rough jotting mentioning merely the name of Mitra Nagar is immaterial and irrelevant conveying no meaning at all. The brief facts of the plots under consideration are given as under to appreciate our view:- Plot no. 1, Mitra Nagar was sold for Rs. 14,25,000/- through registered sale deed (copy lying at page no. 164 to 173 of PB). Plot no. 2, Mitra Nagar was sold for Rs. 18,00,000/- through registered sale deed (copy lying at page no. 174 to 184 of PB). Plot no. 3, Mitra Nagar was sold for Rs. 12,50,000/- through registered sale deed (copy lying at page no. 185....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce, and the concerned authorized officer also felt satisfied with such an explanation and did not attach much importance to such deaf and dumb paper and accordingly did not insist for any disclosure of additional income on the basis of these exhibits. (as per page no. 82 of PB) ita Further the absurdity of this addition can very well be under-stood from the facts as discussed in coming paras disputing therein the additions of Rs. 1,50,00,000 as made by the AO. & reduced to Rs.49,74,730/- by the ld. CIT (A) under the head of 'construction expenses'. While making and confirming such addition on account of construction expenses, the authorities below had out-rightly ignored the addition as made and confirmed by them on the basis of such deaf and dumb paper on account of the alleged suppressed sales as being apprehended by them. While making and confirming the addition on account of the construction expenses, neither did they had taken care of such alleged 'suppressed sales' nor did they take care of the consequent N.P results on account of such alleged suppressed sales. If all the additions as confirmed by the CIT (A) under both the heads are taken together then the percentag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed sales. Thus the addition so made is contrary to the principles of accountancy. In such case the logical addition, if at all is made for any cogent reason, then it would be to the extent of N.P. earned on such suppressed sales only and not the entire sale consideration as done by the Authorities.'' 2.11 The ld. AR placed reliance on the following case laws 1. S.P. Goyal Vs. DCIT (2002) 77 TTJ (Mumbai) (tm) 1 2. DCIT Vs. Royal Marwar Tobacco Product (P) Ltd. 120 TTJ 387 (Ahd.) 2. Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs. ACIT 81 TTJ 169 (Del. (tm) 3. CIT Vs. Lubtec India Ltd. 311 ITR 175 (Del.) 4. Neeraj Sharma Vs. DCIT 137 TTJ 566 (ITAT Del.) 2.12 On the other hand, the ld. DR drew our attention to page 23 and 25 of Annexure A-25. These are available at pages 86 and 87 of the paper book filed by the ld. AR of the assessee. The word 'sold' is being mentioned on these two pages against certain properties. A figure is also being mentioned against the property. Hence where the word 'sold' is mentioned then it means that property has been sold. The figure mentioned can be considered as a figure mentioned in lacs. For example, for the property Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e sale consideration shown in the registered documents. Hence there is no case of making additin of Rs. 5.70 lacs in respect of plot no. 208, Shyampuri. 2.14 The second property is at 52, Kalyan Nagar. We have gone through the seized paper 23 and 25 of Annexure A-25. There is no mention of Kalyan Nagar property. The word Kalyanpuri and Kalyan Kunj are being mentioned. The assessee has explained that plot was purchased in August 2006 and was sold in July 2007 for Rs. 22.00 lacs after carrying out construction work worth Rs. 5,73,849/-. Thus, the investment is of Rs. 12.75 lacs on plots and investment in construction are to the extent of Rs. 5.73 lacs. The assessee has shown the profit to the extent of Rs. 3.50 lacs. Hence the assessee has shown the reasonable margin of Rs. 20% on investment. The AO has not made any enquiry of investigation from the persons to whom such plots alongwith some construction have been sold. Thus, there is no case of making addition of Rs. 8.00 lacs. 2.15 The next property is at 9, Chitrakoot . The plot was purchased for Rs. 7.50 lacs in Sept. 2006 and was sold for Rs. 10.00 lacs in Oct. 2007. The sale deed is available at pages 136 to 143 of the pap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No, 24 of Mitra Nagar has also been sold by the assessee as power of attorney holder of Hemant Kumar Beniwal and the purchaser is again M/s. Harish Sharma Finance (P) Ltd. All the four plots are adjacent to each other. The seized papers contain the notings as Mitra Nagar = 1,500 x 10,000. The total area of four plots will be 2660 Sq. Yard while figure mentioned in paper 25 of Annexure A-25 is 1,500 x 10,000. The AO has not mentioned as to how he is taking the suppressed sale consideration at Rs. 96.00 lacs. Thus, there is no case of making addition of Rs. 96.00 lacs. The Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Vs. Registhan (P) Ltd. (ITA No.3195/JP/2005 dated 31-05-2011) had an occasion to consider as to whether the addition can be made in the hands of the purchaser on the ground that the value adopted by Stamp Authorities can be taken as investment for holding an investment outside the books of accounts. It will be useful to reproduce para 3.5 from that order 31-05-2011 as under: - 3.5 We have heard both the parties. The issue before us stands covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rajeev Mishra, Contractor Vs. The Addl. CIT and ACIT Vs. M/s. Rajeev Mishra, Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned CIT, or the learned Tribunal 6.5 We are also aware that Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Amar Kumari Surana Vs. CIT,226 ITR 344 had an occasion to consider the addition on account of unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act in the hands of the purchaser when the valuation as done by the DVO showed that market value of the property is more than the consideration shown. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that burden is on the Revenue to prove that real investment exceeds the investment shown in the account books of the assessee. Merely on the basis of fair market value, no addition can be made u/s 69B of the Act but on the basis of sufficient material on record, some reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has invested more than the amount shown in the books and addition can be made u/s 69B of the Act. In the case before Jurisdictional High Court, the Valuation Officer gave instance of the sale of similar plots and rate of sale of such plot was Rs. 60/- or Rs. 75/- per sq. yard. In that case, the assessee was not able to point out any mistake / lacuna in ascertaining the value of the plot of land by valuer. It will be useful to reproduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the addition of Rs. 1.38 crores. 3.1 The 2nd ground of appeal of the assessee is as under:p ''On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) had legally and factually erred in confirming addition of Rs.13,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash found during the course of search on the basis of invalid confessional statement only and also ignoring the fact that at the time of search operations no regular books of account was maintained. In absence of regular books of account, how the cash found could be regarded as unrecorded and unexplained; particularly when the appellant worked out such cash balance on the basis of the seized papers and documents. Likewise, the learned CIT (A) had also ignored these vital facts while confirming such addition. Thus the addition so made and confirmed by the Authorities Below was bad in law and deserve to be deleted summarily. '' 3.2 During course of search, cash to the extent of Rs. 10.30 lacs was found at the premises 59, Mansarovar Colony, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. A sum of Rs. 10.00 lacs was seized . During the course of search, the assessee was asked to explain the source of cash and the assessee vide r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of cash balance. b) No defect pointed out in books of accounts produced during assessment During the course of assessment proceedings the cash book was submitted before the A.O. to verify the cash balance as on the date of search. As per cash book, on the date of search the cash balance was Rs. 3565199.37. (PB Page 126) While recasting the books of accounts, the assessee has recorded the correct payments/and receipts in chronological order. The learned AO has made separate addition for the receipts which he found non-genuine (Cash credits), and separate addition for the payments which he found under recorded (Unexplained investment in plots/properties- though recorded but he made the addition). The cash book is nothing but recording of the receipts and payments transaction in chronological order. The learned AO rejected the cash book without pointing out specific defect in the recording of receipt or payments in cash book. c) The case of the assessee is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur bench in the case of Shri Rajendra Kr. Kedia V/s. DCIT 22 Tax World, 506. wherein Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench have observed that where the boo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Further income has been got surrendered without considering the borrowings from various banks amounting to Rs.1,586.91 lacs by the assessee, his business concerns and his family members. The cash flow chart has been prepared after taking into account said proceedings. The submissions are verifiable from the cash flow chart and documentary evidence filed. In view of the above facts and submission made the assessee again submits that the alleged disclosure made in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of I.T. Act is not a reliable one in the eyes of law and no adverse inference deserves to be drawn on the basis of said statement." Reliance is placed on the following decisions:- (i) Hon'ble Appex Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd Vs State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 has held that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. (ii) Gargidin Jwala Prasad vs CIT (1974) 96 ITR 97 (All) Held that the addition merely based on statement of witnesses cannot be made. iii) CIT Vs G.Krishnan (1994) 210 ITR 707 Mad. Held that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. In absence of such an exercise and without bringing on record any specific defect or deficiency, the authenticity of such books could not be questioned on flimsy grounds and relying heavily on the confessional statement. In support of such contentions, number of judicial citations including the citation of honorable ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of Shri Rajendra Kr. Kedia V/s DCIT 22Tax World, 506 were relied upon impressing upon the fact that no valid addition can be made on the basis of such invalid confessional statement; particularly when supporting corroborative documentary evidence in the form of books was forthcoming. However, the learned CIT (A) was also not willing to accept such contentions and turned down the claim of the appellant on the same plea as that of AO. The conclusions of the honorable CIT (A) are factually and legally incorrect for the following reasons: (i) It is an undisputed fact that at the time of search operations, there were 'no regular books of Account'. This fact stood duly admitted by the learned AO and CIT (A) in the body of their respective orders. In the circumstances, it is practically impossible to admit or confess the fact ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to the reply filed during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee has not been able to produce the vouchers to substantiate the entries recorded in the cash book. Thus cash balance as shown in the cash book is not verifiable and the amount in cash found at the time of search cannot be considered as disclosed. 3.7 We have heard both the parties. It is true that the assessee has not maintained the books of accounts regularly. After search operation, the assessee prepared the cash book to show the receipts and expenses. It is not the case of revenue that cash receipts shown in the cash book can not be verified. It is also not the case of the revenue that the assessee has postponed the cash payments in the cash book to show the inflated cash balance. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hukam Chand Jain Vs. ITO, 324 ITR 197 has observed that it is open to the assessee to show with the material that admission is not correct. If no material is produced then it is to be considered that admission has not been dislodged. In the instant case, the a has produced the cash book though cash book has been prepared after the date of search. The Hon'ble Cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT(A) also considered the other aspect that the primary evidence produced by the assessee also reflects in the sales tax return filed by the assessee, which were produced before the appellate authority, and the same was subsequently confirmed by the Tribunal. From the Instruction No. 286/2/2003 dated. 10th March 2003, it is evident that the Board had issued instruction to its office not to extract confessional statement by way of admission from the assessee at the time of search, seizure or survey operations. It is also settled law that the admission of a person is an important piece of evidence, however, the same is not conclusive - Pullagode Rubber & Produce & Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, 1972 CTR (SC): (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC)'' 3.8 We therefore, feel that AO was not justified in including the sum of Rs. 10.00 lacs as undisclosed income of the assessee because the cash balance as per update cash book showed the cash balance exceeding Rs. 10.00 lacs 4.1 The Ground No.3 of the assessee is as under:- ''On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) had legally and factually erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,64,186/- out of total addition of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 1,06,381/- (weight 5635.000 gm) Gold Jewellery/gold coins. Total net weight of gold jewellery gold coins found during the course of search from Bed room & bank locker of Shri Mohan Lal Khandelwal was 1324.540 grams valued at Rs. 14,12,961/-. Out of this jewellery the jewellery weighing 128.564 grams was purchased from M/s. Mehandi Jewellers by Shri Tikam Khandelwal and kept in locker of parents as per detail here under:- Bill No. mj/0117/07 dated 29.10.2007 for Rs. 6,79,700/- (net weight 128.564 grams) paid vide cheque No. 631074 dated 02.01.2008 from bank account No. 48283 of Shri Tikam Khandelwal (PB page 113) . Bill No. MJ/0119/07 for Rs. 79,274/- dated 5-11-2007 (net weight 0.860 grms) paid vide cheque No. 631072 dated 02-01-2008 from bank account No. 48283 of Shri Tikam Khandelwal. (PB page 114) These bills were also seized from the pocket of assessee Shri Shankar Khandelwal during the course of search proceedings carried out at the residential premises of the assessee. As Shri Tikam Khandelwal was not maintaining bank locker in his name and as such the jewellery was put in the locker of Shri Mohan Lal Khandelwal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; Rs. 26,217/- (weight 832.000 gm) Gold Jewellery/gold coins. Total net weight of gold jewellery/gold coin found during the course of search from Bed room and Bank locker of Shri Shankar Khandelwal was 971.970 grams valued at Rs. 23,06,607/-. The jewellery weighing 140.373 grams was purchased by the assessee from M/s. Mehandi Jewellers as per detail here under:- Bill No. MJ/0116/07 dated 29.10.2007 for Rs. 7,02,793/- (net weight 139.733 grams) paid vide cheque No. 627979 dated 03.01.2008 from bank account No. 47082. Bill No. MJ/0118/- for Rs. 70,576/- dated 5-11-2007 (net weight 0.640 grams) paid vide cheque No. 627980 dated 03.01.2008 from bank accout No. 47082. These bills were seized from the pocket of the assessee during the course of search proceedings carried out at the residential premises of the assessee. Remaining jewellery weighing 831.597 grams belongs to the wife of assessee Smt. Guman Khandelwal and the assessee himself. The marriage of the assessee took place before 15 years. The gold rate at that time was about Rs. 5,000/- per 10 gram. The gold jewellery found other than gold jewellery purchased as above and found ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found is reasonable and also as per CBDT's circular regarding possession of jewellery by a family and as such source of acquisition of jewellery explained above deserves to be accepted. Thus source of acquisition of jewellery is verifiable from the documentary evidences and other circumstantial evidences. Further it is also placed on record that water tight demarcation for different jewellery item held by the assessee and his family is not possible in view of the facts that assessee and his family members are living in joint family. The total gold jewellery found during the course of search proceedings was 2454.210 grams and out of which jewellery weighing 269.797 was purchased in the year 2007-08 for which payment was duly made through cheques and purchases bills were also seized by department during search proceedings. Remaining jewellery weighing (2454.210269,797)- 2184.413 grams is found is reasonable and also as per CBDT's circular regarding possession of jewellery by a family and as such source of acquisition of jewellery explained above deserves to be accepted." b) Surrender was not voluntary During the course of the assessment proceedings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and no adverse inference deserves to be drawn on the basis of said statement." c) The total jewellery found by the search party from the family members of the assessee was as under:- S.No Place Name Net Weight 1 Locker No 69 SBBJ Mohan Lal Khandewlal & Smt Mohani Devi 428.31 2 Bed Room Mohan Lal Khandewlal & Smt Mohani Devi 896.230 3. Locker No. 23 SBBJ Shanker Khandelwal & Smt Guman Khandelwal 646.90 4 Bed Room Shanker Khandelwal & Smt Guman Khandelwal 325.07 5 Bed Room Tikam Khandelwal & Smt Renu Khandelwal 157.70 Total 2454.210 d) The assessee, his father and his brother were living in joint family under common kitchen and roof and the family members were using the jewellery of each others or in other words the family members were using the jewellery commonly, therefore the availability of Jewellery should be considered in totality. The family members consists the following persons:- S.No Name Status Relation with the assessee. 1. Shri Mohan Lal Khandelwal Married Gent Father ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Total 2350 Thus, the search party found total jewelry of 2454.10 gram and purchase of jewellery to the extent 269.797 grams is supported by purchase bills. The balance jewellery is explained jewellery as covered by reasonable holding in view of the CBDT Instruction No. 1916. The reliance is also placed on the following decisions:- (i) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain High Court Of Gujarat Tax Appeal Nos. 661 & 662 Of 2009 Dated 19th July, 2010 (2010) 45 DTR (Guj) 290 Held that the Instruction No. 1916, dt. 11th May, 1992 which lays down guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in the course of search takes into account the quantity of jewellery which would generally be held by the family members of an assessee-Though the said circular has been issued for the purpose of laying down guidelines for seizure of jewellery, unless anything contrary is shown, it can be safely presumed that the source to the extent of the jewellery stated in the circular stands explained. (ii) CIT VS Kailash Chand Sharma [2005] (2005) 198 CTR (Raj) 201; 146 Taxman 376 (Rajasthan) Held that Tribunal was justified i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The following silver items were found from the possession of various family members. S.No Place Name Net Weight (Silver items Silver Coins 1. Locker No 69 SBBJ Mohan Lal Khandewlal & Smt Mohani Devi 4200.000 41 2 Bed Room Mohan Lal Khandewlal & Smt Mohani Devi 1435.00 1 2. Locker No. 23 SBBJ Shanker Khandelwal & Smt Guman Khandelwal 782.000 118 3 Bed Room Shanker Khandelwal & Smt Guman Khandelwal 450.000 0 4 Bed Room Tikam Khandelwal & Smt Renu Khandelwal 650.000 0 7517.00 160.0 The silver items found from three families are very reasonable considering the family status. These items were received by the family members of the assessee on various auspicious occasions like marriage, birth of son etc. It is also a practice to have silver coins for Deepawali Pooja. The parts of the items found from the possession of Shri Mohan Lal Khandelwal are ancestral. Therefore, no addition deserves to be made on this account.'' 4.3 The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submisons held as under:- ''3.3. I have considered the su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & 6 of the assessment order. While making such addition, the ld. AO did not discuss the detailed written reply as submitted by the appellant explaining therein acquisition of each and every jewellery items assessee-wise, room wise, locker-wise and other point-wise with reference to the Board's instructions on the subject. The learned AO simply turned down explanation with pet finding that the explanation so furnished was not satisfactory. Apparently the findings so arrived at the learned AO were illogical and factually incorrect. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) had discussed such explanation at length in his appeal order at page No.6 to 16 and had accepted the same in to-to. However going by the norms of CBDT circular, the honorable CIT (A) had opined that acquisition of the jewellery items weighing 2350 grams was properly explained and balance jewellery items weighing 104.10 (being in excess of such limit) was taken as un-explained and addition of Rs.1,64,186/- on this account was confirmed with the following findings as recorded in para 3.3 at page no. 16: "Further the argument of the A.R. that jewellery to the extent of 269.797 gms is supported by purchase bill....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in giving relief of undisclosed jewellery of 195.85 grams even though the AO and the ld. CIT(A) had given relief as per CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11th May, 1994 though Wealth Tax Returns were not filed by the family members for the block assessment period. 4.8 The findings given by the Tribunal were not disturbed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. In the case before Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the revenue has not agitated upon the acceptance of jewellery as disclosed as per guidelines given in CBDT Instruction N. 1916.The revenue is aggrieved in not confirming the addition on account of undisclosed jewellery which was beyond the quantum of jewellery mentioned in Instruction No. 1916. After going through the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and considering the order of Jaipur Bench in various cases, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of jewellery to the extent of Rs. 28,35,814/- on the basis of CBDT instruction no 1916. Hence, on the issue of addition on account of jewellery, the ground of appeal of the assessee as well as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d after considering the chart held that a sum of Rs. 3.21 lacs is disallowable u/s 40A (3) of the Act. This is with reference to the plot no. 26, Mitra Nagar. The details are as under:- Plot No. 26, Mitra Nagar. 8,51,000 This plot was purchased by assessee from Shri Koshalaya Devi for Rs. 8,51,000/- in which Rs. 3,21,000/- paid cash and Rs. 5,30,000/- paid through account payee cheque of Guman Furniture & Services Pvt Ltd on behalf of assessee. Kindly refer the ledger at Page 170 to 172 of Paper book. Thus only cash payment for purchases of this plot was Rs. 3,21,000/- as against Rs. 8,51,000/- added by AO. 5.5 The ld. CIT(A) therefore, confirmed the addition of Rs. 3.21 lacs after observing as under:- ''4.3 I have considered the submsison of the A.R and have perused the material on record. This issue has been discussed in detail in the appeal no. 570/09-10 for A.Y 2005-06 vide order dated 29.12.10 in the case of appellant and it was held that 40A(3) is attracted in the case of payment made in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/- by the appellant. By following the same reasoning and discussion as done in appeal order for A.Y 2005-06, it is held that A.O. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uced evidence that the payee insisted on cash payment- identity of payee was disclosed and genuineness of payment also established- Disallowance u/s 40 A (3) was not called for- The object of section 40A (3) is that no fictitious amount should be allowed as revenue expenditure and not that cash payment can never be made". On the basis of such interpretation only, the honorable ITAT, Jaipur Bench Jaipur have taken the same view in the case of M/s PACL India Ltd vs ACIT Circle-3, Jaipur holding therein that business expenditure-disallowance u/s 40A (3)- applicability of Rule 6DD(h)- clause (h) of Rule 6DD takes out of the purview of section 40A (3) such cash payment which is made in a 'village' or 'town' which is not served by any bank to any person who ordinarily 'resides' or is carrying on any business in such village or town- In the instant case, admittedly the sellers of the land are villagers engaged in farming activities and residing at places which are not served by any bank...." In fact, the findings of the honorable Apex Court in the above referred case rather support our view as the plot i.e. 26, Mitra Nagar, Jaipur wherein part payment of Rs.3,21,000/- (out of tot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant is evident from the fact that the plot under consideration was not sold during the year under consideration. This fact was brought to the notice of the Authorities Below to show his real intention of making investment in the said plot. However they were not willing to consider this fact and rubbished the same without any reason or without bringing any material on record to rebut such claim of the appellant. (ii) On going through the relevant provisions of the Act, it would be noted that the words 'such expenditure shall not be allowed as a deduction' are of relevance. In the instant case, the appellant had not claimed the impugned payments as deduction. Therefore no addition can be made against such cash payment. (iii) Again it was also relevant to see as to when these provisions would be attracted i.e. in the year when the investment was made or in the year when such property was sold? Despite of specific request on the point as made vide para no.3 of the written submission, the Authorities Below did not decide this point. In absence of specific adjudication on the point, the order so passed is bad in law as per judicial discipline and deserves to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clearly states that Rule 6DD(j) has to be liberally construed, and ordinarily where the genuineness of the transaction and the identity of the payee is established, the requirement of Rule 6DD(j) must be deemed to has been satisfied- Genuineness of the transactions and the identity of the payee is not disputed" In the present case also, your honors would appreciate that identity of the payee is proved, the genuineness of the transaction is duly documented by the sale deed instruments and the amount of the transaction is also certified by the Stamp Registration Authorities by way of DLC rates etc. Thus all the three ingredients of the genuineness & correctness of the transaction and also the identity of the payee is established in the present case. In the circumstances, provisions of section 40A (3) are not attracted in the present case and addition made on the basis of misinterpretation of these provisions needs to be deleted. In view of above discussions, it is seen that the addition made and confirmed on account of disallowance made u/s 40A (3) is bad in law and deserves to be deleted. '' 5.7 The ld. AR has also placed the reliance on the following decisions.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e u/s 40A(3) because the books of accounts has been rejected and there has been . The addition of Rs. 3.21 lacs made u/s 40A(3) is deleted. 6.1 Ground No.5 of the assessee is as under:- ''On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) had legally and factually erred in confirming addition of Rs.49,74,730/- @ 15% of the expenses claimed by the appellant and debited under construction expenses & WIP expenses out of total addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- as made by the A.O. under this head. While confirming this addition, the learned CIT (A) had virtually gone by the findings of the AO except his findings regarding 194C of the Act and restricted such disallowance to 15% of the expenses as debited under this head on the general plea that such expenses were not properly vouched and verifiable. Apparently in absence of any specific instance or discrepancies of the expenses of such nature, no disallowance could be made without any basis. Thus the addition so confirmed is bad in law and deserves to be deleted. '' 6.2 The revenue in Ground No. 2 of it appeal is aggrieved against reducing the addition of Rs. 49,74,730/-as against Rs. 1.50 crores made by the AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on business, the payments are of less than Rs. 20000/- which is permissible in law. It is well known fact that payment of labour, stone, Bajari, grit etc cannot be made by cheque. Further, no supporting vouchers of such expenses can be obtained. The department has carried out intensive search and seizure operation and all the documents whatever available with the assessee was seized by the department. The assessee has nothing to produce the fresh vouchers before the AO. 4. Payments attracts the provisions of section 40 a (ia):- During the year the assessee has not made any such payment which was liable for TDS as the construction work was carried out by engaging the direct labour or where the petty amount was paid on contract and the same was below to limit specified u/s 194C of Income Tax Act. Further the books of accounts of assessee are audited u/s 44AB of Income Tax Act and the auditors of the assessee also report that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS. 5. Loan taken in interest was utilized for giving interest free loan to family members and group concerns. The findings of the Ld AO is wrong and against the facts. The ld AO failed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the WIP expenses mainly pertain to interest paid by the assessee for the loans obtained by him for purchasing the plots. The interest expenses are fully verifiable hence disallowance cannot be made on account of WIP expenses. 10. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has submitted estimated construction cost per Sq. ft., certified by two different architects (PB page 263 & 264). Further, during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has submitted detailed chart (Enclosed as PB Page 537/II) showing Name of seller, Particulars of property sold, construction area, purchase cost of land, construction cost, construction cost per sq.ft, and appropriation of interest (named as WIP), name of purchaser, date of sell and profit in each property. (copy enclosed herewith) The Ld AO has not pointed out any defect in the above said chart submitted before him by the assessee. 11. Even if the books of accounts are not found proper than the proper way to estimate the profit by applying profit rate on the gross receipts. 12. The ld AO made adhoc disallowance of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- on arbitrary and whimsical manner and without any basis. The l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng disallowance is regarding interest free advances. I agree with the submission of the A.R. that interest free loan taken are sufficient in the case of appellant to make interest free advances and thus occasion for disallowing interest paid on interest bearing funds will not arise. Total interst free funds/loans taken from various persons are Rs. 5,12, 54,315/-, ( As per paper book page 503) as against the interest free loans and advances given by the appellant totaling to Rs. 4,96,79,673/- ( As per P.B page 504). The A.R has also pointed out that apart from interest free funds available, the appellant own capital of Rs. 1,88,63,637/- is also available. Thus this argument of the A.O. for making disallowance is also not valid. 5.3.1 However, it is undisputed that books of account were not maintained by the appellant during the course of his business. It was only after the search and seizure operation that appellant through its A.R. prepared the memorandum of books of accounts on the basis of whatever documents were available at that point of time. Accordingly, it is quite evident that the memorandum books of accounts now prepared after the search and seizure operation, bei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... number of toilets or other details, which can justify lower rate of Rs. 111.97 per sq.ft on one side and higher rate of Rs. 254.84 per sq.ft on other side. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position as mentioned above, the disallowance is called for in the instant case not on all the reasons mentioned by the A.O. but only on very few reasons given by A.O. and also the various other reasons mentioned hereinabove by the undersigned. Now coming to the reasonability of estimation, the A.R has rightly pointed out that considering the disallowance of Rs. 150 lakhs done by the A.O., G.P. rate will go upto 93.49%., which is not possible in this trade. The A.O. has made the disallowance without bringing any other adverse material on record. Moreover, A.O. has made disallowance on purely adhoc basis. Besides above, the A.O. has also not followed any consistency while making disallowance in different assessment years of the same appellant and moreover no reasons have been given for taking different stand in different year. Thus disallowance is highly excessive and purely on adhoc basis which is justifiably needs to be reduced. Considering that books....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h disallowance @ 15%. Apparently confirming of such addition on the general plea of cost variation at different sites without pointing out any specific discrepancy or defect and also without bringing any material on record to show the expenditure of disallowable nature is patently bad in law and deserves to be deleted summarily. In the circumstances, the addition of Rs.49,74,730/- as confirmed by the CIT (A) is broadly disputed on following counts: (i) It is a settled law that without pointing out any specific discrepancy or defect, the provisions of section 145 of the Act could not be invoked. And without invoking provisions of section 145(3), the trading results could not be disturbed by making disallowance in lump sum percentage that too without any basis. Thus such disallowance is contrary to the provisions of Law. (Kindly refer to the following judicial citations which have direct bearing on the facts of the present case: (a) Shukra Jewellery Ltd. vs. ACIT (copy submitted PB 221) (b) H.C. Chandna (P) Ltd. vs DCIT (copy submitted PB 222) (ii) For making such disallowance, the learned CIT (A) did not take note of the trading results. On study ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs regarding interest expenses was ignored and the figures of the interest amount of Rs.85,06,091/- as debited under WIP was also taken into to work out the disallowance. Thus the disallowance so quantified had been over-worked by Rs.12,60,378/- which needed to the reduced accordingly. In view of above discussions, the addition as confirmed by the learned CIT (A) on this account is not factually and legally maintainable and deserves to be deleted.'' 6.7 On the other hand, the ld. DR stated that the expenses debited by the assessee are not at all verifiable. Under such circumstances, the AO is left with no alternative but to make an estimate of expenses to be disallowed. The ld. DR drew our attention to the details of the expenses available in the paper book filed by the ld. AR. The labour charges constitutes around 22% of the expenses. In construction expenses, the labour and other expenses are to the extent of 2/3rd of construction expenses account. The expenses debited are disproportionate to the expenses incurred for making the construction. The ld. DR therefore, submitted that the AO was justified in disallowing the expenses. 6.8 We have heard both the partie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Rs.19,80,417/- shown under this head(as against 1/3 disallowed by A.O.). While restricting such disallowance by 20% ld. CIT (A) had been guided by the findings of the learned A.O. only as he had failed to point out any specific instance of discrepancy or defect. The addition has been confirmed with general findings which are apparently bad in law and deserve to be deleted.'' 7.2 The revenue in its Ground No. 3 is also aggrieved against reducing the disallowance of Rs. 3,96,083/- as against Rs. 6,60,139/- made by the AO. 7.3 The assessee showed gross receipts of Rs. 22,07,253/- from the business of tours and travels and claimed taxi running expenses of Rs. 19,80,417/-. Thus the assessee disclosed the net income to the extent of Rs. 2,26,836/-.The AO noticed that the assessee has not maintained day to day accounts and receipts are not verifiable. The assessee has not produced any supporting vouchers. Income from such business was not being disclosed in the regular return. Since receipts as well as expenses were not at all verifiable therefore, the AO disallowed 1/3rd of the expenses of Rs. 19,80,417/- to the extent of Rs. 6,60,131/-. 7.4 Before, the ld. CIT(A), the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The House of Lords pointed it out in Son Insurance Office vs. Clarks 1912 AC 443 that where it becomes necessary to make estimates by income-tax department, the method should be adopted, which approximates most near to the truth. In the case where the AO finds the books of account of the assessee unreliable than he should estimate the taxi income considering the number of taxies plied by the assessee for number of months.'' 7.5 The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions reduced the disallowance to Rs. 3,96,083 after observing as under:- ''6.3 I have considered the argument of the A.R. and have perused the assessment order and relevant record. In absence of vouchers and other details, the A.O. was justified in making disallowance out of taxi running expenses. However, the disallowance is quite excessive and in view of the discussion made in appeal order A.Y 2005-06, the same is sustained to the extent of 20%, which comes to Rs. 3,96,083/-, resulting into relief of Rs. 2,64,056/-. During the year, the A.O. has rightly not made any disallowance out of depriciation. The argument of the A.R of estimating the income on the basis of 44AE is rejected, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the ld. CIT (A) deserves to be deleted.'' 7.7 On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee was not showing source of income in the regular return of income. Even the assessee has not been maintaining all the necessary records for the computation of income. In such circumstances, one is left with no alternative but to estimate the disallowance. 7.8 We have heard both the parties. During the year under reference, the assessee has six taxies out of which five taxies have been sold during the year. Therefore, the claim of depreciation is not substantial on account of sale of taxies. The receipts from tax have been accepted. Looking to the number of the taxies, the expenditure incurred on drivers salary is reasonable. Hence, there is no question of making substantial disallowance out of the expenditure as per facts on record. The assessee has given the details of taxies which have been plied during the year under reference.If one compares the petrol and diesel expenses with the receipts then one can visualize that these are favourably compared to each other. The AO has not given any basis for making disallowance of 1/3rd ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of cash creditors . Reference has been made to various notices issued by the AO. The details of such notice have been mentioned by the ld. CIT(A) page 29 and 30 of the appellate order. The ld. CIT(A) requested the AO to examine the additional evidences and furnish his report. The ld. CIT(A) has accepted the admission of additional evidences. 8.5 Before we proceed further, it will be useful to reproduce the details of additional evidences filed by the assessee in respect of cash creditors and comments of the AO. ''1) M/s Arpan Enterprises Ltd. Rs.1,50,000/- The confirmation letter is placed at PB page 293. The cash creditor is an income tax assessee as PAN is mentioned on confirmation letter. The cash creditor has also filed copy of Income Tax return for AY 2004-05, copy of which is at PB page 294. Date Amount. Nature of entry Explanation. 5.2.2008 1,00,000 Cheque The copy of bank account of Arpan Enterprises is enclosed. Amount received by cheque No. 4759 of UBI A/c No. 5052. Copy of bank account is enclosed. at PB 409/II The source of deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- is by cheque clearing on 1.1.2008. 1.3.2008 50,000 Journ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee received Rs. 15,70,000/- from Manohar Lal Choudhary on various dates (Confirmation PB page 342), out of which the assessee transferred Rs. 5,00,000/- in the account of Shri Bhagirath Choudhary. The AO made double addition, firstly credit of Rs. 15,70,000/- in the name of Shri Manohar Lal Choudhary and secondly of Rs. 50000/- (sic) on account of transfer of money from the account of Shri Manohar Lal Choudhary. This is JV entry for transfer, no sum was received through this entry; no addition can be made u/s 68. Comments:- I have gone through the submission made by the assessee A/R during Appellate proceedings assessee has now given evidence regarding Journal entry of no some was received to this entry. The amount has been received on transfer of money from the account of Shri Manohar Lal choudhary. During Appellate Proceeding assessee had failed to furnish sources of Fund inspite of number of opportunity given. 4 Smt. Mohini devi Khandelwal W/o Shri Mohanlal Khandelwal. Rs.1,25,000/-. The creditor is the mother of the assessee. The A.O. has mentioned it as un-named creditor. Additional E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk a/c (PB Page 505 to 507/II) and the same withdrawal by Rakesh Gupta in cash on 02.03.07 (PB Page 446/II). Out of this amount Rs.1,00,000/- paid by Rakesh Gupta to Dilip Kumawat 4.5.2007 500000 Cash An amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- received in cash from Shri Rakesh Gupta (Cash book at PB Page 416/II), who has received the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- from Khandelwal Bulding Material Suppliers by cheque No 127602 dated 02.03.07 (Copy of Bank a/c (PB Page 505 to 507/II) and the same withdrawal by Rakesh Gupta in cash on 02.03.07 (PB Page 446/II). Out of this amount Rs.5,00,000/- paid by Rakesh Gupta to Dilip Kumawat 7.5.2007 950000 Cash Cheque of Rs. 9,50,000/- received from Guman Khandelwal which is verifiable from ledger account in books of Guman Khandelwal at PB Page 385 and the same was withdrawal in cash on 07.05.07 which is verifiable from bank statement at PB Page 423/II. After withdrawal the cash the above amount paid to assessee which is verifiable from cash book at PB Page 416/II. 7.5.2007 400000 Cash Bank loan of Rs. 19,00,000/- was taken from ICICI bank on 7.5.2007 by Shri Rakesh Gupta (Statement at PB Page 445/II) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re at PB Page 392) and out this cash withdrawal on 10.08.07 (Bank statement PB Page 425/II) and paid to assessee (Cash book PB Page 416/II). 10.8.2007 550000 Cash Out of Opening cash balance (Cash Book Page No. 416/II and previous year cash book Page No. 419 to 420/II) 23.10.2007 950000 Cash Amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- received Shri Govind kripa Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. (Copy of Bank a/c at PB Page 450/II) and the same deposited in UCO Bank (PB Page No.438/II). Shri Dilip Lumawat withdrawal this amount cash on 23.10.07 (Bank statement PB Page 438/II) and paid the same to assessee (Cash Book PB Page 416/II). 5.11.2007 500000 Cash Amount received by cheque No. 178200 of SBBJ from Shankar Khandelwal (Copy of ledger A/c PB Page 417/II and copy of bank a/c PB Page 432/II) and the same withdrawal in cash on 05.11.07 and paid to assessee (Cash book PB Page 416/II). 7.11.2007 900000 Cash Amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- received from Shri Govind kripa Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. (Copy of Bank a/c at PB Page 451/II) and the same deposited in UCO Bank (PB Page No.440/II). Shri Dilip Kumawat withdrawal this am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; Comments:- I have gone through the submission made by the assessee A/R/ during Appellate proceedings assessee has now given evidence regarding receipt of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash on 03.02.2007 and further cash of Rs.5 lakhs received on 04.05.2007. Assessee has submitted that amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been received from Rakesh Gupta and further this amount was received Sh. Rakesh Gupta from Kahndelwal Building Material Suppliers which has withdrawn by Rakesh Gupta on 02.03.2007 and paid to Sh. Dilip Kumawat on 03.05.2007, thus difference of cash withdrawn of period is about two months which seems to be unbelievable and not reasonable, thus this cash credit should not be accepted. Similarly Assessee has submitted that amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been received from Rakesh Gupta and further this amount was received Sh. Rakesh Gupta from Kahndelwal Building Material Suppliers which has withdrawn by Rakesh Gupta on 02.03.2007 and paid to Sh. Dilip Kumawat on 04.05.2007, thus difference of cash withdrawn of period is about two months which seems to be unbelievable and not reasonable, thus this cash credit should not be accepted. During Appellate Proceeding assessee h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pvt. Ltd. and deposited in UCO Bank A/c. of Dilip Kumawat and same withdrawn in cash on 07.11.07 and paid to the assessee (Bank account statement given). vi). Assessee has given that the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs received from Sh. Guman Furniture and Services Pvt. Ltd. and deposited in UCO Bank A/c. of Dilip Kumawat and same withdrawn in cash on 09.01.08 and paid to the assessee (Bank account statement given). vii). Assessee submitted that amount of Rs.20,00,000/- has been received by Journal entry and this is transfer entry from Tikam Khandelwal ( Copy of Bank A/c. in Books of Tikam Khandelwal has been given at P.B.388). Regarding further received of amount on following dates as under: Date Amount Mode 17.12.07 450000 Cheque 20.12.07 600000 Cheque 24.12.07 950000 Cheque 01.03.08 950000 Cheque 13.03.08 300000 Cheque 17.03.08 300000 Cheque Assessee has submitted that amount of Rs.35,50,000/- has been given out of opening Cash Balance of Sh. Dilip Kumawat. Assessee has not submitted any cash flow statement of Dilip Kumawat who is Benami further it is unverifiable, the above amounts of Rs.35....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh the submission made by the assessee A/R during Appellate proceedings it was mentioned that this amount was received by cheque for booking of plot as advance. Assessee has filed confirmation, bank Statement, Ward Details. During Appellate Proceeding assessee had failed to furnish sources of Fund inspite of number of opportunity given. 9. Sushil Jhalani (Assessee's Benami) Rs. 11,46,000/- Additional Evidences at PB Page 367-375 (Copy of account of party in books of accounts of assessee, his family members and business concerns & associates). Journal entry passed in the account Shri Sushil Jhalani by debiting the account of Khandelwal Hosiery & Bartan Bhandar (Prop. Shri Sushil Jhalani (Copy of A/c at PB Page 456/II) and Shri Shankar Khandelwal (assessee). The explanation of amount received from Khandelwal Hosiery & Bartan Bhandar is as under: - Date Amount. Nature of entry Explanation. 01.04.07 (Opening Balance) 5,52,000 Opening Balance Out of Amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- transferred from A/c of Meena Gupta on 27.12.06 which was paid to Meena Gupta on 27.12.06 from cheque received from Guman furniture & Services Pvt Ltd. The co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urnal Journal entry from a/c of Dilip Kumawat. Copy of a/c of Dilip Kumawat at PB Page 417/II and copy of Gopal lal Saini at PB Page 458/II. 21.4.2007 2,00,000 Cash Out of cash Received from Shri Tikam Khandelwal on 21.04.07. The copy of account of party in books of Tikam Khandelwal is at PB Page 396 and cash book of Gopal Lal Saini at Page 459/II. 27.4.2007 2,00,000 Cash Out of cash Received from Shri Tikam Khandelwal on 21.04.07. The copy of account of party in books of Tikam Khandelwal is at PB Page 396 and cash book of Gopal Lal Saini at Page 459/II. 1.5.2007 4,00,000 Cash Rs. 4,00,000/- cash withdrawn from Bank of Baroda a/c on 01.05.07 (Copy of Bank a/c at PB Page 462A/II). The amount was withdrawn out of cheque of Rs. 45,00,000/- deposited in bank account which was received from Shri Tikam Khandelwal (Copy of account in books of Tikam Khandelwal at PB Page 396). Shri Tikam Khandelwal gave Rs. 45,00,000/- from housing loan taken from ICICI Bank. (Copy of loan statement at PB Page 461). 11.6.2007 3,00,000 Cash Amount deposited in cash with assessee out of Opening cash balance wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k were taken, the payment to Gopal Saini against the disbursement of loan was made, subsequently the cash was withdrawn against the deposit of cheques of loan amount and the money was re introduced in the books of assessee. Since the cash was received from party through disclosed source which explained as above, therefore no addition can be made u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Comments: - I have gone through the submission made by the assessee A/R during Appellate proceedings assessee has now given evidence regarding Journal entries on 01.04.2007 of Rs.7.5 lakhs from Dilip Kumawat (copy of bank account of Dilip Kumawat and Gopal Lal Saini) Further on 06.11.07 there is Journal entry of Rs.55 lakhs by debiting account of Govind Kripa Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., copy of bank account has been given, further Gopal Saini account in the books of Khandelwal has been given in P.B. Further on 08.11.2007 an amount of Rs.99,000/- is by Journal entry by debiting the account of Guman Furniture and Services Pvt. Ltd.(copy of account of Gopal Saini in Books of account of Guman Furniture and Services Pvt. Ltd. given. Assessee has submitted that has received from Tikam K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellate proceedings assessee has now given evidence regarding deposit of Rs.50,000/- by cheque for Purchase of car RJ- 14 5439. Evidence given. During Appellate Proceeding assessee had failed to furnish sources of Fund inspite of number of opportunity given. 12. Smt. Sujata Meena C/o B.S. Meena Rs. 10,00,000/- Additional evidence is PB page No. 314-315. Confirmation letter is place at PB Page No. 314 and affidavit is placed at PB Page No. 315. Date Amount. Nature of entry Explanation. 27.10.07 28.10.07 5,00,000 5,00,000 Receipt by cheque. Cash. Received by cheque No. 241073 of Dena Bank Copy of Bank accounts at PB Page 464/II Withdrawal from Bank on 26.10.07 Copy of Bank accounts at PB Page 464/II In view of the facts no addition u/s 68 is attracted and deserv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 360 and copy of relevant page of the statement of assessee recorded by search party. The copy of statement of Mohd. Sharif is at PB Page No. 508 to 513 (Plz refer Q. NO. 4 & 14 of statement) In the case of Shri Mohd. Shariff Khan for A.Y. 2008-09 Assessment order u/s 143(3) of I.T. Act has been passed on 29/9/2010 at income of Rs. 68,53,970/- which includes addition of Rs. 56,50,000/- on account of advance made in cash to Shri Shankar Lal Khandelwal in Global City Project on 20.10.2007 which has been confirmed by Shankar Lal Khandelwal and also Mohd. Shariff Khan in his statement and oath and also confirmed which was retracted later. The addition of Rs. 56,50,000/- has been made substantive basis in the case of Mond. Sharif... Thus, no addition in the case of the assessee is called far. Comments: - I have gone through the submission made by the assessee A/R during Appellate proceedings assessee has given cash of Rs. 56.50 lakhs initially during the statement during search operation u/s.132(4) Sh. Shankar Khandelwal has admitted that Rs.56.50 has been received on account of advance from Mohd. Shariff Khan for Global City Project on 20.10.2007 but during assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is clearing of cheques received as advance of booking of plots. Copies of confirmation letter, sworn affidavit and PAN card filed as Additional Evidence u/r 46A and with written submissions. In view of the facts no addition u/s 68 is attracted and deserves to be deleted. Further all the ingredients required u/s 68 stands satisfied. The copy of Bank statement and AO code is placed at PB Page 469 to 470A/II. Comments: - I have gone through the submission made by the assessee A/R during Appellate proceedings assessee has now given evidence regarding receipt of Rs.4,00,000/- by cheque (copy of Bank account given). During Appellate Proceeding assessee had failed to furnish sources of Fund inspite of number of opportunity given. 18. Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey. Rs. 1,00,000/-.Additional evidence is at PB Page No. 327-329. Copy of confirmation is place at PB Page No. 327. Copy of PAN card and affidavit are placed PB Page No. 328-329. Date Amount. Nature of entry Explanation. 15.03.08 1,00,000 Receipt by cash. Amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- received by cash as advance of booking of plot. Cash withdrawn by Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey on 15.3.2008. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Rs. 6,76,000 received for construction work on the said plot. Copies of ledger account in the books of assessee and copy of Registered Sale deed in respect of plot No. 334 Ganesh Nagar, filed as Additional evidence u/r 46A and with written submissions. In view of the facts no addition u/s 68 is attracted and deserves to be deleted. Further all the ingredients required u/s 68 stands satisfied. Comments: - I have gone through the submission made by the assessee A/R during Appellate proceedings assessee has now given evidence regarding receipt of Rs.11,76,000/- by cash. Assessee has failed to give source of funds by Smt. Monika Sharma which remained unexplained and the plea of the assessee may be rejected. During Appellate Proceeding assessee had failed to furnish sources of Fund inspite of number of opportunity given. 21. Shri Manoharlal Chaudhary. Rs. 15,70,000/-. Additional evidence is place at PB Page No. 342-344. Confirmation letter is place at PB Page No. 342. Copy of PAN card and affidavit placed at PB Page No. 343-344. Date Amount. Nature of entry Explanation. 01.05.07 29.08.07 20.10.07 &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firmation letter, and Sworn affidavit filed as Additional Evidence u/r 46A and with written submissions. In view of the facts no addition u/s 68 is attracted and deserves to be deleted. Further all the ingredients required u/s 68 stands satisfied. Comments: - I have gone through the submission made by the assessee A/R during Appellate proceedings assessee has now given evidence regarding receipt of Rs.1,99,000/- by cash from the above assessee by withdrawal of cash of Rs.2 lakhs on 15.05.07 from the party account (copy of Bank account given). During Appellate Proceeding assessee had failed to furnish sources of Fund inspite of number of opportunity given. 24. Shri Laxmi Kant Sharma. Rs. 1,30,000/-. Additional evidence is placed at PB Page No. 349-350. The confirmation letter is placed at PB page No. 349. The affidavit is placed at PB page No. 350. Date Amount. Nature of entry Explanation. 15.05.07 1,30,000 Receipt by cheque. Amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- received by a/c. payee cheque No. 038868 of SBBJ as advance for booking of plot. Source of deposit in bank account of is clearing of cheque of No. 1,30,000/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enclosed P.B. Page No. 356. as advance for booking of plot. Copies of confirmation letter, Demand Draft, and Sworn affidavit filed as Additional Evidence u/r 46A and with written submissions. In view of the facts no addition u/s 68 is attracted and deserves to be deleted. Further all the ingredients required u/s 68 stands satisfied. Comments: - I have gone through the submission made by the assessee A/R during Appellate proceedings assessee has now given evidence regarding receipt of Rs.4,00,000/-by cheque (copy of Bank account given). During Appellate Proceeding assessee had failed to furnish sources of Fund inspite of number of opportunity given. 27. M/s. Keshav Industries. Rs. 2,00,000/-. Additional evidence is placed at PB Page No. 358-359. Confirmation letter is placed at PB Page No. 358. Copy of affidavit is placed at PB page No. 359. Date Amount. Nature of entry Explanation. 10.12.07 31.03.08 1,50,000 50,000 Receipt by cheque Amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- received by cheque No. 169036 of SBBJ The copy of bank statement at PB Page 486/II.. Amount of Rs. 50,000/- received by cheque of SBBJ The copy o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of cash creditors was raised. The A.O. has mentioned that the assessee was asked to produce the books of accounts and supporting vouchers. Similary vide notice dated 12.11.09, no query was raised to furnish the confirmation of the cash creditors. Similary, vide notice dated 4.12.09 also, appellant was not asked to furnish confirmation of the cash creditors. The query was raised in respect of furnishing cash flow statement. All these facts indicate that the observation of A.O. that repeated opporutntities was given for furnishing confirmation is not correct. This observation may be correct in respect of production of books of accounts and vouchers. However, it is noticed by the undersigned that the vide show cause letter dated 11.12.09, the A.O. had raised query for furnishing confirmation of the loan creditors and in case of failure, asking the assessee to show casue for making addition. However, the A.R has rightly pointed out that time available after 11.12.09 was too short particularly considering the fact that the assessee was suffering from cancer and required hospitalization many times and also the continuous medical attention. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so not given any adverse comments on merits of the addtional evidences so filed. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 2.5 lakhs, being unwarranted, deserves to be deleted. It may be reiterated that in respect of aforesaid additions which are not coming in the purview of section 68, the appellant was not required to furnish confirmation as needed in the case of cash creditors. Hence, the additional evidence by way of confirmation, PAN no, are strictly speaking not needed in the aforesaid cases of journal entry and advance repaid. 7.4.5 Now coming to the remaining entries, from perusal of the comments given by the A.O. after checking and verifying the details, in his remand report, it is seen that A.O. has not given any adverse comments regarding Sr. no. 1- M/s Arapan Enterprise- Rs. 1 lakh (plusRs. 50,000/- journal entry), Sr. no. 4 -Mohini Devi Khandelwal- Rs. 1, 25,000/-, Sr. no. 7- Yadav Traders- Rs. 7 lakhs, Sr. no. 8- Sh. Tarun Agarwal- Rs. 9.5 lakhs, Sr. no. 11- Sh.Gopal Lal Jat- Rs. 50,000/-, Sr. no. 12- Smt. Sujata Meena- Rs. 10 lakhs, Sr. no. 13- S. S. Gupta- Rs. 8 lakhs, Sr. no. 14- Smt. Sona Jhalani- Rs. 4 lakhs, Sr. no. 15- Sh. Ranjeet Singh Yadav and Sh. Mohd. Shariff ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the appellant and same represent the undisclosed money of the appellant. Accordingly, I agree with the finding of A.O. in the remand report that the above amount of Rs. 35.50 lakhs have been deposited in cash on different dates being the unaccounted money of the appellant and loans have been shown through cheque to the appellant. Considering these facts and circumstances, the addition of Rs. 41.50 lakhs shown as cash credits in the name of Sh. Dilip Kumawat is sustained and as A.O. has not objected to/not given adverse comments about the balance amount, after verification, same is held to be not unexplained. 7.4.9 In the case of Sh. Gopal Lal Saini, the A.O. has not commented adversely about the three journal entries totaling to Rs. 63,49,000/-, as already mentioned elsewhere in the preceeding para and accordingly same is deleted. Regarding, other amount given in cash, the A.O. has objected about the same as per his comments mentioned in the remand report and reproduced above. I agree with the comments of A.O. that soruce of these cash loans are not explained. Accordingly, addition to the extent of Rs. 32, 01,000/- is sustained. 7.4.10 As regards entry in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved through A/c payee cheques but the deposits worth Rs. 73,61,000/- shown in cash were treated as un-explained within the meaning of section 68 of the Act and addition to this extent was confirmed. While confirming such addition, the learned CIT (A) had overlooked the basic fact that the alledged deposits under consideration were in the names of Svs. Dilip Kumawat, and Gopal Lal Saini, who had already been admitted by the appellant to be his benamidars and all the transactions (including these deposits etc) appearing in their names were owned by him. In the circumstances, there was no valid reason for the learned CIT (A) to make or confirm further addition on account of any deposit or transaction as noted in their names in the books of the appellant. However, the learned CIT (A) did not take note of this vital fact and proceeded to confirm the addition in part on the plea that such deposits were appearing in cash, immediate sources of which were not explained properly. While arriving at such conclusion the learned CIT (A) had also ignored number of various other vital facts relating to these deposits as discussed hereunder: (a) Addition of Rs. 41,50,000/- confirmed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e with documentary evidence. In the present case no investment or expenditure whatsoever could be noticed by the department in the case of Shri Rakesh Gupta. This fact led to the irresistible conclusion that these funds continued to lie with Shri Rakesh Gupta, or in other words such funds are available in the hands of the appellant as both the persons Dilip Kumawat and Rakesh Gupta are benamidar of the appellant. The department had no reason or material to question the availability of such funds with Shri Rakesh Gupta. Thus the findings as arrived at by the ld. CIT (A) are illogical. Regarding balance 6 entries of cash deposits of Rs.35,50,000/- the learned CIT (A) had mentioned at page no. 39 of the appeal order "assessee has submitted that amount of Rs.35,50,000/- has been given out of opening Cash Balance of Shri Dilip Kumawat. Assessee has not submitted any cash flow statement of Dilip Kumawat who is Benami further it is unverifiable" The Authoriteis Below have incorrectly mentioned that no cash flow statement of Sh. Dilip Kumawat was submitted. On perusal of the Paper Book as submitted before the CIT (A) your honors would note that such cash flow statement was duly fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... saini cannot be relied. The above entries may not be accepted'. Obviously such findings of the Authorities Below are factually and legally incorrect for the following reasons: (i) The ld. AO & CIT (A) did not spell out the reasons for which the books were rejected in the cases of Shankarlal Khandelwal, Tikam Khandelwal and Smt. Guman Khandelwal. On perusal of these books, it would be noted that such books were prepared on the basis of bank statements and the sale and purchase instruments and other papers and documents etc. The books so prepared were duly audited by the approved Chartered Accountant. Thus, these were fully verifiable and supported by the documents, so it is incorrect to say that these books were not well supported and verifiable. While arriving at such findings, the ld. Authorities Below did not mention a single item of entry which was not properly verifiable. In absence of any specific discrepancy or deficiency, the books could not be rejected on the general plea that these were not properly verifiable and reliable. (ii) On perusal of the cash books and the copies of the concerned parties, it would be noted that on the particular dates o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce was issued and the AO required the assessee to furnish the following informations. 1. To explain the source of funds and investment in property. 2. Details of constructions made and to give the source of funds with supporting vouchers. 3. The assessee was required to give cash flow statement 4. Books of accounts alongwith supporting vouchers. On 18th Nov. 2009, the assessee was required to produce the supporting vouchers in support of the constructions / sources of funds. The AO issued notice on 7th Dec.. 09 and the assessee was required to make compliance by the 10th Dec. 2009. On 22nd Dec. 2009, it is mentioned in the order sheet that the assessee has failed to file the confirmations in respect of the loans taken. Hence, from the records, it is clear that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of filing the confirmations. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the factual position recorded the findings that additional evidences can be admitted. The ld. CIT(A) noticed that in order to ascertain the correct tax payable by the assessee, it will be useful to consider the additional evidences. The justice should prevail over the te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2.10 cores as cash in respect of land purchased for Global City Project. The amount paid so paid was surrendered as undisclosed income. 9.3 Before the AO, it was submitted that M/s. Govind Kripal Buildmart Ltd. paid a sum of Rs. 3,81,22,887/- in cash on account of investment in agricultural land worth Rs. 5,66,22,867/-. The assessee paid a sum of Rs. 149.58 lacs as land advance against allotment of plots of land to the company and such payment was made to the company on various dates. The amount so advanced is disclosed in cash flow statement. According to the AO, the assessee has failed to establish the source of funds and accordingly added a sum of Rs. 2.10 crores in the hands of the assessee. 9.4 Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made the following submissions:- a) The scheme naming "Global City" does not pertain to the assessee. This scheme is of M/s Govind Kripa Buildmart Pvt Ltd i.e. a company in which the assessee is also shareholder. b) In the statement recorded the assessee admitted that the cash of Rs. 1.75 caror was paid to farmers and Rs. 35 lacs paid to Shri Hanuman Yadav for making the payment to farmers but no where the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the same AO and as per the information available with assessee Shri Yadav has surrendered above Rs. 65 lacs as his income on account of sum paid to this company. f) The cash payment of Rs.149.58 lacs made by the assessee was duly entered in cash book of assessee which was produced before AO during assessment proceedings. The ld. AO mentioned that the assessee failed to produce capital a/c, drawing a/c to prove the source of funds while the complete books of accounts were submitted to AO and the source of funds was available in books of accounts so produced. g) No defect pointed out in books of accounts produced during assessment During the course of assessment proceedings the cash book was submitted before the A.O. to verify the advance given to this company in cash. While recasting the books of accounts, the assessee has recorded the correct payments/and receipts in chronological order. The learned AO has made separate addition for the receipts which he found non-genuine (Cash credits), and separate addition for the payments which he found under recorded (Unexplained investment in plots/properties- though recorded but he made the addition). The cash book is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....officers of the Investigation Wing to submit and clarify that no such huge amount of disclosure was made by me. But no fruitful results were came out and accordingly the assessee sent a written request that the above said alleged huge amount of undisclosed income not surrendered by him. Thereafter reminder on 20.11.2007 and 21.11.2007 was also sent. Photocopy of the UPC acknowledgment and copy of letter is enclosed herewith. Further income has been got surrendered without considering the borrowings from various banks amounting to Rs.1,586.91 lacs by the assessee, his business concerns and his family members. The cash flow chart has been prepared after taking into account said proceedings. The submissions are verifiable from the cash flow chart and documentary evidence filed. In view of the above facts and submission made the assessee again submits that the alleged disclosure made in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of I.T. Act is not a reliable one in the eyes of law and no adverse inference deserves to be drawn on the basis of said statement." Reliance is placed on the following decisions:- (i) Hon'ble Appex Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd Vs State of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the farmer. Further in ledger account of Shri Bhanwari Lal seized as per annexure A-1 page 11, there is account of Sh. Govind Kripa Buildmart Ltd. (Ledger account enclosed as per annexure-2) which shows that Rs.1,65,89,000/- has been received by Sh. Shabkar Khandelwal on dates 01.10.2007 to 20.10.2007. The signature of Shanmkar Khandwal have been appended on the ledger account showing the receipt of cash Rs.1,65,89,000/-, thus the argument of the assessee has no ground. 8.4 I have also considered the written submission of the A.R. The undisputed fact are that the appellant has not been maintaining regular books of accounts. The books of accounts of M/s Govindkripa Buildmart Pvt. Ltd were also not maintained regularly. Infact during the course of search, no any bills/vouchers of the appellant of the company were found. It is admitted fact that the memorandum of books of accounts has been prepared after the search and seizure operation. Accordingly, decision in the case of Sh. Rajendra Kumar Kedia vs. DCIT referred by the A.R is not fully applicable in the instant case, as in the instant case no any books of accounts were maintained. Even otherwise, the memorandum of books....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, this argument of the A.R of the appellant is rejected.'' 9.6 Before us, the ld. AR has filed the following submissions. ''In appeal the addition so made was contended on the following grounds:- (i) For the reasons as explained hereinabove the confessional statement as recorded under abnormal circumstances was not legally maintainable and carried no evidentiary value as per numerous judicial citation relied upon in the written submissions (lying in the PB 51). In the circumstances, addition made on the basis of such invalid confessional statement was bad in law and was to be deleted summarily. (ii) The contents of the said statement were not appreciated in its entirety. On careful study of this statement, it would be noted that the appellant had been explaining the nature and source of the investment in the said project on behalf of the Co. M/s Govind Kripa Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur only. But in the concluding part of the statement, he had included such investment in his own case and confessed such investment for no reason. Thus the statement of the appellant on the point is self-contradictory as revealed from the following extracts of his st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 132 of the Act and he had also made confession of additional income in respect of the same investment. Thus the investment under consideration had been considered in the case of Shri Banwarilal Yadav. The relevant extract from the statement of Shri Banwarilal Yadav is re-produced here-under for ready reference: (vi) The cash book / the so called cash flow statement had been rubbished without pointing out any defect or deficiency with general observations that these were not properly verifiable and reliable. (vii) Lasty, the AO had incorrectly mentioned that no capital A/c and drawing account of the appellant was submitted. Such Capital A/c and drawing account were duly submitted before him and again submitted with CIT (A) also.'' 9.7 On the other hand, the ld. DR has supported the orders of the authorities below. It was submitted that the assessee at the time of search admitted that cash payment represented as undisclosed income. It was therefore, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 2.10 crores. 9.8 We have heard both the parties. M/s. Global City Project was a joint venture project between company n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowing submissions a) The A.O. has made the addition in the following names for the transactions made of banks in F.Y. 2007-08 relevant for the assessment year 2008-09:- Name of the persons Bank & A/c No. Cash Deposited as per AO Actual cash deposited Dilip Kumwat Bank of Baroda 20,50,000 6,00,000 (Cheque of Rs. 9,50,000+5,00,000) received from Guman Khandelwal also added treating the same as cash deposited Dilip Kumawat SBBJ 01190012467 51014106649 29,97,500 29,97,500 Dilip Kumawat UCO Bank 9,70,000 9,90,000 Gopal Saini Bank of Baroda 73,500 73,500 Rakesh Gupta UCO Bank 23,00,000 18,00,000 (Cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- received from Sunil furniture also added treating the same as cash deposited) b) The source of cash deposited in bank account of above named persons Name of Person Bank a/c Date of Deposit Amount Source Dilip Kumawat (Copy of cash book at PB Page 416/II) Bank of Baroda 13.03.08 6,00,000 Out of Opening cash balance (Cash Book Page No. 416/II and previous year cash book Page No. 419 to 420/II) Rs. 6,00,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; -do- 17.12.07 4,00,000 Out of Opening cash balance (Cash Book Page No. 416/II and previous year cash book Page No. 419 to 420/II). Further this amount was utilized for giving advance to Shri Shankar Kahndelwal and the same advance has been added as income of the assessee treating the same unexplained. 20.12.07 6,00,000 -do- 24.12.07 9,50,000 -do- 12.02.08 4,000 Out of Opening cash balance (Cash Book Page No. 416/II and previous year cash book Page No. 419 to 420/II) 01.03.08 9,50,000 Out of Opening cash balance (Cash Book Page No. 416/II and previous year cash book Page No. 419 to 420/II). Further this amount was utilized for giving advance to Shri Shankar Kahndelwal and the same advance has been added....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Similary, actual cash deposit in UCO Bank account of Sh. Rakesh Gupta is Rs. 18 lakhs as against Rs. 23 lakhs taken by A.O. 9.2.1 Now coming to the source of cash deposit in the various aforesaid bank account of these benami persons, it is seen that from these bank accounts, the entry of cash credit has been given either by giving cheque to the appellant or by giving cash (after withdrawing it from bank) in as far as bigger amounts are concerned, which is already been added by the A.O. as part of unexplained cash credit in these names. The undersigned has also confirmed the addition under the head unexplained cash credit in respect of following amount:- Sh. Dilip Kumawat Bank of Baroda 13.3.08 Rs. 6 lakhs -do- SBBJ 17.12.07 Rs. 4 lakhs (Rs. 4.5 lakhs shown as credit already upheld) -do- -do- 20.12.07 Rs. 6 lakh -do- -do- 24.12.07 Rs.9, 50,000/- -do- -do- 1.3.08 Rs. 9,50,000/- Obvisously, the source of cash depsoiit so shown to be out of opening cash balance is rejected and it is held that these cash deposits in the bank are unexplained and requires to be added. However, as similar amounts have alr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as to how such books are not reliable and verifiable. Here it would be pertinent to note that these books were prepared on the basis of the bank statements and instruments of sale and purchase of the properties. On the face of such documentary evidences, treating such books as unverifiable and unreliable would sound to be ridiculous; particularly when no specific instance of any unverifiable and unreliable entries is forth-coming. Apparently such findings are factually and incorrect and deserve to be quashed and the addition so confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) need to be deleted. '' 10.7 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 10.8 We have heard both the parties. The assessee has been purchasing and selling the property in the name of benami persons. The assessee filed the cash flow statement of these persons. The receipt of cash in the cash flow statement is from the withdrawal from the banks or from the sale of property. In case the assessee has not maintained books of accounts then the assessee can prepare cash flow statement or memorandum of books of accounts in order to explain the availability of funds. Once the details are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quity and natural justice.'' 11.2 This is a general ground of appeal. In the written submission of the ld. AR, has submitted that benefit of telescoping theory should be given in all the appeals pertaining to this group. There is no specific ground of appeal in respect of telescoping in the instant appeal. Hence, the ground of appeal No. 10 of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. 12.1 The 7th ground of appeal filed by the revenue is general as there is no specific issue of allowing set off of suppressed sale consideration as against availability of unaccounted money. 12.2 Before parting this appeal, it is mentioned that the assessee in assessee in his written submission has stated that no addition can be made because there has been no incriminating documents found during the course of search. This issue is academic because the assessment for assessment year 2008-09 is a regular assessment after the search as search took place in the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. Hence, it is a case of regular assessment made u/s 153A and it is not case of re-assessment. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....समें से अà¤à¥€ तक à¤à¤• करोड पचहतà¥à¤¤à¤° लाख नकद तथा सवा आठकरोड रूपये का चैक से à¤à¥à¤—तान किया गया है नकद à¤à¥à¤—तान मैने शà¥à¤°à¥€ बनà¥à¤¶à¥€à¤²à¤¾à¤² यादव, हनà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤¨ यादव, शोलà¥à¤¯à¤¾ यादव आदि को दिये गये है। यह नकद पैसा सà¤à¥€ जमीन के खातेदारों में बांट दिया गया है । Document 2 पà¥à¤°à....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¤¦à¥€ जाने वाली जमीन से संबंधित कागजात के लिठहै। । इस जमीन के पà¥à¤°à¥‹à¤œà¥‡à¤•à¥à¤Ÿ के लिठ220 बीधा जमीन का सौदा किया गया था । जिसके लिठहमने à¤à¤• करोड पचहतà¥à¤¤à¤° लाख रू0 नकद किसानों को दिया तथा रू पैतीस लाख हनà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤¨ यादव को दिया । जिसने यह पैसा किसानों को à....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....स साà¤à¥‡à¤¦à¤¾à¤°à¥€ पतà¥à¤° के अनà¥à¤¸à¤¾à¤° नवमà¥à¤¬à¤° 2007 तक बाकी दो साà¤à¥‡à¤¦à¤¾à¤° इस योजना में रू0 दस करोड का निवेश करने वाले थे । उनà¥à¤¹à¥‹à¤¨à¥‡ 22.10.2007 तक मà¥à¤à¥‡ रू à¤à¤• करोड पचास लाख दे à¤à¥€ दिया था। जिसमें से 50 लाख रू का चैक तथा रू० à¤à¤• करोड Cash में पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤ªà¥à¤¤ हà¥à¤† परनà¥à¤¤à¥ बाद में साà¤à¥‡à¤¦à¤....