TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 727
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is illegal and bad in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the order in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,05,57,000/- made by the Assessing officer as alleged unaccounted income received from sale of flats over and above registered value. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal." 3. Briefly stated the facts are, a search and seizure action was carried out in the case of Anand Rathi group on 24.09.2013 and the office premise of director of Assessee company, Shri Pradeep Gupta was also searched. During the course of search, some loose papers were found and seized from the office premise of Shri Pradeep Gupta. Statement of Shri Pradeep Gupta was recorded and he was confronted with the seized material. In the statement, he has admitted that the seized material contains the workings of amounts received in cheque and cash on sale of three flats in two projects, Vishwariya project and Padmavati Nagar project. 4. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 153C dated 11.01.2016 requiring t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant company is assessable in its hands. Shri Gupta is another legal entity. If he incurs expenditure not recorded in his books and is not explained from sources which are offered tax by him, clearly the same is taxable in his hands. Even if the appellant company were to give money to Shri Gupta from its tax paid sources, the amount received by Shri Gupta would be taxable in the hands of Shri Gupta. The appellant has not understood and appreciated the distinction between the two taxable entities. It is also noted that Shri Pradeep Gupta has denied expenditure on renovation of his flat at Beau Monde, Prabhadevi, Mumbai. The contention is therefore rejected. 3.6 The appellant has contended that the buyers of flats have not been examined to corroborate cash payment and opportunity of cross examination is not provided. I find this to be a specious argument for two reasons. Firstly, by admitting to the fact that cash was received in the course of search, the appellant precluded the investigation wing from carrying out further investigation. Secondly, at this stage the purchaser may not accept having made payments in cash as it may be self-incriminating for them, and presumption is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vestigating team. As it is clear that am director of many companies and receive various documents and reports which includes budget, projection, quotations as well performance reports. At times, while reviewing the various reports I need to have the brief and background on various reports and documents. None of the documents seized by the officials have been prepared or signed by me. These are mere excel print outs and I have not authored any document or bear my hand writing. Investigating team was hell bent on questioning on each and every paper and number mentioned on papers found at my home or at office. Hence the statement was obtained from me during the course of said search action at my residence or at office under coercion, wherein I was asked to admit all unexplained numbers and amount mentioned on few documents as either cash receipts or cash payments. I was informed that ultimately my statements will be corroborated with the financial statements and in case the financial statements and bank accounts also reveals such cash income or payment then only it will be added to my total income. I have learnt that none of these statements have been verified or sought explanation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty can rely upon and, though not conclusive, yet could be decisive of the matter unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. (iii) Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 64 (SC): It was held that it is true that an admission made by an assessee constitutes a relevant piece of evidence but if the assessee contends that in making the admission he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or on untrue facts such an admission cannot be relied upon without first considering the aforesaid contention. (iv) Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal [AIR 1979 SC 861]: It was held that evidentiary admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong, but they do raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them. The Supreme Court further held that unless shown or explained to be wrong, they are an efficacious proof of the facts admitted. 9. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee inviting our attention to the paper book and the letter dated 24.02.2016 filed before the Assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings, it is submitted that the Assessee has denied of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee company was also covered in the above search and certain papers were found in his possession were seized. The issue revolving around the seized paper/document is reproduced for the sake of clarity:- 12. When cross verified the above evidences with Shri Pradeep Gupta, he agreed that this belongs to the projects namely Vishwariya project and Padmavati Nagar project at Jaipur. In the statement he agreed that cash of Rs. 105.57 (62.07 + 43.50) lakhs were generated in Vishwariya project and submitted that Rs. 47.50 lakhs were utilized in Padmavati Nagar project. The balance was utilized in the renovation of his own flat at Beau Monde at Prabhadevi, Mumbai. It is important to note that all these evidences were found in the personal cabin belongs to the Director Shri Pradeep Gupta. None of the transactions reflected in the incriminating material found during search were matching with the Books of Accounts maintained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has presumed that these transactions were carried out by the Director and will definitely belongs to the assessee. The other relevant issue is Shri Pradeep Gupta has retracted the statement recorded during search proceedings. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st the director and corroborated the transaction with the buyers of the flat. 17. There are various judicial precedents wherein, it has been held that no addition can be made on the basis of statement which has been obtained under undue stress and coercion. After the retraction made by director of company, original statement has no evidentiary value. 18. Further, it is submitted that in order to prove that no reliance can be placed on the retraction made by director of assessee company, the Assessing Officer must have made the efforts for issuing notice/summons to buyers of the flat but Assessing Officer chose not to make any further enquiry and has placed reliance only on the original statement. The Assessing Officer should have made cross verification with the buyers of the flat, which the Assessing Officer has failed to do so in the present case and merely made addition on the basis of statement of Director of company. During the course of assessment proceedings when the director of assessee company denied of receipt of any on-money it was the duty of Assessing Officer to issue summons to buyers of the flats and make enquiries which the Assessing Officer has failed to do in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3 F/1 SUNIL KUMAR GOYAL ABOPG4618B 24-09-2012 1554.61 sq.ft 20,78,049 24,35,000 14,61,000 24.09.2012 9,74,000 First Floor S/O RAMSWROOP GOYAL 15/42 MALVIYA NAGAR JAIPUR 4 F/2 DR YOGESH KUMAR BHRGAV AHGPB1086Q 14/12/2012 1114.80 sq.ft 18,07,355 22,00,000 5,00,000 11.12.2012 8,80,000 First Floor S/O DEVI PRASHAD BHARGAV 8,20,000 14.12.2012 1 A BANGLA JAT STATION ROAD SITAPUR (UP) 5 S/1 ANIL KUMAR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sale of flats over and above registered value. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 25,50,575/- made by the Assessing officer as alleged unexplained portion of cash investment in immovable property u/s. 69B of the Act. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal." 23. On the basis of search and seizure proceedings conducted on 24.09.2014 under Sec. 132 of the Act in the case of Anand Rathi group, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 143(2) dated 16.09.2015 and the assessment u/s. 143(3) was framed in the case of the assessee company and its income was assessed at Rs. 1,05,06,290/- vide order dated 31.03.2016. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the additions made in the assessment before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee dismissed the appeal. 24. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. As one of the issue of receipt of on-money on sale of Flat No. 302 and 303 of Unique Builders amounting to Rs. 32,64,625/- involved in the present appeal of the ass....