TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made towards land dealing without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case." 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 31/07/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 8,69,300/-. It was processed U/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 05/11/2014. A search and seizure operations U/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the residential premises of the assessee on 10/09/2014. During the search, some loose papers found and seized and after making enquiry, the A.O. passed assessment order dated 23/12/2016 U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 16,69,300/- by making addition of Rs. 8.00 lacs on account of unexplained expenditure on account of cash payment made to Shri Madhav Mohta. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the parties and material placed on record, upheld the action taken by the A.O. Against which, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the ITAT on the grounds mentioned above. 6. The ld. AR appearing on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., as regards pages 18 to 24, it was explained that the debit vouchers are receipts issued by Mr. Madhav Mohta of Ramdaspeth against payment for purchase of plot in Gorewada. The Plot was jointly purchased with his wife (Mrs. Madhu Kothari) for Rs. 35,00,000/- out of which amount of Rs. 26,11,000/- was paid through post dated cheques and cash." 6.1 However, the Ld. A.O. rejected the said submission and has made addition of Cash Expenditure of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the income of Our Client under following assumptions and presumptions : That the then Ld. A.O., after perusing the Seized document i.e. B/1 page number 17, had arrived at a conclusion that the payments of Rs. 37,80,000/- had been made by Assessee to `Mohta'. That the Assessee has failed to explain the source of the payment made in cash. 7 In this regard, we would like to bring the following facts of Our Client's case to the notice of Your Honour : 7.1 During the year under consideration, Our Client with his wife had agreed to jointly purchase a Plot for Rs. 35,00,000/- at Gorewada from Mr. Madhav Vallabhdas Mohta admeasuring 1012.33 sq. meters out of the total property admea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Land to other persons also. 8.5 Due to the above disputes regarding the purchased Plot, the Registration was put on hold and therefore, the balance amount of Rs. 8,89,000/- was not paid to Mr. Madhav. 8.6 As regards the Cash payment, we are enclosing herewith the following details which could not be submitted during the course of assessment proceedings as the same were not available at that point of time, with a request that the same may please be considered as Additional Evidence and accepted on record: 1) Madhav Mohta's ledger Account in the books of Mr. Nilesh Kothari reflecting the amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- paid in Cash and Cheque. - Page 29. 2) Madhav Mohta's ledger Account in the books of Mrs. Madhu Kothari reflecting the amount of Rs. 16,61,000/- paid in Cash and Cheque. - Page 30. 3) Ledger Account of Cash In hand in the books of Mr. Nilesh Kothari showing the total cash in hand including gift received of Rs. 2,00,000/- and payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- for purchase of the property from that. - Pages 31 to 34. 4) Ledger Account of Cash In hand in the books of Mrs. Madhu Kothari showing the total cash in hand includi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material placed on record. From perusal of the record, we observed that the addition of Rs. 8.00 lacs was made in the present case by the A.O. and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) by holding that in fact the assessee had made more amount to the seller of the property as per page No. 17 of Anneuxre-B1 i.e. the seized document. However, on the other hand, the ld. AR has vehemently contended that the said page No. 17 of Annexure-B1 is a rough paper containing rough jotting. The said contention of the ld. AR was rejected by the ld. CIT(A). It is important to mention here that during the pendency of first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had moved an application for leading additional evidences under Rule 46A and the said application was allowed and the additional evidences were also admitted by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR has taken a specific ground that, although, during the year under consideration, the assessee and his wife agreed to jointly purchased a plot at Rs. 35.00 lacs from Mr. Madav Vallabhdas Mohta and in this regard, an agreement to sell between Mr. Madav Vall....