TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 724
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has filed Cross Objection raising the following grounds of appeal: The assessee prefers a cross objection against the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 14, Mumbai vide order dated 29/01/2019 on following amongst other grounds each of which are without prejudice to any other :- 1.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition u/s.69B of alleged undisclosed investments of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- since the disputed flat, whose booking has been cancelled prior to search of the builder, belonged to the wife of the assessee; 2.0 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition since the documents/material found at premise of 3rd party cannot be used against the assessee in particularly when the copies of such material and retracted statements is not provided to the assessee for confrontation and opportunity of cross examination has not been provided to the assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the in this case information has been received from the office of the Dy. Director of Income Tax (inv.)-Unit 8(3) Mumbai i.e. from investigation wing of the Income Tax that search and seizure operation was conducted in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, and the [Assessing] Officer finds that the amount expended on making such investments or in acquiring such bullion, jewellery or other valuable article exceeds the amount recorded in this behalf in the books of account maintained by the assessee for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about such excess amount or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the "[Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the excess amount may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year". 5.9 In this case, assessee has made investment of Rs. 5.50/- crores towards booking/purchase of flat at "One Avigna Park" however the same has not been reflected in his books of account and source of such investment has not been explained by the assessce. In this case clear cut evidences has been brought on record through the search & seizure operation in the case of M/s Nish developers Pvt. Ltd. that assessee has paid Rs. 5.50/- crores in cash M/s Nish developers Pvt. Ltd. As per provision of Section 69B of the Act, the burden of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Though, the wife of the appellant Smt. Varsha Parmar had made a booking in the project "One Avighna Park" on 11/07/2013 by making cheque payment of Rs. 51 lakhs, the booking was cancelled by her and the advance payment was refunded back to her. The refund has been credited in the bank account of Smt. Varsha Parmar on 25/02/2014 whereas search and seizure action took place in the premises of M/s Nish Developers Pvt. Ltd on 04/04/2014, which was much after the date of cancellation of the booking by Mrs Varsha Parmar. The AO has not made any adverse comment in respect of the evidence submitted by the appellant regarding cancellation of booking by Smt. Varsha Parmar. It can also be seen from the data contained in the pen drive, which is reproduced by the AO in the assessment order that cash payment by Sanjay Parmar, the person mentioned in the pen drive continued to be made even after 25/02/2014. Following payments have been made by that person after 25/02/2014 Rs. 10,90,000/- on 25/02/2014 Rs. 25,10,000/- on 05/03/2014 Rs. 35,00,000/- on 18/03/2014 Rs. 25,00,000/- on 27/03/2014 Rs. 20,00,000/- on 31/03/2014 There is no plausible explanation as to why a person who has cance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had made any booking of flat at "One Avigna Park". No enquiry has been conducted against the assessee. The Ld. AO, in assessment order and in remand report, had not proved that the assessee had made any booking of flat at "One Avigna Park" and that too on making the payment of alleged on-money; b) The assessee's wife Smt Varsha Parmar has provisionally booked a flat on making a token cheque amount of Rs. 51,00,000/- on 11/07/2013 and such booking had been cancelled and refund of such deposit had been credited in her bank account on 25/02/2014 which is before the search conducted at premise of M/s. Nish Developers Pvt Ltd on 04/04/2014; c) The cash payments disclosed in pen drive seized during search of M/s Nish Developers Pvt Ltd discloses the dates from 25/02/2014 to 31/03/2014, whereas Smt Varsha Parmar had cancelled the booking much prior to such dates; d) The Ld. AO made the addition under mistaken identity. The pen drive containing the description that "Recd from Sanjay Parmar, he is having his office at Kalbadevi. The cash is received against the sale of flat' does not belong to the assessee since the assessee is not having any office at Kalbadevi, rather his office i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the statement of employees of Nish Developers. 10. Referring to the above, the DR for the revenue submitted that the above findings in the search and the pen drive and the statement make it absolutely clear that assessee has engaged into unaccounted on money transaction, hence, he pleaded that the order of the AO should be sustained. 11. Upon careful consideration we find that addition in the hands of the assessee is based upon search & seizure operation at the premises of Nish Developers Private Limited. The source is a pen drive entry recovered from an employee of the said developer. 12. The said pen drive purported to have an entry that cash against sale of flat was received from the assessee who is having's office at Kalbadevi. After detailed submission ld. CIT(A) has found that actually the wife of the assessee had booked a flat in the property of the said developer. That the said booking was done by making cheque payments. That the booking was cancelled and the amount of booking was duly refunded by the developer to the wife of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has found that this shows that the entry, that on money was paid for sale of flat to the assessee is not at all corre....