TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1032
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rch u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in the group cases of M/s. Lakshmi Gold Palace and M/s. Lakshmi Gold Khazaanaa Pvt. Ltd. on 08.02.2013 and warrant was issued upon the assessee viz., M/s. Lakshmi Gold Khazaanaa Pvt. Ltd. Certain incriminating documents have been found and seized from the premises of the assessee. Consequently notice u/s. 153A dated 07.02.2014 was issued to the assessee and under a letter dated 24.03.2014, the assessee requested the authorities to treat the original return of income filed u/s. 139(1) dated 30.09.2011 as per the return filed in terms of the notice u/s. 153 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 2,28,67,060/-. 3. From the seized document, it was found that the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs in cash to one M/s. Eureka Builders on 15.05.2010. The revenue relied upon the statement made by one Shri M.K. Ramakrishna, General Manager of the company in respect of such payment made to M/s. Eureka Builders is cash. The source of such cash payment was directed to be explained by the assessee, in reply whereof the assessee denied the fact of paying any cash to the said M/s. Eureka Builders and further stated that the statement of paying cash was only to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vide dated 30.09.2011 sent to the appellant to pay the due amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- with interest and marked as Annexure-C. Copy of the seized material Page No.53 of A/LGKPL/8 related to letter from Eureka Builders to M/s. Lakshmi Golds Palace dated 30.09.2011 is enclosed and marked as Annexure-D. Copy of the seized material page No.66 to 68 and 72 to 74 of A/I.GKPL/3 is enclosed and marked as Annexure-E. Copy of the seized material page No.21 and 22 of A/LGKPL/8 is enclosed and marked as Annexure-F. viii) The appellant submits that the appellant has not paid any cash payment to M/s. Eurekha Builders. The appellant submits that the appellant received the amount from M/s. Eurekha Builders through banking channel on 16.06.2010 a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The said amount was payable by the appellant for the year ended 31.03.2011. The appellant submits that the M/s. Lakshmi Gold Palace has due to the said M/s. Eurekha Builders for the year ended 31.03.2011 a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The said amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-payable by M/s. Lakshmi Gold Palace to M/s. Eurekha Builders was transferred to the account of the appellant in the financial year 2011-12. Consequently the tot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 30.09.2012 and the appellant shown the amount payable to M/s. Eurekha Builders at Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. Copy of the breakup of the Trade Payables as on 31.03.2012 is enclosed and marked as Annexure-H. xvii) The appellant submits that search under section 132 was conducted on 08.02.2013. Before search during the period financial year 2012-13 in view of litigation with M/s. Eurekha Builders the appellant passed the entry in the ledger account of cash payment to support the stand of the appellant that nothing was payable to M/s. Eurekha Builders. On the search the said ledger account was seized. However the appellant in the return of income filed for the assessment year 2013-14 shown the amount payable to M/s. Eurekha Builders a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. Copy of the breakup of Trade Payables for the A.Y. 2013-14 is enclosed and marked as Annexure -I. xviii) The learned Assessing officer has not passed any speaking order being a quasi judicial authority in respect of the addition made of Rs. 50,00,000/- as unexplained cash and consequently the addition made is liable to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayment was actually made by the appellant to M/s. Eureka Builders, which reflects the unaccounted income of the appellant. She, therefore, supports addition made u/s. 69 of the Act made by the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record particularly the orders passed by the authorities below. 9. The moot point involved in this particular case is this that as to whether the addition u/s. 69 of the Act of the impugned amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs is sustainable particularly when both the parties, the appellant and M/s. Eureka Builders has denied such cash payment made by the appellant. On this aspect, we have considered the legal notice issued by the said M/s. Eureka Builders dated 30.09.2011 and 23.02.2012 appearing at pages 28 & 33 respectively in the paper book filed before us. The authorities below relied upon the statements given by the said Shri M.K. Ramakrishna during search u/s. 132(4) of the Act of making such payment by the appellant in cash to M/s. Eureka Builders but has not considered the explanation rendered by the appellant to this effect that in order to re....