TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he question is on facts and we have to look at whether the findings are perverse or not. 2. Admittedly, a search was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act" for short), including the residence of the assessee and certain others who were together involved in real-estate transactions. From the residence of one Babu, who is a member of the group, an agreement was recovered which showed it to be an agreement for purchase of a property at Menonpara for a total consideration of Rs. 150 lakhs. Sri.Babu in his deposition said that there was a building at Akathethara, which was also a part of the transaction and exchange of that property was fixed at a value of Rs. 72 lakhs. The balance Rs. 78 lakhs is said to have been recei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere was nothing to show that the assessee had paid the entire amounts. It is also submitted that the first appellate authority had clearly found that the exchange of other property had occurred and hence what remains was only Rs. 78 lakhs, which was the share of all the three members and not the assessee alone. It is also contended that the agreement did not materialise at all and the property still is in the hands of the original owner. 6. Whether the agreement materialised or not, is not relevant for consideration of the addition made by the AO as confirmed by the first appellate authority. There is no appeal from the order of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal had confirmed the addition of Rs. 78 lakhs. It is an admitted fac....