TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming AO's action of not providing the back up / soft copy of the unaccounted tally data seized from the premises of Cosmos Group. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred hi confirming AO's action of passing the impugned order in great haste by violating the principles of natural justice and fair play. 4. On the facts and the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming AO's action of making addition of Rs. 1,05,97,720/- on account alleged on-money received from Suraj Parmar or Cosmos Group, As evident, the sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of certain addition for Rs. 105.97 Lacs. The Ld. AR has not pressed ground nos. 1 & 2 and therefore, these grounds stand dismissed as being not pressed. 2. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of material on record, our adjudication to the subject matter of appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs. Assessment Proceedings 3.1 The material facts of the case are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee is stated to be engaged as buil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ales in a project viz. "Cosmos Jewels" having various buildings viz. Sapphire I, Sapphire II, Solitaire I, Solitaire II, Ruby I and Ruby II that were being constructed by the Cosmos group in Joint venture with the assessee company viz. M/s Riddhi Siddhi Developers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee was stated to be the owner of the plot on which the aforesaid buildings were constructed. Shri Suraj Parmar further stated that as per the terms of the Joint Venture agreement, the Cosmos group was to give 40% of the sale component, both cash and cheque, to the assessee and none of the cash component of the project formed part of the regular books of accounts or was offered to tax. The relevant extract of the statement has been extracted on para 8.1 of the order. The copy of date wise cash receipt as found was provided to the assessee and the same has also been extracted in para 8.3 of the order. 3.4 Accordingly, the assessee‟s case was reopened and notice u/s148 was issued on 25/11/2016 wherein the assessee was show caused as to why the 40% of cash component, which worked out to be Rs. 105.97 Lacs, may not be added to its income as unaccounted cash receipts. The director of the assessee co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t agreement did not mention anything about sharing of cash revenue. Finally, relying upon the seized data and statement made by Shri Suraj Parmar, 40% of on-money was added to assessee‟s income as unaccounted income. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 During appellate proceedings, the assessee reiterating the submissions made during assessment proceedings, also pointed out that in reply to question no.13, it was categorically stated by Shri Suraj Parmar that the cash generated from the project is distributed to the partners in the respective projects and it is mainly utilized for purchase of land. Therefore, whatever cash was generated by the cosmos group or Shri Suraj Parmar on account of on-money towards sale of shops / flats was distributed among the partners of M/s Cosmos Lifestyle whereas the assessee was not a partner in that entity. The assessee also submitted that addition made on the basis of confessional statement would not be sustainable in law in the absence of cross-examination as well in the absence of any corroborative evidence on record. Reliance was placed on various judicial pronouncements holding the field. 4.2 The Ld. CIT(A), inter-alia, noted that though ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of on-money towards sale of shops / flats that was distributed among the partners of M/s Cosmos Lifestyle and the assessee is not a partner of that entity. Further, in the statement of Shri Suraj Parmar, Shri Bharat Jhunjhunwala was stated to be the key person of the assessee group and stated to be the recipient of cash component. However, Shri Bharat Jhunjhunwala, in statement on oath u/s 131 recorded on 12/10/2015, denied having received any cash component from the cosmos group. The assessee has also denied having received cash component in the project. In such a case, the onus would be on revenue to prove the fact of exchange of cash between the Cosmos group and the assessee entity. We find that except for statement of Shri Suraj Parmar, there is no other corroborative evidence on record to substantiate this fact. 6. Another point to be noted is that the name of assessee entity nowhere figures in the seized data and there is no material on record which would suggest that any cash was paid to the assessee out of on-money received by Cosmos Group. The data only mentions abbreviations "RJ‟ which is amenable to several interpretations and could not go on to conclusively pr....