TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recorded from Arvind Naik who admitted to have sold the property and received consideration of Rs. 4 crores. 4. The AO noted that the property was registered in February, 2008 for a recorded consideration of Rs. 2.35 crores in the name of Mrs. Fouzia Farooq against the sale consideration of Rs. 4 crores. The sum of Rs. 1 crore was paid on the same date by cheque transferred from the bank account of Fiza Developers & Inter Trade Pvt. Ltd. [FDIPL] at SBT, Bangalore to the assessee's account in the same bank on which Sri B.M. Farookh issued cheque of Rs. 1 crore on 9.10.2006. Another advance payment of Rs. 1 crore paid vide Chq. No.32441 dated 20.11.2007 was drawn from the assessee's bank account with SBT, Mangalore which was not disclosed to the department. Therefore the AO proposed to treat it as undisclosed investment for AY 2008-09. Further, the source of cash payment of Rs. 1 lakh on 29.2.2006 is not evidenced in the books and the AO note that the same was considered for AY 2007-08. The assessee was called to explain the sources of payment of Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 70 lakhs & Rs. 1.3 crores along with documentary evidence. In the absence of details of sources and explanation of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see paid interest of Rs. 15.60 lakhs on loan borrowed by him. This seized document is not denied by the assessee. The assessee only denied the contents therein. In the document there were clear entries of payment of interest of Rs. 15.60 lakhs. These documents are confronted to the assessee. The assessee at all stages denied the transaction. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the deeming provision of section 292C goes against the assessee and the contents therein cannot be rejected outrightly. Admissibility of documents/evidence are materially different in income tax proceedings. It is settled proposition of law in income tax cases that income tax liability is to be ascertained on the basis of material available on record, surrounding circumstances, human conduct, preponderance of probabilities and nature of linked material and evidence available before the AO. The proceedings before the income tax authorities have been described as quasi-judicial proceedings in character. More so, it was held in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, 26 ITR 775 (SC) that assessment proceedings are purely administrative and the assessing office is not a court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder the head 'compensation receipt' and change of head is only a typographical error. However, we find that this was not brought out before the AO in spite of giving repeated opportunities to the assessee. Accordingly, we remit this issue to the file of CIT(Appeals) with a direction to call for a remand report from the AO and decide the issue afresh. 13. The next ground is regarding deletion of Rs. 6 lakhs on account of investment in purchase of portion of the property at Kanyana Village. The AO made this addition as undisclosed investment. The assessee submitted that seized document cannot be the basis for the addition unless there is some concrete finding by way of enquiry, confirmation and material to prove that the payment is actually made. Even otherwise, the same has been brought to tax by the AO in the same assessment year and hence addition cannot be made twice under different heads for the same set of transactions. 14. The CIT(Appeals) noted that the total amount as per the agreement to sell for Kanyana village is Rs. 13,57,014 stated in the assessment order. The amount recorded in books of assessee is Rs. 717,16,735 with a difference of Rs. 6,40,279. Since this dif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 40 lakhs to Prestige Shantiniketan property. Since the same was not reflected in the balance sheet, the AO sought to tax the same as unexplained investment. 21. The assessee submitted before the CIT(Appeals) that balance sheet of Four Eff Constructions a sum of Rs. 32,23,686 is shown and in personal balance sheet of assessee, Rs. 3 lakhs is shown and there is no difference. Thus entire amount is reflected in the balance sheet and ledger account copies were submitted before the AO also. It was submitted that in the sworn statement payment of Rs. 40 lakhs was admitted without referring to the books of account and vaguely remembered this payment. The actual payment is Rs. 35,22,386 which is fully accounted and there is no mention by the AO of any other payments. The shortfall of the amount mentioned and actual amount is Rs. 4,76,314. 22. The CIT(Appeals) observed that the total amount of Rs. 35,23,686 is appearing in the balance sheet and there is no dispute about it. The difference of Rs. 4,76,314 was an estimation error by assessee. The list of payments and amounts mentioned in the agreement match. He therefore deleted the addition on the reason that payments have been m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....27. The next ground is regarding deletion of addition of Rs. 9,92,00,000 in respect of unexplained loan from Sri Aboobakar, Steel Rage and Surya Industries. The AO made the addition based on balances available in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2008 standing in the names of above 3 parties. 28. The CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition on account of loan from Aboobakar by observing that the as per the balance sheet on 31.3.2008 the balance of Aboobakar is Rs. 9 lakhs and not Rs. 90 lakhs as mentioned by the AO. He deleted the other two amounts with regard to Steel Rage and Surya Industries by observing that the payments were made through banking channels. 29. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The CIT(Appeals) on going through the fresh evidence filed before him deleted the additions which was not confronted to the AO. Accordingly, we remit this issue to the CIT(Appeals) to confront the evidence to the AO and decide the issue afresh. 30. The next issue is with regard to deletion of addition of Rs. 1,61,91,389 on account of unexplained investment in purchase of property in the name of Mrs. A.K. Fouzia. 31. The assessee purchased two properties am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat this payment was made out of disclosed sources. Accordingly, the addition is sustained. 37. The next issue is regarding addition of Rs. 10,69,264 on account of undisclosed purchase of property at Bayar & Kanyana village. The AO made the addition as undisclosed purchase of property, based on the documents impounded from the premises of M/s. Mumtaz Traders. The CIT(Appeals) on perusal of sale deeds and the impounded material was of the opinion that the total land recorded is at Rs. 10,52,750 which matches with the amounts in the sale deed. The impounded material mentions the Sy.No. and the village for which the payments are made and these are recording of unaccounted money and cannot be brushed aside in view of the fact that there is clear mention of the fats leading to the purchase of property. The total purchase value is Rs. 21,22,014 of which is Rs. 10,52,750 is already accounted. The assessee could not bring any evidence to the contrary. He therefore sustained the addition of Rs. 10,69,264. 38. In our opinion, whether the amount of Rs. 10,52,750 has been recorded already or not has to be examined with reference to material available on record, after calling for a remand....