2019 (1) TMI 850

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the 'Act') dated 19.02.2014 framed by DCIT (Central), Bhopal. 2. As all these appeals pertains to same assessee, these were heard together and being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual earning income from salary and business. Post search u/s 132 of the Act conducted on 22.10.2011 at the business premises of the assessee and other business associates and assessment proceedings u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act were carried out for the Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2011-12. Additions for the undisclosed on-money payment for Assessment Year 2008- 09 & 2011-12 and addition for undisclosed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n and Shri Jhanak Singh for Assessment Year 2008-09 and 2011-12 respectively. The common facts are that the assessee purchased immoveable property from Shri Abdul Wahid Khan and Shri Jhanak Singh. Both these persons stated on oath before the Ld. A.O that they have received the on-money in cash at Rs. 7,00,000/- and Rs. 1,02,45,000/- over and above the consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed at Rs. 8,40,000/- and Rs. 44,55,000/- respectively. 9. During the course of appearing it has been prayed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that no opportunity of cross examination was provided to the assessee with Shri Abdul Wahid Khan and Shri Jhanak Singh. Revenue has not raised any objection to this request. We therefore in the given fa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. represent her unexplained investment of the impugned assessment year, hence the addition sustained for the value of jewellery in excess of 800 gms. is wholly unjustified and unlawful and, therefore, the same be kindly deleted. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred and not justified in her findings that the cash found with the assessee Rs. 64815 is an unexplained cash representing her unexplained investment. The said unjustified and unlawful addition of Rs. 64815 be kindly deleted. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the levy of interest u/s 234B is contrary to the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 234B, hence the same be kindly quashed....