TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer. 1.01 On the facts and circumstances of appellant's case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming view of ld. AO of merely relied upon the search operations conducted and digital evidences gathered in case of M/s. Corner Point Infrastructure Private Limited (vendor) and its managing director on 16.10.2014 and 17.10.2014 assuming that appellant had paid cash amounting to Rs. 1,11,000/- under section 69B of the Act. 1.02 While doing so, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the ld. AO had not provided any evidence to substantiate for making addition and also erred in not appreciating that appellant had submitted confirmation statement confirming the payment schedule which shows no payment in cash to of M/s. Corner Point Infrastructure Private. 1.03 Your appellant prays to hold so now and delete the impugned disallowance. 2.00 YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND/OR DELETE ALL OR ANY GROUND(S) TAKE HEREINABOVE. 3. The only interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for Rs. 1,11,111/- under section 69B of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by cheque. In this confirmation, following cheque payments by the appellant are certified:- Date Amount (Rs.) 22.03.10 2,00,000/- 01.04.10 10,00,000/- 08.04.10 8,00,000/- The above mentioned entries of cheque are exactly matching with the entries recorded in the account of appellant found from the laptop as discussed above. Thus from the above mentioned cheque entries, it is clear that the account maintained on laptop was true and correct and hence the cash entries recorded therein cannot be ignored because as per the established legal position, the entire documents has to be read as a whole. The cash entry pertaining to the year under consideration is Rs. 1,11,111/- as on 18.03.2010 and for A.Y. 2013-14 is Rs. 2,61,000/- as on 26.08.2012. In view of the above factual and legal position, thus I hold that appellant has paid cash of Rs. 1,11,111/- out of his undisclosed sources for purchase of the flat and hence the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69B at Rs. 1,11,111/- is confirmed. Thus Ground No. 2 is dismissed. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve material": * The impugned addition has been made merely on the basis of "entries" recorded in the digital evidence impounded during the course of search. * There is no corroborative evidence whatsoever in support of the allegation as to any such cash payments having been made by the assessee. * It is a settled law that no addition can be made merely on the basis of records maintained by the builder in absence of any corroborative material in support of the same, which runs contrary to the record of the assessee. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of "ITO vs. Bharat A Mehta - 60 taxmann.com 31 (Guj)" (Annexure "E"). 8. On the other hand the learned DR contended that the list found from the laptop of the director showing the receipt from the assessee in cash is not a dumb document. The cash payment has been corroborated with the cheques payment showing on the same list from the assessee. Furthermore, this fact was also admitted by the directors of CPIPL. The learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that the statements of the directors of CPIL based on which the additions were made by the AO were not provided to the assessee for the rebuttal. 9.6. In view of the above, the question arises whether the addition can be sustained on the basis of search materials and the statements without providing the opportunity to the assessee for his confrontation/rebuttal. The answer is in negative. The principles of natural justice requires that the assessee should be given the opportunity of placing his points of contentions with respect to search materials and the statements based on which additions were made. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case Heirs and Legal Representative of Late Laxmibhai S. Patel vs. CIT reported in [2010] 327 ITR 290 wherein it was held as under: In the instant case, the finding was arrived at by the authorities below while denying an opportunity of cross-examining the important witness, namely, 'R' and the legal effect of that finding was certainly a question of law which required to be reviewed by the Court. The legal effect of the statement recorded behind the back of the....