TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 2029
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confirming the addition of Rs.4,66,660/- u/s 69 of IT Act made by AO on account unexplained investment in land by adopting the value of plot allotted to the assessee at Rs.3,150/- per sq. yd.(wrongly mentioned as sq. mtr.) as against the actual value of Rs. 1,150/- per sq. yd. paid by the assessee without bringing any material on record that assessee has made any such payment. He has further erred in confirming the addition made by AO on the basis of certain alleged document found from Shri Madan Mohan Gupta and his statement without providing such document to the assessee and opportunity to cross examine him even when specifically sought for. 3. The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal. 4. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee." 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The facts in brief are that the assessee has been allotted a plot of land from a society namely Rajasthan Tehsildar Sewa Parishad. On the basis of search conducted at the business premises of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta wherein certain papers were seized and his statement was recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs.4,66,660/-. Neither in the seized documents found from Shri Madan Mohan Gupta nor in the statement recorded u/s 132(4), he admitted that he received any amount from the assessee by way of 'on- money'. In fact, in reply to question nos. 25 to 27 of his statement u/s 132(4) with reference to the amount of Rs. 1,60,96,000/- as referred by the Ld. CIT(A), he stated that he does not remember that what is this working but it may be with reference to commission with respect to certain property which he offered for tax. In statement u/s 131(1) dated 24.02.2016 and 29.02.2016 recorded by the AO in course of his assessment proceedings, he has categorically admitted that he has sold the plots to the Rajasthan Tehsildar Sewa Parishad at the rate of Rs.1,150 per sq. yard on which he earned profit of Rs.87,20,000/- which he has already offered for tax and the remaining profit of Rs. 1,60,96,000/- is not his profit but profit of the Parishad but to purchase peace of mind, he has surrendered this amount in his hand. Thus, from the reading of the statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta and the papers found from him, it is evident that there is nothing to suggest that allottees of the plot have paid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of factual matrix of the case. From the record I found that the assessee had purchased Plot No. 84 measuring 233.33 Sq.yards in the residential project "Revenue Residency" at Village Peepla Bharatsing, (Jaisinghpura-Muhana Road), Bhankrota, TehsilSanganeer, Jaipur developed by Shri Madan Mohan Gupta in F.Y.2008-09 relevant to A.Y.2009-10 for total purchase consideration of Rs.2,68,330/- for plot and Rs.2,670/- for boundary total Rs.2,71,000/- (Rs.1150/-perSq.Yard). Thus, total investment by assessee is Rs.2,71,000/- out of this amount Rs. 1,90,000/- was paid through bank by taking personal loan and balance Rs.81,000/- was given in the financial year 2007-08. 8. In the assessment order, the AO alleged that the assessee has paid to the seller Shri Madan Mohan Gupta on money of Rs.4,66,660/- for the purchase of plot no.84 having total area of 233.33 Sq.Yards 9. In reply to the same, assessee submitted as under:- "a. That the allegation of the Id.AO is baseless and imaginary and not maintainable. b. The Id.AO has relied upon the statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta recorded by the I.T. Authorities on 23.05.2013 during the course of search. But from reading the reply given b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciples of natural justice because of which the appellant was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the appellant disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the appellant. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the appellant. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. Appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-....