TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 756
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Rs. 6,66,500/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of alleged unsecured loans received by: * Invoking the presumptions u/s 292C of the Act without providing an opportunity of being heard; * Not considering the submission made by the Appellant. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the aforesaid additions amounting to Rs. 6,66,500/-. Ground No. 2 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 10,50,000/-made by the AO with respect to the alleged parking charges. 2. The CIT(A) further erred in: * Not giving an opportunity to cross examine Shri Kulwinder Singh Narula before relying on his statement; * Not considering the documents filed during the course of assessment and appeal. 3. The Appellant prays that AO be directed to delete the addition amounting to Rs. 10,50,000/- Without prejudice to Ground No. 2 Ground No. 3; 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and without admitting that the amount is received towards allotment of parking space, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 145(3) of the Act and r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment order. The loans of Rs. 74.69 Lacs were held to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and added to the income of the assessee. Consequently, the interest paid on loans for Rs. 1.94 Lacs was also added back to the income of the assessee. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) retained the addition of Rs. 6.66 Lacs but deleted the remaining addition in view of the fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of search operations. The details of addition of unsecured loans as retained by Ld. CIT(A) are as follows: - No. Name of the lender Amount (Rs.) 1. Shri Rajeshbhai Thummar Rs. 1,65,000/- 2. Shri Jitendrabhai Thummar Rs. 1,65,500/- 3. Shri Niteshkumar Thummar Rs. 1,70,000/- 4. Shri Dalsukhbhai Thummar Rs. 1,66,000/- Total Rs. 6,66,500/- 4.2 The additions were made by Ld. AO since the passbook of above stated persons were found from the premises of the assessee. It was noted that these persons had advanced unsecured loans to the assessee. Upon perusal of passbook, it was noted that the grant of loans was preceded by immediate cash deposit in the bank account. Therefore, holding that the genuineness of the transactions and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d its own money in these accounts and later on transferred it in the garb of booking amount or as loans. Moreover, the passbooks are not in respect of assessee's own bank account rather the accounts are third-party bank accounts. No explanation has been sought by Ld. AO from any of these persons and no enquiry whatsoever is shown to have been done in the assessment order to sustain the addition. It is trite law that no addition could be made merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. Hence, we are inclined to delete this addition. This ground stands allowed. 5. Parking charges. 5.1 During the course of search action u/s 132 at 1st floor, B-wing, Millenium Avanish, Plot No. 11, Sector-10, Airoli on 28/01/2015, certain loose papers were seized which revealed the details of parking lot allotted by the assessee in the projects to various customers. Since the receipts of sale of parking lots were not reflected in the regular books, the assessee was show-caused as to why the same be not treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. 5.2 The assessee refuted the allegation by submitting that originally the cheques were taken from flat purchasers for allotment of the parking. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the total income. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 10.50 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee. 5.4 The Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee denied the contents of the incriminating loose papers without adducing any material evidence on record. The statement of Shri Kulvinder Singh Narula was brushed aside without giving any plausible reasons, The incriminating seized material gave complete detail of car parking no., flat no., customer name, mobile number and amount of payment and this document clearly reveal that the assessee received car parking charges which were acknowledged by writing OK against each entry. The contention that no parking charges were taken were not borne out of record. The alternative contention that only unaccounted car parking charges should be taxed on percentage completion method of accounting, was also rejected since these were unaccounted receipts which never travelled into the books of accounts. Finally, the additions were upheld. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5.5 We find that certain loose papers were found during the course of search on the assessee which form the basis to make the impugned additions in the hands of th....