TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 857
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The assessee has raised the modified grounds of appeal: 1. That the impugned addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer and sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 is erroneous, wrong, illegal, arbitrary, bereft of jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. 2. The proceeding initiated under section 147 and notice issued and said to be served under section 148 is wrong and illegal. The assessment made is liable to be annulled/cancelled. 3. That, learned A.O. has erred and Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has wrongly su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. Tat the Learned Assessing Officer, has erred and Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has wrongly sustained the impugned addition appears to have framed the Assessment order without mentioning under which section of the income tax act, the addition on account of unaccounted receipt has been made. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT (A) and the Assessing officer have erred in not bringing on record any evidence to prove that the appellant has actually received the said cash which in fact is neither as found by the appellant nor found invested any were by the appellant. 9. That, since the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the above issues suffers from illeg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ading to a difference in the sale consideration of Rs. 1,96,37,500/- which was less/short reported by the assessee. The AO also found that M/s Ohm Developers has also admitted to have invested unaccounted income of Rs. 1,96,37,500/- on the purchase of the property in the application made before the Settlement Commission. 4.2 Based on the above, the proceeding u/s 148 of the Act, was issued against the assessee on account of escapement of income to the tune of Rs. 1,96,37,500/- only. However, the assessee before the AO requested to supply copy of the application made by the M/s.Ohm Developers before the Settlement Commission as well as copy of the order of the Settlement Commission. However, the AO denied to provide the same on the reason....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s.15,00,000/- was received and the property was handed over. The appellant has contended that though property was registered on 6/7 2015, the sale price of the property should be taken as stamp duty value prevailing on 26/3/2010 and not that as the draft sale deed dated August 2013. The appellant also contended that draft sale deed unsigned and therefore, cannot be relied upon. It is seen that the appellant has shown the sale of property as per sale deed registered on 6/7/2015 in the return of income. The draft sale deed which was found during course of survey at the premises of M/s. Ohm Developers reveals that the property was to be sold for Rs.5,47,37,500/-. M/s. Ohrn Developers has admitted that on-money of Rs.1,96,37,500/- has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch is the value for the purpose of stamp duty. This fact has not been disputed by the authorities below. ii. The draft sale deed based on which the addition has been made by the authorities below has never been signed by the assessee and therefore no credence can be given to such draft sale deed. iii. Likewise, the admission before the Settlement Commission made by the third party cannot be used against the assessee until and unless it is provided to the assessee for the confrontation. 9.1 We also note that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Venita Gupta 46 taxmann.com 439 has observed as under: The impugned order does not call for any interference. The fact that sellers had declared a sum of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the same. The relevant extract reads as under: From a plain reading of the Section it is manifest that to make an entry relevant thereunder it must be shown that it has been made in a book, that book is a book of account and that book of account has been regularly kept in the course of business. From the above Section it is also manifest that even if the above requirements are fulfilled and the entry becomes admissible as relevant evidence, still, the statement made therein shall not alone be sufficient evidence, still, the statement made therein shall not along be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is thus seen that while the first part of the section speaks of the relevancy of the entry as evidence, t....