TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1802
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eby the learned Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal against order dated 07.03.2013 (Annexure A/4) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ujjain in Appeal No.U-195/09-10 by which the learned Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the prayer of the assessee while deleting addition of Rs. 4.81,700/- (rupees four lakhs eighty one thousand seven hundred), but upholding the addition of Rs. 10,28,000/- (rupees ten lakhs twenty eight thousand) as well as sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-(rupees twenty lakhs) as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and confirmed the demand of Rs. 30,28,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs twenty eight thousand). 2. It is not in dispute that the assessee has not filed his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 25,12,000/-. The assessee was found to have invested Rs. 19,15,000/- by cheque. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was having cash of Rs. 14,85,000/- (34,00,000 minus 19,15,000). He has not explained the source of cash deposit of Rs. 10,28,000/- (25,13,000/- minus 14,85,000) out of which cash deposits of Rs. 25,13,000/-. The source of cash of Rs. 10,28,000/- was explained out of own money / savings of Rs. 1,75,710/-, Rs. 3,00,000/- from 16 persons as loan and Rs. 5,52,290/- out of recovery from old debtors of which source has not been explained. Hence, same was added as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. The claim of loans from 16 persons being friends and relatives was not found acceptable as identity, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lwani admitted that he had seen the said agreement and as per the agreement, the appellant gave an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- to Shri Devidas; and held the following: - "13. We have heard the rival submissions, have gone through the orders of the lower authorities, and perused the material available on record. We find fro the orders of lower authorities that the assessee in his statement recorded on 19.12.2008 by the AO has claimed that the amount deposited as advance from directors at Rs. 19,01,550/- in M/s. Kunjika Construction Private Limited relates to him. The source of this advance is claimed to be Rs. 8,00,000/- received from Shri Santosh Kumar Lalwani as advance towards agreement to sale of land vide agreement executed on 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....im of the assessee that there was oral agreement for purchase of land at Survey No.329 Nanakheda Ujjain and only Rs. 51,000/- were given as advance. This contention of the assessee is not found acceptable by the AO and ld. CIT (A). We find that the assessee has not been able to produce Shri Devidas for examination before the AO. The assessee has also failed to produce agreement for purchase of land from Shri Devidas and others. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that the statement of Shri Santosh Kumar Lalwani is not reliable as no opportunity of cross examination was provided and witness has failed suit against the assessee hence he is hostile witness. We find that this contention of the assessee is not tenable in law and facts. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osh Kumar Lalwani) has clearly stated that he has entered into this agreement and paid a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs after seeing the executors of said agreement for purchase of 1/3rd part of land had an agreement with original owner of the land in which it was clearly mentioned that they have right to sell the said property and so far as he remember they have paid Rs. 20 towards Bayana for the purchase of said land. We also find that Shri Santosh Kumar Lalwani had agreed to purchase 1/3rd of land for Rs. 43,27,400/- and paid Rs. 8 lakhs as advance for the same which means that the total value of the said land must be three times of Rs. 43 lakh meaning there by around Rs. 120-130 lakhs. Therefore, in the same way, Shri Vijay Jain is very likely migh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at it was a receipt of an income nature. The money came through cheque and was paid through banking channels was by itself not of consequence." 8. The Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 has held "any sum credited in the books of account may be added under Section 68 if the explanation offered about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the AO, is not satisfactory." 9. The explanation offered by the assessee can be negative. It is settled position of law that statement is to be believed as a whole and not in piecemeal as one part suits to the assessee and other part does not suits to the assessee. Shri Santosh Kumar Lalwani in reply to Question No.14 of his statement has clearly stated that h....