TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of share capital share application money. ii) That the Ld .CIT (A) has grossly erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of investment made in one of the assessee's companies, namely M/s Umkal Healthcare Pvt Ltd not appreciating the fact that the assessee could not prove the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transactions and hence were voluntarily surrendered at the time of Search proceedings. iii) That the Ld .CIT (A) has grossly erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of payment in cash made to Ms.Shiv Kumari out of undisclosed sources not appreciating the fact that the assessee admitted and surrendered the above amount paid to Ms. Shiv Kumari in cash. iv) That the Ld .CIT (A) has grossly erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of undisclosed amount paid to Sh.Ram Durani for purchase of land not appreciating the fact that the assessee had surrendered voluntarily the above amount at the time of Search proceedings. v) That the Ld .CIT (A) has grossly erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of undisclosed amount paid to Sh.Ram Dulari for purchase of land lot apprec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....closed income for three years. In October 2010, he stated that Rs. 123 lakhs is not his undisclosed income. He stated that he is constructing one hospital where in he has inflated the cost of construction of the hospital and received cash back from various suppliers and that cash back received on inflation of the cost is used for obtaining share capital in various companies. Therefore, he stated that the „Actual cost' of the assets is less than the amount shown in the books and he stated that depreciation to be allowed on "actual cost'. Therefore, according to him the only depreciation in the case of the companies where the assets are capitalized is to be reduced to that extent and no disclosure is required in his individual case. Consequent to that he stated that Rs. 92.44 lakhs is required to be reduced u/s 43 of the Act from „actual cost' of WDV of fixed assets. Giving the effect of the same, he further revised return of income of companies for A.Y. 2009-10 reducing the depreciation claim. Briefly, he submitted in the retraction letter that (i) he introduced Rs. 20 lacs in the share capital of Umkal Healthcare pvt ltd out of cash back received. Further Rs. 20 lack....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lete the addition of Rs. 29.5 lakhs made in the hands of the assessee stating that the additions of Rs. 29.50 lakhs is a double addition because the same has also been added in the hands of the company on protective basis and companies has already reduced the claim of depreciation, so now its duplication of addition as WDV of the fixed assets of the company which constructed the fixed assets has already been reduced therefore, this amounts to double addition. He also deleted the addition of Rs. 12.92 lakhs for the similar reason as it is also covered in the cash back generated by the assessee. With respect to addition of Rs. 30 lakhs on account of appellant assessee advance for purchase of land from Mrs. Ram Dulari, he held that in absence of any cogent and substantive documentary evidence supporting of generation of undisclosed income or investment by the assessee, this addition required to be deleted. He further deleted the various expenses disallowed by the ld AO and restricted the disallowance from 1/5th to 10% of the total expenditure on conveyance etc. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. The ld AO aggrieved with the order of the ld CIT (A) has preferred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that retraction is not the change of stands but the change of merely the figures. iii. He further stated that the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee has resulted into the triple addition because firstly the company where assets are acquired has already reduced its claim of depreciation in earlier years for which the appeals of already been dismissed of the revenue. It is also reduced in this Ay also. iv. Assessee has submitted the complete bills of the cost of assets purchased during the year and cost of construction incurred during the year. He stated that the learned Assessing officer should have enquired from the suppliers independently. v. With respect to the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs on account of sum paid to Ram Dulari , he submitted that above document is a dumb document and no addition can be made in the hands of assessee. 9. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The brief facts of the cases that during the course of search at the residence and the business premises of the assessee, he voluntarily surrendered a sum of Rs. 123 lakhs in a statement recorded under secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals accepted the above explanation and deleted the whole addition. She further deleted the addition on accounts of documents found during the course of search for Rs. 12.93 Lakhs on this basis. Further, with respect to addition of Rs. 30 lakhs on account of advance paid to Ms Ram Dulari she accepted the contention of the assessee that, there is no evidence of earning such a huge unaccounted income and so the addition is based on dumb documents. Therefore this appeal filed by revenue. 10. It is apparent that appeals of the revenue against the deletion of the addition for A.Y. 2007 - 08 and 2008 - 09 has been dismissed by the coordinate bench on account of low tax effect. However, that does not influence the issues in this appeal. 11. Admittedly on the date of search 6/2/2009, assessee made disclosure in statement u/s 132 (4) of the act admitting undisclosed income of Rs. 123 Lakhs in the hands of the assesses. Later on assessee retracted it on 13/10/2000, i.e. after 1 and ½ years. In fact, the assessee has merely stated by a letter that disclosure is not in the hands of the assessee as income. According to him, it is inflation in cost of assets. Assessee received cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....capital of the company without verifying any evidence. No reference to any evidence is made by her in appeal order. Therefore the finding of the ld CIT (A) deleting the addition in also perverse. 15. Further the assessee has stated that cash is utilized for obtaining share capital in the other company, who are even otherwise as per the revised version of the assessee are bogus. Two of them are companies and one is an individual. No details were verified by the ld CIT (A) to ascertain whether the assessee has really inflated the cost of assets and has taken theses accommodation entries. No evidence was filed with respect to the various shareholders. 16. Further no evidence were shown by the assessee with respect to what is the inflated cost, what is the actual cost and how the money has been received , from whom it is received, how it is utilized, and through whom the accommodation entries with respect to the share capital from two companies were obtained. Even before us, assessee did not produce any such information. 17. In our opinion, the whole story created by the assessee is with respect to avoiding the tax on the income disclosed by him and get it adjusted the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from assessee to depreciation claim in case of companies, it also holds good for this grounds of appeal. Further during the course of search when the above paper when confronted to assessee he voluntarily admitted vide question number 18 of the statement recorded under section 132 (4) of the act that the above sum was paid by assessee for purchase of one property at Gurgaon. For the reasons given by us in confirming the addition in ground number one and two of the appeal of revenue, we also reverse the finding of the learned commissioner appeals and confirm the addition of Rs. 1293832/- on account of cash paid. Accordingly ground no 3 of the appeal is allowed. 22. As per ground no 4 and 5 with respect to the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs based on seized documents during the course of search as per annexure A-1, learned commissioner appeals has deleted the addition holding that the assessee could not have earned the above sum as no documents or substantive and cogent evidence are found supporting generation of undisclosed/unaccounted income of the assessee. We are not in a position to uphold the above finding for the simple reason that assessee himself has confessed that h he is infl....