TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcumstances of the case in the law, The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the Learner Assessing Officer stand for the addition made by The Learned AO on account of transaction found of Rs.10,00,000/- U/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts in the circumstances of the case The Learned CIT(A) did not accept, the affidavit filed by Shri Umesh D Tanna dated 25/01/2021 as confirmation of transaction of Rs. 10,00,000/- between him and Shri Mangesg D Gaikar. 4. On the facts in the circumstances of the case The Learned CIT(A) did not accept the replay of Showcase submitted by Shri Mangesh D Gaikar in office of Income Tax DCIT CC-2 Thane,that amount Rs 10,00,000/- was belong to him. 5. On the facts in the circumstances of the case The Learned CIT(A) rejected the confirmation of Shri Umesh D Tanna and Shri Mangesh D Gaikar that transaction between them. 6. On the facts in the circumstances of the case The Learned CIT(A) rejected the confirmation without cross verification from The Learned Assessing Officer or any persons. 7. On the facts in the circumstances of the case The Learned CIT(A) that the paper found during Search i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to accept that Rs.10 lakh were returned by the assessee to Mr. Mangesh D. Gaikar on behalf of his father in absence of any corroborative documentary evidence as to when the money in cash was received and how and when the same was kept with the father. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A) are as under: - "A perusal of the above statements confirm that cash of Rs. 10,00,000/- was actually paid by Shivam Tanna on 23/10/2017 to Mr. Shamal Gaikar (Mangesh D. Gaikar's son). The appellant and his father, Shri Umesh D. Tanna has maintained before the AO that the money under consideration belonged to Mangesh D. Gaikar. Shri Mangesh D. Gaikar in his statement has only maintained that the said sum of money was out of the maintenance charges collected for Mageshi Dazel III at Thakurli and the same was kept with Umesh D. Tanna, which was being returned in part by Shivam Tanna and therefore the entry in the diary. This version of the source of money of Rs. 10,00,000/- being returned by the appellant to Mangesh Gaikar is difficult to accept. There is no corresponding entry either in the books of accounts of the Tannas or the Gaikars as to when the so called maintenance charges....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e money kept by him with them. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that since the addition on account of on-money receipts in cash has already been made in the hands of Mr. Mangesh D. Gaikar, the addition of the same amount cannot be made in the hands of the assessee, particularly when the said money didn't belong to the assessee. 6. On the contrary, the learned Departmental Representative ("learned DR") submitted that there is no entry in the cash book of the father from whom the assessee has claimed to have received the cash which was handed over to Mr. Mangesh D. Gaikar. The learned DR further submitted that the loose paper only mentions that the amount has been received from the assessee and there is nothing on record that the said amount belongs either to Mr. Mangesh D. Gaikar or his concern. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As is evident from the record, in the present case, during the search and seizure action conducted under section 132 of the Act in the case of assessee's father and Mr. Mangesh D. Gaikar group, various documents were seized. In one of the documents (i.e. page No. 59 of bundle No. 1 found by p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t keep huge cash in my site office of M/s Kalyan Development Corporation or at my office Chikanghar. Mr. Umesh Tanna is very well know to me & he has his residence IN Building Mangeshi Sahara which is exactly opposite to my office Premises. Accordingly, I used to keep the money with Mr. Umesh Tanna which I called back whenever I need. Accordingly, between 27.09.2017 to 23.10.2017 I received the sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- from Mr. Umesh Tanna & his family out of the above money I kept with them. I believe that the explanation given hereinabove shall suffice for the purpose of proving the genuineness of the Transaction & it is not an incriminating material." 8. We further find that vide order dated 30/12/2019, passed under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2018-19, forming part of the paper book from pages no.113-135, the Assessing Officer held that Mr. Mangesh D. Gaikar was collecting charges in cash but the same was not recorded in the books of accounts as collection and at the same time, corresponding expenses are being recorded thereby getting the double benefit of suppressing the receipts and taxable profit. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.4,84,88,3....