2023 (10) TMI 265

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nst law and facts on record. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the issuance of notices u/s 153C/142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the proceedings conducted there under are against the provisions contained in the Income Tax Act, 1961 and is bad in law and hence liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 95,60,000/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act without going through the facts of the case, statutory provisions as well as explanation filed during the course of appellate proceeding. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(1) of the Act were issued and A.O. completed assessment on 18/03/2016 by making addition of Rs. 95,60,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). 5. As against the assessment order dated 18/03/2016, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28/02/2019 dismissed the Appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dated 28/02/2019, the assessee preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 6. Ground No. 1, 5 & 6 are general in nature which requires no adjudication. The Ground No. 2 regarding issuance of Notice u/s 153C/142(1)/ 143(2) of the Act. The Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the order of the A.O. and C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xplanation filed during the course of the Appellate Proceedings, erroneously confirmed the addition. 9. The Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the observations and the conclusion of the CIT(A) on the above issue. 10. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. During the assessment proceedings, in response to notice issued by the A.O., the assessee replied that amount of Rs. 26,30,000/- paid through cheque while purchasing the property is part of its books of accounts, whereas cash amount of Rs. 88,60,000/-has been surrendered by Sh. Anil Mittal. The A.O. took view that land were purchased in the name of the assessee company and the cheque amounts have admittedly accepted by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s self explained that balance amount of total cost and cheque amount was paid through cash which amount to Rs. 88,60,000/-. Further, appellant company admitted at AO level that cheque amount is the part of companys. Books of Account and cash amount was owned by some other person. This fact also makes it clear that cash component was there. Thus, argument of Ld. A.R. looses its stand and is hereby rejected." 12. It is observed that the assessee company had purchased four lands situated at Agra during the period from 16/09/2010 to 28/01/2011. The total cost of land was at Rs. 11,14,90,000/- and the amount paid through cheque was Rs. 26,30,000/-, thus, it is found by the A.O. that the amount of Rs. 88,60,000/- was paid through cash. Apart f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he hands of Shri Anil Mittal. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to produce documentary evidence to substantiate the claim that the cash of Rs. 88,60,000/- have been already taxed in the hands of Sh. Anil Mittal. The assessee/AR could not produce any evidence like copy of statement u/s 132(4) of the Act claim to have been given by Sh. Anil Mittal or other Directors which may show that said cash was owned by Sh. Anil Mittal. Further, the CIT(A) has also perused the assessment order in the case of Sh. Anil Mittal and found that nowhere in Page No. 83 of LP 15, discussed by the A.O. and even in the calculation of peak credit also, said page was not taken into consideration. Thus, the entries found in the seized document ....