TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asis of an amount mentioned on loose papers along with rates per sq.ft. of different floors. The Tribunal has considered this aspect as under: "6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that it is the facts on record that in the seized diary the assessee has estimated and mentioned the figures for 66 shops at Rs. 2,38,77,000. Statement of Kiritbhai K. Shah was recorded under section 132(4) and the assessee has replied to various questions, as under: Question 21. What is the position of booking/sale in your building projects of Bardolpura and Madhupura which are in progress? Answer 21. Booking of about 35 offices has been made in Bardolpura. This booking i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have not made Madhukant Complex but has developed it. Whatever I am stating is being stated in the capacity of developer and about 66 shops and offices have been constructed. 3. The shops were constructed by Madhukant Construction Consultancy. The notings on page 2 in annexure A-9, a diary, was found and seized by the Department. On page 2 if the said dairy a shop-wise and floor-wise area and rates of Madhukant Complex, Bardolpura has been given with the complete break up. In the books of accounts for the Assessment Year 1995-96, the assessee has credited the rates of those shops at Rs.425 per sq. ft. for first floor, Rs.375 per sq.ft. for second floor, Rs.325 per sq.ft. For third floor and Rs.800 per sq.ft. for ground floor. As against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ell settled that if certain documents were found from the possession of the assessee during the course of search operation, burden lies on the assessee to explain the nature of transactions recorded in the said seized material. The assessee is duty bound to explain discrepancy, if found, on the basis seized materials vis-a-vis books of account. But when the assessee furnishes explanation which sought to be supported by evidence, the burden is shifted to the Revenue to establish that the explanation of the assessee is false. In the case of Shri S.K. Gupta v. Deputy CIT [1999] 63 TTJ 532, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi "C" Bench has deleted similar addition made on the basis of some seized paper by accepting the contention of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee has worked out floor-wise rate of the shop on the seized paper but it is not possible that every shop can be sold at that price and while selling the shops many purchasers may pay advance money. Therefore, rates of all the shops at the time of actual sales can not be the same as estimated in the seized paper. We find that in the case of K.P. Verghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597, The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held (page 618): - "...........It was not the contention of the revenue that the property was sold by the assessee to his daughter-in-law and five of his children for a consideration which was more than the sum of Rs.16,500/- shown to be the consideration for the property in the instrument of transfer and there was an understatement....