TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....receipt thereof. In response, the assessee filed his return declaring NIL income. Subsequently the assessee revised his income on 4th March 2005 declaring total income of Rs. 1,67,083 and agricultural income of Rs. 57,239/-. 3. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 21st September 2005 and it was served on the assessee on 26th September 2005. Subsequent notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 14th June 2006 and served on the assessee on 28th June 2006. The advocate and authorized representative of the assessee filed some information. The questionnaires were issued vide letters dated 20th July 2006 and 16th October 2006. The representative of assessee filed details called for. 4. The Assessing Officer assessed the total income as Rs. 19,25,286/- and agricultural income of Rs. 57,239/-. Appellant was held liable to pay interest of Rs. 11,29,825/-. It was directed that demand notice be issued accordingly and show cause notice u/s. 274 r/w 27(1)(c) of I.T. Act was issued. 5. The Assessment Order dated 20th December 2006 was challenged by preferring appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Vide order dated 16th October 2008 the appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....own commission received from January-2001 and February-2001. The account book was not available on the date of search and the same was produced during post search inquiries and assessment proceedings. The assessee has received similar commission in the earlier years and subsequent orders; (i) In reply to the questionnaire dated 16th October 2006, the assessee in his letter dated 1st November 2006 stated that all the notings appearing in seized material No. A/IF/01 and A/IF/02 are real estate transactions on which assessee got commission, which has been accounted in the books of account. Some of the names appearing in the list are relating to the commission received from M/s. Dempo; (j) The assessee was called upon to explain about payment of certain amount to tenants/mundakars and whether said payment was made directly to tenants/mundakars. In reply, it was stated that amount has been directly paid to the tenants by cheques/pay orders; (k) The assessee in his letter dated 12th December 2006 had submitted reply in respect to letter of M/s. Dempo and clarified that names of tenants are recorded by M/s. Dempo in the year 1996-97. The assessee had received commission from M/s.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evelopers directly to the tenants/mundakars by cheques/pay orders and hence question of writing names of tenants in the assessee's diary does not arise. Thus, it was established that M/s. Devashri Real Estate Developers has not given any amount to the assessee to disburse to the tenants/ mundakars. The names given by M/s. Devashri Real Estate Developers and names written in the seized material does not match. Therefore, assessee's statement that names and amounts mentioned on pages 3, 7 and 9 of the seized material are relating to real estate business for assisting M/s. Devashri Real Estate Developers for vacating tenants/munadakrs from the proposed construction site and the amount mentioned against such names are the total consideration received by parties and the assessee has received only commission out of those transactions, is without any basis. It was proved that transactions were not relating to real estate dealings on which assessee has received commission of Rs. 1,50,000/- but the assessee has spent Rs. 30,85,000/- during the previous financial year. Hence amount of Rs. 30,85,000/- was added to the income written as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of I.T. Act. The Assessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e stating that amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- was given to Newton. The assessee gave explanation to the entries and stated that diary belongs to the assessee and his wife and entries in the diary were made by him and his wife. He did not recollect the said person to whom the amount is given. However, amount given to the person is returned back on different dates from March-2001 to August-2002. The assessee could not explain the entries properly. Subsequently vide letter dated 1st November 2006 it was stated that amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was advanced at the agricultural farm to Mr. Newton for putting fencing to agricultural farm. Since he did not complete the job, money was recovered back. The Assessing Officer found that recovery of excess amount has not been shown as receipts in the amount. 12. During the course of search at the residence of assessee material marked as A/IF/01 and A/IF/02 were seized which contain lose papers and notings in the diary. In the material marked A/IF/02 and A/IF/01 total of the amount written as Rs. 30,85,000/- was written as paid and Rs. 7,15,000/- was shown as balance. During the course of search assessee was questioned about contents of documents. It was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made to assessee towards liaisoning and assisting M/s. Devashri Real Estate Developers in negotiating with tenants and mudakars for resettlement and development of property where they have constructed a complex. It was also stated by them that amount has been directly paid to the tenants/mundakars by cheques/pay orders. The names and amount given by M/s. Devashri Real Estate Developers was not in conformity with the names and amounts written by assessee in the seized material and also amounts were paid directly to the tenants by cheques and/or pay orders, the question of writing names of tenants in the assessee's diary does not arise. The assessee submitted his reply vide letter dated 12th December 2006 stating that those were the names of tenants recorded by M/s. Dempo in the year 1996-97. He has received commission from M/s. Dempo for the relevant period of assessment 2001-02. The Assessing Officer opined that assessee's contention that names mentioned in M/s. Devashri Real Estate Developers letter are relating to the year 1996-97. The opinion from M/s. Devashri Real Estate Developers was called for relating to TDS made by them during the year 2000-01 r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax challenging the Assessment Order dated 20th December 2006. The appeal was filed for the A.Y. 1999-2000 to 2005-06. The Commissioner of I.T (Appeals) ('CIT(A)') noted that all the major issues in this case have been dealt with by Assessing Officer in the assessment order passed for the A.Y. 2001-02 and the appellate order will first check up and adjudicate the issues relevant for A.Y. 2001-02 and thereupon individual issues in other assessment years will be taken up. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has disallowed excess exemption claimed of Rs. 17,800/-. The said ground was not pressed by Appellant and hence same was dismissed. It was observed that addition of Rs. 3,84,000/- made by Assessing Officer after working of peak credit is upheld. The CIT (A) also confirmed the addition of Rs. 55,186/- by Assessing Officer after marking out peak credit in the undisclosed bank account. The ground regarding addition of Rs. 10,000/- made by Assessing Officer for amount receivable from Mr. Newton out of agricultural amount was not pressed. Other ground urged before CIT (A) was against addition of Rs. 29,03,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d no occasion to refer such payments made by M/s. Devashri Real Estate Developers and therefore Assessing Officer was right in treating the transaction recorded in the seized papers as distinct from the payments made by M/s. Devashri Real Estate Developers. The CIT(A) also upheld the Assessing Officer's action in charging interest u/s. 234B of I.T. Act. Vide order dated 16th October 2008 appeal for the year 1999-2000 to 2005-06 was partly allowed. 15. The appeals were preferred before ITAT, Panaji against order dated 16th October 2008 passed by CIT(A). The ITAT has observed that interest is to be increased by the amount payable under(i) of Section 234B of I.T. Act. Such an increase can be made only if interest u/s.234B has been charged in the original assessment. The ITAT remitted the matter back to Assessing Officer for verification of facts and adjudication. 16. The ITAT observed that CIT(A) has already considered the issue in detail about peak credit in the bank account and rejected said ground. The ITAT also dealt with the ground relating to entries made in the diary found at the residence of assessee. The Tribunal considered the fact that Assessing Officer has verified from ....