TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e quashed. 2. That the addition of Rs. 75.000/- on account of unexplained foreign expenditure u/s 69C as discussed by the learned DCIT in Para No.11.4 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 3. That the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- on account of voluntary disclosure u/s 132(4) against the cash received from Bansal Group for sale of shares of Ayushman Medical Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. as discussed by the learned DCIT in Para No.20.9 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 4. That the addition of Rs. 4,50,000/- on account of undisclosed cash investment u/s 69B as discussed by the learned DCIT in Para No.14.4 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 5. That in the alternative and without prejudice to the Grounds stated above the additions made be held to be highly unreasonable and excessive and be reduced. 6. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. That in the alternative and without prejudice to the Grounds stated above the additions made be held to be highly unreasonable and excessive and be reduced. 9. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the case. (b) Dr. Neeraj Gupta IT(SS) No.66/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2006-07 1. That the assessment made u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act be held to be bad in law and on facts and be quashed. 2. That the addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- maintained and confirmed by CIT(A) made on the basis of Page No.122 of LPS-3 found from the office premises of Ayushman College be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 3.That in the alternative and without prejudice to the Grounds stated above the additions made be held to be highly unreasonable and excessive and be reduced. 4.The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before or during the course o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. That in the alternative and without prejudice to the Grounds stated above the additions made be held to be highly unreasonable and excessive and be reduced. 8. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the case. 3. Since most of the issues raised and facts and circumstances raised are common, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. First we will take up IT(SS) No.64/Ind/2017 relating to the assessee namely Shri Ashok Gupta for Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 5. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that 3 Doctors namely Dr. Ashok Gupta, Dr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta and Dr. Gopal Batni were running hospital in the name of M/s. Ayushman Medical Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd (herein after called Ayushman). This hospital was sold to Bansal Group through its key person namely Shri Sunil Bansal. Search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the business and residential premises of Bansal Group on 02.06.2011. Since the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xpenditure u/s 69C as discussed by the learned DCIT in Para No.11.4 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 9. In the above ground assessee has challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 75,000/- on account of unexplained foreign expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. Various incriminating material were found during the course of search showing that the assessee has carried out foreign travelling. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. A.O made addition for unexplained expenditure at Rs. 75,000/- u/s 69C of the Act for the foreign travel to Thailand for two persons which took place on 30.11.2010 to 04.12.2010 observing as follows:- II. Vide reply dated 21.02.2014 assessee has stated that the above expenditure was neither recorded in his books of accounts nor in the books accounts of his family members. III. The assessee is also not having any confirmation regarding the claim of assessee that the above foreign trip was sponsored by other companies for attending medical conferences. IV. The assessee has not offered the above e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011- 12 assessee has challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition for unexplained expenditure for foreign travel at Rs. 75,000/-. We find that similar addition were made in the hands of the assessee for unexplained foreign expenditure for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2010-11 and that issue came before us for adjudication in appeal vide IT(SS) No.59 to 63/Ind/2017 and in the order dated 24.10.2019 we have decided this issue observing as follows:- 15. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The common issue raised for 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 relates to addition of foreign tours expenditure of following amounts; Assessment Year Amount 2007-08 Rs. 68,763/- 2008-09 Rs. 1,12,500/- 2009-10 Rs. 1,50,000/- 2010-11 Rs. 72,737/- 16. The enquiry about the foreign tour expenses was initiated against the assessee during the course of search as foreign currency in US dollar and Thailand currency was found at the assessee's premises. Therefore this contention of the assessee that no incriminating material was found relating to this addition is uncalled for because possession of foreign c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on 21.02.2014. Therefore the assessee deserves the relief requested by him before the first appellate authority. We accordingly delete the addition of Rs. 2763/-, Rs. 28,500/-, Rs. 38,000/- and Rs. 10,337/- for Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010- 11. Thus this common issue is partly allowed. In the result the assessee's appeal for 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 is partly allowed. 15. After perusing the above finding we find that for Assessment Year 2011-12 assessee has not requested for any relief in the written submission filed before Ld. CIT(A). The relief claimed for other years was only regard to wrong application of package rates for preceding years. Since for Assessment Year 2011-12 no relief has been requested by the assessee himself as there is no difference in the expenditure incurred at the time of visit and the package rates. We thus find no merit in Ground No.2 raised by the assessee and the same deserves to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss Ground No.2 raised by the assessee in IT(SS) No.64/Ind/2017 relating to Assessment Year 2011-12. 16. Now we will take Ground No.4 of IT(SS) No.64/Ind/2017 for Assessment Year 2011-12 which reads as follows;....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s Universal Agro Farm as security. The above cheques relevant for F. Y.201 0-11 relevant for A. Y 2011-12. III. The above cheques have been received by the assessee against the cash loan, which was not recorded in the books of accounts. IV. This cheques has been found and seized from the residence of the assessee. Therefore, in view of provisions of section 132(4A) of the Income tax Act, 1961, it is presumed that the transactions recorded in this loose paper pertain to the assessee and the content of these transactions is true. 19. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed since the addition made by the Ld. A.O was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) observing as follows:- I have perused the submissions of the learned AR, the various decision cited, and the assessment order. The claim of the assessee cannot be accepted because no material evidence to substantiate it has been filed either before the A.O or at the appellate stage. The two cheques of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- signed by Shri Shardendu Kumar Mishra (Prop M/s Universal Agro farms) and drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, MP Nagar, Bhopal. Both the cheques do not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdendu Kumar Mishra, Prop. M/s Universal Agro Farm drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Bhopal for Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- respectively were issued in which the name of recipient was not mentioned. The allegation of the revenue authorities is that the assessee may have given cash loan to Ms/ Universal Agro Farm and has kept the blank signed cheques as security. However there is no other material evidence on record which could prove that cash loan was given to Shri Shardendu Kumar Mishra. On the other hand the submissions made by the assessee has more strength since it is supported by documentary evidence. Two plots were purchased by the assessee's wife and his father in law by registered deed dated 13.6.2010. The mutation was pending for these two plots and the two cheques were kept as security from Universal Agro Farm. Apparently revenue authorities have failed to prove any live connection between the assessee and Universal Agro Farm relating to the two cheques found during the course of search. Whereas the documentary evidence filed by the assessee clarifies the transactions. No other efforts were made by the revenue authorities to confront Shri Shardendu Kumar Mishra. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l can be understood with reference to the cash professional receipts and the cosh received from Bansal Group before the date of search. The cash flow chart for all the relevant years are enclosed and the cash flow may be verified from the said statements. The assessee is not maintaining any personal books such as cash-book and ledger. The 5000 US Dollars found at the residence of the assessee belonged to his friend Dr. Akhil Kumar S/o Shri J.K Tiwari. This was explained by the assessee in his statement recorded during the course of search. The statement of. Dr: Akhil Kumar was also recorded by the authorised Officer was on 04-07--2011. Copy of this statement is with you. 1n his statement Dr. Akhil Kumar has admitted and has explained the circumstances under which the aforesaid dollars were kept at the residence of the assessee. Dr. Akhil K'umar has also explained his Sources of income and the fact that he is employed in Saudi Arabia. He has also referred to AI-Raj hi Bank of Saudi Arabia from which he had withdrawn the dollars. Copy of Bank a/c of Dr. Akhil Kumar is enclosed. You may kindly appreciate the fact that at the time of search on 02-06-2011 the assessee was away in US....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dance with the provisions contained in section 145 of the Act eo-relates with the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer arrived at under sections 69A of the Act. Considering the facts of the case, the correctness and completeness of the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee is held to be non-satisfactory and therefore the explanation of the assessee is liable to be rejected. In this connection reliance is placed on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Subhash Chand v. Union of India (344 ITR 533), wherein the cash found during a survey vas held to be unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Similarly the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs B Rajashekharan !lair (329 ITR 123) wherein the Hon'ble Court rejected the explanation on the source of cash and therefore held it to be unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 31. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded getting relief of Rs. 133/- and the remaining addition of Rs. 16,26,897/- was confirmed observing as follows:- I have perused the submissions of the learned AR, and the assessment order. The appellant assessee has not been able to explain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... From the said amount the cash in hand was kept and was available. Regarding foreign currency, it was submitted that it belonged to the friend of the assessee Dr. Akhil Kumar from Saudi Arabia who had come to Bhopal for the marriage of his daughter to be performed on 24/6/2011. Dr. Akhil Kumar was staying with the assessee and was present during the course of the search. At the time of the search, the assessee had gone to the USA for a small course on Arthritis. The amount brought by Dr. Akhil Kumar was found at the residence of the assessee. His statement was recorded and he clearly asserted that he had brought this amount from Saudi. The copy of the certificate from the bank was also filed. The son-in-law is settled in USA and the amount of $5000 was kept to be paid to the daughter for taking the same to USA. The Thailand Baht were worth Rs. 133/- and were kept as a souvenir. 34. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the Ld.AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee and has made the addition and even did not mention in the order that the statement of Dr. Akhil Kumar was taken in which he has clearly given all the facts (Page 44 to 49 of PB A-4). The additions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pvt. Ltd. This cash amount of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- was received during April and May, 2011 i.e. just before a month of date of search. In the cash flow statement the assessee has shown the cash received from professional receipts, cash withdrawn from bank and cash received from Bansal Group and against the cash available various expenditure have been incurred including deposit of cash in the bank and cash seized by Income Tax Department at Rs. 13,65,030/-. Since the cash amount of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- has been accepted to have been received by the assessee cash found at the residential premises and locker of the assessee get duly explained and in the cash flow statement also the amount seized by the Income Tax Department has been considered. Since the revenue authorities have failed to challenge the correctness of the cash flow statement and were merely questioning that why the cash was kept in locker and not deposited in bank are not good ground to make addition for unexplained cash in the hands of the assessee. 39. We therefore in the given facts and circumstances of the case are of considered view that since assessee has successfully explained the source of cash found during the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2008-09 3,77,220/- 4,33,749/- 56,530/- 2009-10 3,99,770/- ,23,443/- 23,670/- 2010-11 5,94,730/- 7,26,346/- 1,31,620/- 2011-12 - 11,58,587/- - 2012-13 - 54,04,161/- 30,07,502/- Total 33,39,086/- The appellant assessee was asked during the course of assessment proceedings to explain why Rs. 1,40,914/- (Rs. 35,00,000 - Rs. 33,39,086) should not be treated as undisclosed income from professional receipts and other sources. The appellant had voluntarily surrendered Rs. 35,00,000/- during the course of search and statement was recorded u/s 132(4). The appellant assesse has not been able to give any material evidences as to why only-Rs. 33,39,086/- has been offered as additional income in returns filed u/s 153A where as he had voluntarily admitted Rs. 35,00,000/- as undisclosed income. No evidence was filed either at assessment stage or at the appellate stage. In view of the above discussion and lack of material evidences I do not find any reason to interfere with the A.Os order and addition of Rs. 1,40,914/- u/s 132(4) for A.Y 2012-13 is confirmed. 42. Now the assessee is in appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....closed. It is well admitted by the assessee that there was an undisclosed income which was not offered in the earlier years. Lump sum amount was surrendered and against the lump sum amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- income has been offered. So the statement given during the course of search has a clear nexus with the income offered to tax. It seems that the assessee while filing the return has taken telescoping benefit of various income which were not offered to tax in earlier years. For Assessment Year 2012-13 the amount of Rs. 33,39,086/- has been offered to tax but that has been linked to the valuation of gold and diamond jewellery found at locker No.23 and the same has been mentioned in the computation of income at page 14-15 of paper book PB A-4. There is no evidence placed on record to show that unaccounted professional receipts which assessee failed to offer in the previous years has been offered to tax as surrendered amount so as to cover up the undisclosed gold and diamond jewellery and paid income from other source which the assessee failed to offer in the earlier years. In this situation the statement given under oath u/s 132(4) of the Act is a perfect documentary evidence becau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime and they kept Rs. 13 lacs with my wife Mrs. Alka gupta for the purpose of buying some suitable property in Bhopal. The various amounts mention in these papers totaling to Rs. 13 lacs pertain to purchase of a house by Mrs. Sudha Jain and a plot by Mr. Bharat Join and other sundry expenses for the renovation of the house purchased by Mrs. Sudha Jain. Smt. Sudha Jain, and Shri Bharat Jain sold immovable properties as under.- a. Agricultural land at Delora, Raghuraj Nagar, Satna to Mr. Irfan Elahi for Rs. 5,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 29~'O1-2007. b. Agricultural Land to Mrs. Charulata Soi for Rs. 9,87,200/- vide sale deed dated 02-12-2010: c. Agricultural land at Dellora, Raghuraj Nagar, Satna to Mr. Rajiv Soi for Rs. 31,51,100/- vide sale deed dated 22-12-2010. Out of the aforesaid sale consideration received by them they kept Rs. 13 lacs with Mrs. Allza Gupta to buy some suitable property for them in Bhopal. The amount of Rs. 13 lacs was utilized in the purchase of following properties for Smt. Sudha Jain and Shri Bharat Jain:- . a. Duplex house Situated at Surva Dharma Colony, Bhopal from Mr. Sanjay Jain for total cost....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sted this money from his undisclosed sources. The Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition. From the said loose paper, it would be seen that the name of Shri B.K. Jain, the father-in-law of the assessee has been mentioned. The paper as a whole will have to be considered. The affidavit of the mother-in-law stating all the facts was filed before the Ld.CIT(A) which clearly stated that the family has advanced the money for the renovation of the house. The application u/s 46A was also made alongwith the details of the sale of the agriculture land which is the Source of these investments. Without considering all these papers, the addition has been made which deserves to be deleted. 55. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supported the orders of both the lower authorities. 56. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Through Ground No.6 assessee has challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of Ld. A.O on making addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- towards undisclosed income arising out of the loose paper bearing No. 9 & 10 of the seized diary as per Annexure A-I/1. We observe that in he seized loose paper No. 9 & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on record by way of registered sale deed of the land sold by Shri Bharat Jain and Mrs. Suha .Jain, name of Shri Bharat Jain appearing in the loose sheet, amount mentioned towards advance paid for purchase of land/house and other paid expenditure. Though it is well settled that additions cannot be made on the basis of unsigned loose papers unless and until any corroborative evidence is available which shows the nexus of the transaction appearing in such loose sheet. In the instant case also though there is no direct nexus of the assessee with this loose paper except that it was found at his residential premises. But only because the loose sheet is written in the handwriting of the assessee's wife and the incomplete transactions/entries appearing in this loose sheets are connected to assessee's fathere in law and mother in law prima facie no addition is called for in the hands of the assessee. Even otherwise sufficient material have been placed on record to explain the rough jottings in the loose sheet which are basically the cash amount advanced to assessee's wife from her parents to be spend for purchase/maintenance of duplex/house at Bhopal and Smt. Alka Gupta maintained the detai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., registration charge and other charges relating to the sale of said property have to be borne by the seller. In view of the above, additions on account of Stamp duty charges of Rs. 6,30,000/-, Registration fees of Rs. 69,295/- and transfer fee payment to Awas Rahat Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti of Rs. 1,72,000/- are hereby deleted. 13.2 Brokerage of Rs. 1,60,000/- has been paid to Shri. Ravi Manwani. Brokerage is generally paid @ 1-2%. The total sale consideration of the property has been shown by the appellant as Rs. 86,00,000/- and brokerage charges of Rs. 1,60,000/- as claimed is falling in between 1-2% of the total sale consideration, therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,60,000/- on this account is deleted. 13.3 The cost of acquisition as taken by the A.O in the assessment order is Rs. 59,76,625/- . The appellant has shown cost of acquisition at Rs. 61,23,103/- whereas the A.O has taken cost of acquisition at Rs. 59,76,625/-. The cost of acquisition as taken by A.O at Rs. 59,76,625/-is confirmed. The ground of appeal is partly allowed. 60. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 61. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Ind/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 which reads as under:- 8. That the addition of Rs. 4,46,086/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69B as discussed by the learned DCIT in Para No.18.11 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 65. Brief facts relating to this ground are that during the course of assessment proceedings Ld. A.O observed that assessee had made some investment in the construction of house located at 253, Shahpura, Bhopal. Assessee declared sum of Rs. 1,75,500/- being incurred for renovation of the clinic located in the house at Shahpura, Bhopal. Ld. A.O made reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer vide letter dated 6.8.2013 and reply of Departmental Valuation Officer was received on 4.3.2014 estimating valuation of construction at Rs. 6,21,586/-. During the assessment Year 2012-13 difference of Rs. 4,46,086/- was treated as unexplained investment and addition made u/s 69B of the Act. Against the addition made by the Ld. A.O at Rs. 4,46,086/- u/s 69B of the Act, the appeal preferred by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) did not brought any relief and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of flooring. The addition made on the notional construction is bad in law and deserves to be deleted. 68. Per contra Departmental Representative vehemently argued supported the order of both the lower authorities. 69. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Through Ground No.8 assessee had challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition for unexplained investment of Rs. 4,46,086/- in the renovation of house situated at Shahpura, Bhopal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has challenged the correctness of the valuation report contending that during the assessment year 2012-13 only the clinic portion was renovated by changing the tiles and false ceiling for which an amount of Rs. 1,75,500/- was incurred. The remaining construction in the house measuring 191 sq. Meters was incurred during financial year 2003-04 relevant to Assessment Year 2004-05 but the Departmental Valuation Officer (In short 'DVO') wrongly valued the renovated portion of the whole building of 191 Sq. Meter as on the date of inspection and enhanced the valuation. It was further claimed on behalf of the assessee that the DVO should have valued the renovated portion of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Para No.20.9 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. Ground No.5: That the addition of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- on account of cash receivable from Bansal Group for sale of Shares of Ayushman Medical Diagnostic Pvt Ltd. as discussed by the learned DCIT in Para No.20.10 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and be quashed and deleted. 72. Since the additions challenged in the above referred grounds are based on the common issue they have been dealt together. Additions on similar issue have also been made in the case of other two Directors namely Dr. Neeraj Kumar and Dr. Gopal Batni. In this bunch of appeals we are dealing with the case of Shri Ashok Gupta and Dr. Neeraj Kumar. Grounds relates to the common issue of addition made on account of Memorandum of Understanding for the sale of shares of Ayushman Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd found during the course of search and the cash sum received from the buyers and admitted during the course of search is being dealt here and the finding shall be applied while adjudicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not convinced and he was of the view that the assessee should have offered the amounts to tax in the year when they were received. The submission of the assessee that advance tax has been paid for Assessment Year 2013-14 and income is to be offered in the return of income of Assessment Year 2013-14 did not find any merit by the Ld. A.O and he after giving a detailed finding and judicial precedence's completed the assessment after making addition for Rs. 40,00,000/- and Rs. 1,75,00,000/- received by the assessee in cash during Assessment Year 2011-12 and Assessment Year 2012- 13 as undisclosed income. Ld. A.O also made addition of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- observing that the MOU was entered on 24.10.10 and the amount which was not received till the date of search i.e. 2.6.2011 calculated at Rs. 1,85,00,000/- which was not received by the assessee also needs to be added as income for Assessment Year 2012-13. While making addition for Rs. 1,85,00,000/- Ld. A.O further observed that the assessee has not offered any satisfactory explanation why the amount of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- was not shown in the books of accounts. Similar type of addition were also made in the case of Dr. Neeraj Kumar at Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Also, during the course of search at the office premises of 'Bansal Group' situated at 3rd floor Tawa complex, Bittan Market, Bhopal incriminating documents were found and seized which contain details of cash payment made to Dr. Ashok Gupta, Dr. Gopal Batni and Dr. Neeraj Kumar totalling to Rs. 5.00 crores [page no. 3 & 4 of LPS 4/2 (page no 1 to 9)] when confronted to this Shri Anil Bansal and Shri Sunil Bansal have admitted to payment of Rs. 5.00 crores in cash to Dr. Ashok Gupta, Dr. Gopal Batni and Dr. Neeraj Kumar. Even the directors of Ayushman Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd Dr. Ashok Gupta, Dr. Gopal Batni and Dr. Neeraj Kumar admitted to have received the advance in cash from Bansal Group and stated that it was their undisclosed income apart from regular income. The details of such undisclosed income is as under: Dr. Gopal Batni - Rs. 1,40,00,000/- Dr. Neeraj Kumar - Rs. 1,45,00,000/- Dr. Ashok Gupta - Rs. 2,15,00,000/- Total - Rs. 5,00,00,000/- During the course of assessment proceedings Dr. Gopal Batni & Dr. Neeraj Kumar accepted as under: S.No. Name of the Director A.Ys & period Amount 1 Dr. Gopal Batni A.Y. 2011-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y. 2012-13 with him. The appellant owned up having received the said money in statement made u/s 132(4) at the time of search. His subsequent attempt to explain the above money by way of advance received from Bansal Group has failed and found to be untenable. It is clear that the appellant was in receipt of Rs. 40,00,000/- for A.Y 2011-12, Rs. 1,75,00,000/- for A.Y 2012-13 &Rs. 1,85,00,000/- being the balance payment for A.Y 2012-13 from Bansal group which was not disclosed by him. The assessee having owned cash receipt at the time of search in his statement u/s 132(4) later retraction without any backing supported by evidence is of no avail. 8.4 In the case Dhunjibhoy stud & agricultural farm vs DCIT ITAT, Pune Third Member Bench (2002) 21 CCH 0059 Pune trib; (2002) 76 TTJ 0339 (TM) it has been held: ".. T had made a confessional statement before the search party of the department, who were not police officers. Therefore, the admission made by him of search was admissible against the assessee. Looking to the aspect of the matter from another angle, T was a famous doctor. While making a statement, it was not expected of a person highly educated and highly placed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to an agreement with Wockhardt Hospitals Limited, Mumbai on 7.10.2006 wherein it was agreed that Wockhardt would conduct, manage and operate the hospital owned by Ayushman. The initial period as per clause 4 was for ten years which was renewable. An advance of Rs. 50 lacs was given by Wockhardt during the Financial Year 2006-07. It was further agreed as per clause 5(A)(r) and 5(A)(s) that Ayushman shall construct the additional built up area of 25000 sq.ft. In clause 6, it is stipulated that Ayushman will complete the entire civil construction work before the effective date. It was further agreed in clause 5(B)(h) that Wockhardt would initially invest about Rs. 1200 lacs on equipments, utilities, etc and continue to make capital investment on a regular and need based basis. Ayushman initially invested about Rs. 8.17 crores during the FY 2007-08 and 2008-09 for construction of building and acquisition of equipments and plants. Ayushman acquired huge loans from the banks and MPFC of approximately Rs. 7 crores for the said investments. Wockhardt initially invested about Rs. 4 crores but subsequently, it backed out for any further investments because of their financial constraints and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rectors received the balance payment by cheques. The total consideration received is Rs. 12,28,37,8501-. The total consideration receivable was Rs. 13.5 crores. However, for some bank liabilities and interest, approximately, Rs. 1.21 crores was deducted from the final payment. The shares were transferred after the receipt of the arbitration award and receipt of full payment. Here, it may be noted that after the arbitration award, all payments were received through cheques. The chronological dates of event are give here under: CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER DATES i. 07/10/2006 - Agreement with Wockhardt for management for 10 years with their investment ofRs. 12 crores (Para 6 pg.47 of PB). ii. The assessee invested in building about 3.87crores from 01/04/2007 to 31/03/2008 (Pg.140 of PB) and Rs. 8.18 crores up to 31/03/2009 (Pg.155 of PB). iii. The assessee raised loans for construction of building and the position of loans are 96.50 lakhs on 31/03/2007; Rs. 475 lakhs on 31/03/2008 (Pg. 137 of PB) and Rs. 924 lakhs on 31/03/2009 (Pg. 152 of PB). iv. The profit for the 5 financial years and interest capitalized is as under 2006-07 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ears, RsAO lacs for AY 2011- 12 and the balance for the AY 2012-13. The Ld. AO at page 34 para 20.8(V) observed as under: Regarding the MOU dated 24/10/2010 it can been seen that the amount of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- is receivable in the hands of Dr. Gopal Batni, Dr. Neeraj Kumar & Dr. Ashok Gupta till the date of search and the share of the assessee is Rs. 1,85,00,000/-. However, the assessee has not filed any satisfactory explanation, why the above amount has not been shown in the books of accounts. As per MOU dated 24/10/2010 all amount of Rs. 26,75,00,000/- is paid by Bansal group to Dr. Gopal Batni, Dr. Neeraj Kumar & Dr. Ashok Gupta. Therefore Rs. 1,85,00,000/- is required to be added in the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13. He therefore made addition on the hypothetical ground that the assessee has received this amount. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has merely repeated the conclusions of the Ld. AO and without appreciating the arguments advanced has summarily dismissed the appeals. The Ld. CIT(A) merely stated that the appellant has simply retracted from the disclosure but the fact remains that the assessee has received these monies in cash and as such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld amount to a double taxation of same income, which is not permitted under the law. (iv) The payer of the amount of Rs, 5 crores have admitted this amount as their income and have offered the same in the return and have paid taxes on the same. Thus, the amount received has already been subjected to tax which cannot be added as income in the hands of the assessee. A certificate from the payers is now attached and placed at page 255. This certificate is a statement of fact from the records. It is humbly prayed that the same may kindly be consider while passing the order. (v) The papers all are disclosed to the various courts and has been adhered to and as such no adverse view can be taken since it is not an incriminating document. In view of this, it is humbly prayed that the additions made by the Ld. AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are bad in law and deserves to be deleted. 76. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that :- This addition has been made as per Para No. 20.9 (Pg. No. 28-35) of the assessment order and is on account of cash received by the assessee as advance from Bansal Group against the sale of 71135 nos. equity share....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il and May 2011 50,00,000 d Chq No.8070088 dated 01.05.2012 of Uco Bank 75,00,000 e Chq No.870132 dated 11.05.2012 of Uco Bank 50,00,000 f Chq No.871133 dated 27.06.2012 of Uco Bank 30,00,000 g Chq No.863608 dated 13.08.2012 of Uco Bank 25,00,000 h Chq No.863609 dated 13.08.2012 of Uco Bank 25,00,000 i Chq No.863610 dated 13.08.2012 of Uco Bank 25,00,000 j Chq No.863611 dated 13.08.2012 of Uco Bank 14,45,950 Total 4,09,45,950 Dr. Niraj Kumar S.No Particulars Amount a Chq No.852254 dated 01.12.2010 to Uco Bank 25,00,000 b Cash received from 25.10.2010 to 31.03.2011 90,00,000 c Cash received in April and May 2011 55,00,000 d Chq No.870087 dated 30.04.2012 of Uco Bank 75,00,000 e Chq No.870131 dated 11.05.2012 of Uco Bank 50,00,000 f Chq No.869612 dated 11.06.2012 of Uco Bank 35,00,000 g Chq No.871132 dated 27.06.2012 of Uco Bank 30,00,000 h Chq No.863606 ated 13.08.2012 of Uco Bank 20,00,000 i Chq No.863607 dated 13.08.2012 of Uco Bank 20,64,800 j Chq No.863615 datedf 13.08.2012 of Uco Bank 2,00,000 Total 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he learned AO concluded that out of Rs. 215 lakhs the assessee must have received Rs. 40 lakhs in FY 2010-11 and Rs. 175 lakhs in FY 2011-12. Therefore these amounts have been added to the income of the appellant (Rs. 4O lakhs in AY 2011-12 and Rs. 175 lakhs in AY 2012- 13). But as already submitted by the appellant the entire cash received by him was an Advance against the proposed sale of his equity shareholding in AMOPL. Even the learned AO has accepted that the cash was against the sale of equity shares. Since no transfer of equity shares was made by the assessee either in FY 2010-11 or in FY 2011-12 hence all amounts received by the assessee from the Bansal Group either in cash or through cheques before the date of Transfer of equity shares on 14-08-2012 remained as Advance. The equity shares held by the assessee in AMDPL having finally been transferred to the Bansal Group on 14-08-2012 the entire cash/cheques received as consideration against such Transfer were includable for computation of Capital Gains in AY 2013-14. Any amount received against Transfer of a capital asset is not liable for tax before the Actual Transfer takes place. As already submitted, the assessee has sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration which is included in the net consideration of Rs. 13.50 crores. This sum was partially received in Assessment Year 2011-12 and partly in Assessment Year 2012- 13. The amount received in cheque after the date of search is also not disputed and therefore they have been rightly taxed by the Ld. A.O in the year of receipt of the amount in cash/cheque. He thus supported the finding of Ld. CIT(A). 78. We have heard rival submissions and perused the records before us and carefully gone through the written submission filed by both the parties. Through Ground No.3 for Assessment Year 2011-12 and Ground No. 4 & 5 for Assessment Year 2012-13 the assessee namely Dr. Ashok Gupta has challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of Ld. A.O making addition on account of voluntary disclosure made u/s 132(4) of the Act and also on account of amount receivable during post search period on account of the deal struck between the Ayushman Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd (In short 'AMDPL') and Bansal Group through Mr. Anil Bansal. Addition in similar facts and circumstances have also been made in the hands of other Directors. In these bunch of appeals we are also dealing with the appeals fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....res ii. Settlement of Worckhardt and other liabilities Rs. 6.0 crores iii. Payment to share holders of Rs. 13.50 crores. Further in the said agreement is also written payment term of Rs. 13,50,00,000/- to the sellers. 25% on date of DEFINITIVE MOU on 26th October 25% on cut-off date/on possession i.e. 1st December 2010. Balance 50% in five equal monthly instalments commencing on 1st June 2011. 80. After entering into this MOU during the period November, 2010 to May, 2011 Bansal Group paid some amount in cash as well as cheque to three Directors. The assessee in question received Rs. 50 lakhs by cheque on 15.11.10 and cash sum of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- up to May, 2011. A search u/s 132(4) of the Act was conducted on 02.06.2011 of Bansal Group. Since there were business connection between M/s AMDPL search was also conducted at the residential and business premises of all the share holders. During the search MOU was also found which appears at LPS-6 Page No.30 placed at Page No.1 of the common paper book dated 14.06.2017. When the statements were recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act the assessee as well as other Directors accepted to have received cash sum of Rs. 5 crores, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... holders against the sale of shares in M/s AMDPL to Bansal Group. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that advance amounts in cash/cheque were received but due to the ongoing litigation with M/s WHL which delayed the completion of the transactions and finally on 8.02.2012 the arbitration award was issued as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh which brought an end to the litigation between the assessee and M/s WHL The copy of the arbitration award is placed at page 114 of the common paper book. It was on 08.02.2012 that the deal between M/s. AMDPL and Bansal Group got a clear way. Subsequent to it on 14.08.2012 the shares were transferred. The claim of the assessee is that the total consideration of Rs. 4,05,46,950/- received by him against the sale of 71135 equity shares held in M/s AMDPL have been shown as sale consideration in the return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 as per the provisions of Section 45(1) of the Income Tax Act. It was also claimed that advance tax of Rs. 37,11,100/- stood paid up to 01.03.2013 for the income to be shown under the head Long Term Capital Gain for Assessment Year 2013-14. This fact of paying advance tax for Assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f shares which needs to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. 85. Now the question comes here is when the assessee should have offered the amount to tax i.e. "whether the amount should have offered to tax as and when it was received by showing it as Long Term Capital Gain in the year when it was received" or "whether it is to be offered to tax when the agreement for sale of shares is entered into". 86. In the instant case the assessee before finalising the deal with Bsnsal Group had entered into an agreement with M/s WHL for take over of the hospital. But due to disputes arising between the two parties the dealt could not materialise and went into litigation. In the submissions made by the Counsel for the assessee chronology of the events occurred from 7.10.2006 to 14.08.2012 have been mentioned wherein after entering into agreement with M/s. WHL disputes arised between the two. M/s WHL filing petition for possession of property on 03.1.2011 which was dismissed on 14.02.2011. Thereafter M/s WHL filed an appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 07.03.2011 for arbitration and on 28.06.2011 Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh appointed the Arbitrator which was sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quity shares held in AMDPL the same has been disclosed in the return of income filed for Assessment Year 2013-14 on 28.3.2014 and claiming the deductions the income has been offered to tax. 88. Now As far as the sale consideration of 4,05,56,950/- is concerned t he same has been disclosed in the return of income against which the assessee has claimed index cost of 1,36,57,842/- on the total cost of acquisition of Rs. 71,64,500/-. The fact that the assessee has offered these share of sale consideration to tax during Assessment Year 2013-14 was brought on record before Ld. CIT(A) also and the submissions filed to Ld. CIT(A). 89. In the case of other share holders also sale consideration has been offered in Assessment Year 2013-14. The major amount was received by 3 Directors and the amount shown as sale consideration through which Income Tax Return filed for Assessment Year 2013-14 is as follows:- Name Amount Dr. Ashok Gupta Rs. 4,05,46,950/- Dr. Neeraj Kumar Rs. 4,02,64,800/- Dr. Gopal Batni Rs. 4,09,45,950/- Total Rs. 12,17,57,700/- 90. The remaining consideration i.e. total consideration of Rs. 12,28,37,850/- Less Rs,12,17,57,700/- comes to R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to ongoing litigation between assessee and WHL delayed the completion of deal between the Bansal Group and the assessee and it was only on 08.02.2012 that the litigation between AMDPL and WHL came to an end. The registration of transfer of shares took place on 14.8.2012 and on the basis of these documents transaction of sale of shares completed in financial year 2012-13. Thus the assesee and other Directors/share holders has rightly disclosed the Long Term Capital Gain from sale of shares in their regular return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14. Therefore the action of the Ld. A.O making the addition for advance cash received on sale of shares at Rs. 40,00,000/- and Rs. 1,75,00,000/- during Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 and addition of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- for the amount receivable post search was not justified and is liable to be deleted. We accordingly order so and set aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and allow Ground No.3 for Assessment Year 2011-12 and Ground No. 4 & 5 for Assessment Year 2012-13 raised by the assessee namely Dr. Ashok Gupta Kumar in IT(SS) No.64 and 161/Ind/2017. 93. In the result appeal of the assessee Dr. Ashok Gupta for Assessment Years 2011-12 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....since the finding of Ld. A.O was partly confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) observing as follows:- I have considered the facts of the case, the written submissions of the learned AR, the assessment order and also perused the case record. It is seen that the appellant assessee has filled regular return u/s 139 for AY 2005-06 on 23.03.2006. The statement of total income and the details of account filed along with the regular return filed u/s 1 39 for A.Y 2005-06 clearly shows receipt of company dividend of Rs. 3,40,600/-. The same amount of Rs. 3,40,600/-is reflected in the loose paper (page No 122 of LPS-3) found during the c ourse of search at the office premises of Ayushman College situated at lllG-3, Lake view society, Shahpura, Bhopal. From the above it is clear that the sum of Rs. 3,40,600/- is dividend received by the appellant for AY 2005-06 which is also shown in regular return of income filed u/s 139(1) on 23.03.2006. In view of the above, it is clear that the sum of Rs. 3,40,600/- pertains to AY 2005-06 and is reflected in the return. u/s 139(1) and is therefore deleted. 4.2 Regarding the balance of Rs. 13,00,000/-, which is treated by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LPS-3. Copy of this loose paper is placed at page-3 of PB/B-1 dated 14.06.2017. On going through this loose paper we find that assessee received various payments during the period 06.08.2003 to 14.03.2005 totalling to Rs. 13,00,000/-. Ld. A.O has made addition during Assessment Year 2006-07. First and foremost when the addition has been made on the basis of loose sheet wherein date of payment is clearly mentioned there hardly remain any role of Ld. A.O to assess income in some other year which in this case is Assessment Year 2006-07. The contention of the assessee is that all the entries mentioned in this loose sheet No.122 of LPS-3 are through banking channel as evidenced by the copy of bank statements filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee on 17.03.2019. 103. In these given facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the transactions appearing in the alleged loose sheet No.122 of LPS-3 do not pertain to Assessment Year 2006-07 and thus no addition was called for in Assessment Year 2006-07 and further all the transactions appearing in this loose sheet are duly recorded in the in the books of accounts. We therefore set aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led for Assessment Year 2013-14, no addition was called for during the Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13. We therefore delete the addition of Rs. 90,00,000/- made in the case of the assessee for advance cash received during the Assessment Year 2011-12 from Bansal Group. The finding of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed. 109. Apropos Ground No.3 relating to addition of Rs. 1,52,000/- made on the basis of Page-61 of BS-1 found during the course of search shows some transaction of the cash received against Rs. 1,50,000/-. Inadvertently the total of four entries has been adopted at Rs. 1,52,000/- and the same figure has been carried till now. The actual position is that 10.09.2010, 18.09.2010, 21.09.2010 and 25.09.2010 an amount of Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- respectively are shown. Submissions made by the assessee before the Ld.A.O that these entries actually relates to transaction of purchase of 1000 equity shares of AMDPL from Smt. Bharti Patel through account payee cheque was not accepted by the Ld. A.O and he made the addition of Rs. 1,52,000/- observing as follows:- 14.3 The submission of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore making payment to Smt. Bharti Patel. The appellant also stated that he did not receive any cash amount from Mr. Bharat Patel. The address of Mr. Bharat Patel was also given by the appellant assessee and request was made to issue summons u/s 131 to him. 6.2 The plea taken by the appellant has no merit. The handwritten loose paper has been found and seized from the premises of the appellant assessee at the time of search. The said handwritten paper clearly mentions the name Mr. Bharat Patel The changing of name from Bharat Patel to Bharti Patel by the appellant is clearly an afterthought. The appellant has gone on to state further that the narration written as 'cash' on this paper is correct. This is a concocted story, as no evidence was filed in this regard either before the A.O or at the appellate stage. At the request of the appellant assessee when summons were issued to Shri Bharat Patel whose address was provided by the appellant himself, none attended. In view of the foregoing discussion it is clear that the sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- clearly shows unexplained cash receipt for A.Y 2011-12 and the addition made by the A.O on this count is confirmed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Rs. 25,000/- was received for purchase of equity shares from Smt. Bharti Patel and even the notice issued to Shri Bharat Patel at the address shown by the assessee was not served. In all the facts and circumstances of the case wherein the assessee has not denied that the transaction appearing in the loose sheet and explanation given is not sufficient to justify the submission made by the assessee, we find no reason to interfere in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and thus confirm the addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- and dismiss the assessee's Ground No.3 for Assessment Year 2011-12 in IT(SS) No.67/Ind/2017. 115. Ground No. 4 & 5 are general in nature which needs no adjudication. 116. In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2011- 12 is partly allowed. 117. Now we take up IT(SS) No.162/Ind/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal were raised:- 1.That the assessment made u/s 153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Income-Tax Act be held to be bad in law and on facts and be quashed. 2. That the addition of Rs. 1,93,040/- maintained and confirmed by CIT(A) made as per Para NO.9.5 of the assessment order be held to be bad and unjustified on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....residence and locker amounting to Rs. 70,540/- and Rs. 1,22,500/- respectively. Cash kept in locker points to the fact that it is unaccounted and not recorded in the books. For safety reasons the cash can be deposited in bank account from where it can be utilized as and when needed, as once the cash has been kept in locker it is not readily available for use. The plea taken by the assessee that cash of Rs. 1,22,500/- for F.Y 2011- 12 was received from bansal group cannot be accepted as it is not recorded in books of account. The cash found at the residence did not tally with the books of account. The A.O has rightly held that the cash amounting to Rs. 1,93,040/- has not been satisfactorily explained even though claimed by the appellant that the cash has been received from Bansal group the same could not be reconciled with the. books of accounts. Besides, the appellant assessee has not been able to give the reasons for receiving such huge amounts in cash and then keeping the same in bank locker. Therefore, the cash found at residence and locker during the Course of search amounting to Rs. 1,93,040/- is unexplained cash. The addition made by the A.O U/S 69A for A.Y 2012-13 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore delete the alleged addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- and Rs. 2,80,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O for the advances received in cash/cheque from Bansal Group. The finding of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and Ground No.3 & 4 of the assessee's appeal is allowed. 125. Now we take up Ground No.5 for Assessment Year 2012-13 which relates to addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the alleged unexplained cash payments. The Ld. A.O on the basis of the seized document Annexure BS-3 page 14 to 17 made this addition for the alleged cash bribe given by the assessee. The submission of the assessee that these pages 14 to 17 are rough calculations for the projects to be undertaken in future and there is no actual transaction ever taken place was not accepted by the Ld. A.O and he made the addition for Rs. 15,00,000/-. 126. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed as the impugned addition was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) observing as follows:- I have perused the submissions of the learned AR, the assessment order and also perused the case record. The submission of the appellant that the loose paper page no 14 of annexure BS-3 found and seized from the premises from Ayushm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aff are given. The names of the existing other colleges have also been given which are VVM Nursing College, Prasham college, RKDF and Rani Dullaiya College have also been mentioned. The expected bribe of Rs. 15,00,000/- is mentioned. Since all these papers are the estimated projected requirements, no addition can be made on this ground. This paper itself indicates that no expenditure is incurred but these are only projected estimates. In view of 'this, the additions made deserve to be deleted. 129. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supported the order of both the lower authorities. 130. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Through Ground No.5 assessee has challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made by Ld. A.O for the alleged unexplained cash bribes given on the basis of seized document BS-3 Page 14 to 17. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the alleged seized documents depicts rough calculation for the projections made by the assessee for putting up colleges for Nursing/Pharmacy/Homeopathy and Ayurvedic. Both the lower authorities have not accepted this con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5,000/- Stamp Rs. 3,000/-, Notary Rs. 1500/- and fees Rs. 30,000/-. In the statement it was stated that element of these payments to a particular document as rough calculation. Ld. A.O is not satisfied with this submission and he made addition of Rs. 39,500/- for unexplained expenditure. Assessee's appeal before Ld. CIT(A) did not bring any relief as the addition was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) observing as follows:- I have perused the submissions of the learned AA the assessment order and the various decisions cited and also perused the case record. It has been stated by the appellant that it is not in his memory as to which document these expenses relate to and the calculations o the paper may be rough working. The submissions of the appellant has no merit in view of the above reply which is unreliable and vague and he has no explanation to offer in this regard. The handwritten loose paper has been seized from the residence of the appellant assessee at the time of search. The said handwritten loose paper clearly shows that the expenditure amounting to Rs. 39,500/- has been incurred in cash by the appellant assessee and which is not been entered in the books of accounts. No ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.6 of the assessee's appeal stands dismissed. 138. Now we take up Ground No.7 wherein the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 21,16,800/- made by the Ld. A.O on the basis of loose paper page at 125 to 128 of Annexure LPS-3. Brief facts relating to this issue are that during the course of search at the premise of Ayushman College situated at JlIG-3. Lake view society Shahpura, Bhopal handwritten loose papers page no. 125- 128 ofannexure-LPS-3 were found and seized These papers are the detail of purchase of property G-48., measuring 588 sq. ft. @ Rs, 9000/- per sq.ft. The total amount made is Rs. 52,92,000/- out of which 31, 75,200/- (60%) has been paid by cheque and remaining Rs. 21,16,800/- (40%) paid by cash. Vide show cause notice u/s 142(1) dated 17/02/2014 the assessee was required to explain the above cash payment for purchase of property and reconcile the above with his regular books of accounts. The assessee was also required to show cause why the amount of Rs. 21,16,800/- not be treated as undisclosed income and added to the income of assessee for A. Y 2012-13. The assessee vide reply dated 21/02/2014 stated that:- "Regarding Page No. 125 to 128 of LP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6,800/- is paid in cash and not recorded in the books of account. In view of the above the order of the A.O calls for no interference. The addition of Rs. 21,16,800/- u/s 69 for A.Y 2012-13 is confirmed. 140. Now assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. 141. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following written submission:- Ground No. 7 (Page 17 to 20 of PB B-3): Addition of Rs. 21,16,800/- on account of unexplained investments - The Ld. AO has made this addition of Rs. 21,16,800 at Page 12, Para 12.9 on the basis of loose paper Page 125 to 128 of LPS - 3. The said papers are only jottings in respect of some shop of 588 sq. feet. It merely contains the proposal of estimated figures which mentions the figures of 15, 75 and 10. The assessee has neither purchased any shop nor has entered into any agreement. No paper was found which could show that the assessee has purchased or entered into the agreement or has paid any money. These are all estimated proposed offer. The assessee has neither made any payment nor entered into any agreement. The addition made on the hypothetical ground that the assessee has made cash payment is based on surmises and conject....