TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 891
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 23-12-2022. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of alleged on-money of Rs. 5 Crores on sale of certain property. The grounds of appeal read as under: - 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is bad in law. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- allegedly received by the appellant as "On Money" on sale of his property at Perambur and dismissing the appeal. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) grossly erred in not taking proper note of the Grounds of Appeal before him and the Written Submissions (dated 30.10.2023) filed in s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity of payment of the alleged "On Money" to the appellant for the Perambur property sold on 11.12.2020. 7. The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone wrong in not accepting the submission supported by judicial decisions that solely on the basis of evidence such as notings in loose sheets found with third parties and the statement of third parties, additions cannot be made without corroborative evidence and independent inquiries. 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) further failed to take note of the two circulars dated 10.03.2003/ 18.12.2014 issued by CBDT disapproving recording of confessional statements during search/ survey and the fact that in the present case such a confessional statement in contravention of CBDT's circulars ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, it transpired that the assessee earned capital gains on sale of certain properties which are tabulated on Page No.2 of the assessment order. One such property located at Perambur, Chennai was sold to S. Selvakumari for Rs. 16 Crores on 11- 12-2020. However, pursuant to search action u/s 132 on Shri R.Sabapathy group, a small notebook was found from Saravana Store Jewellery, Pursasiwakkam. The same provided details of cash loans received by Shri R.Sabapathy during financial year 2020-21 for Rs. 25 Crores for the purpose of investment in immoveable properties. A statement was also recorded from Shri A. Julian on 04-12-2021 who was Assistant General Manager of the concern. He explained the contents of the notebook. A statement was also reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot denied on-money payment for purchase of property. The assessee also did not ask for cross-examination of those persons. Finally, the capital gains were recomputed after adding amount of Rs. 5 Crores to the income of the assessee. Appellate proceedings 4.1 The assessee, inter-alia, submitted that sale consideration of Rs. 16 Crores as mentioned in the Sale Deed was accepted by stamp duty valuation authority as the market value for stamp duty purposes. There was no basis to infer that anything more was paid by way of on-money as alleged by Ld. AO. No evidence was gathered by the department and no valuation was done to establish that the actual value of the property was more to suggest probable payment of on-money. The assessee also d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i R. Sabapathy are contradictory statements, but the statement of R. Sabapathy is credible one as he is the person in whose case, search was conducted and the entries in the seized slips were initialled by him as deposed by Shri A.Julien in answer to question No.28. He also deposed that further details were known to Shri Sabapathy in answer to question No.29. In the circumstances, the statement of Shri R. Sabapathy given on the date of search, is credible and to be taken as true and correct. The reliance placed by the assessee in the Instruction issued by CBDT, is misplaced as there is recovery of seized material on which the searched person deposed the nature of entries and transactions. The above Instructions will be applicable only to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s payment to assessee as on-money against purchase of impugned property by his sister. However, this statement was retracted within a span of 3 months and Shri R.Sabapathy stated that loan of Rs. 17 Crores was received from Shri Rakesh whereas the balance of Rs. 8 Crores was out of sale of excess stock. It could thus be seen that Shri R.Sabapathy has taken contrary stand and his statement could not be held to be credible one. As against this, Shri Julian, in statement recorded during search, explained the contents of the notebook. He stated that "This loan of Rs. 25 Crores was taken in 2021, so all the dates are pertaining to the year 2021 only". The same contradict the statement of Shri R.Sabapathy that payment of Rs. 5 Crores was made in ....