TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1861
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the business of property dealing on commission basis. The case was selected through CASS. Accordingly, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, ld. AR of the assessee appeared and submitted relevant information. The case was selected for the reason that assessee has made bank deposits in its bank account on different dates. The assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 25.02.2014 accepting the submissions of the assessee and a mere disallowance of Rs. 2 lakhs was made to cover up the possible leakage in the revenue and accordingly, the assessment was completed. 4. The case records were verified by the Pr.CIT, Karnal and during the inspection, it was noticed that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny mainly to examine source of cash deposits appearing in the same bank accounts maintained by the assessee in HDFC and ICICI Bank, Karnal. He observed that on perusal of the assessment records, source of cash deposits has not been properly explained by the assessee and AO has not made requisite enquiry/verifications about the source of these cash deposits. He observed that during assessment proceedings, ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der accepting the submissions of the assessee without making requisite enquiry in this case. Accordingly, notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued to the assessee directing assessee to explain source of cash deposits appearing in HDFC and ICICI, Karnal on different dates. 6. In response, assessee submitted his details of capital account for different years. Further with regard to cash deposit of Rs. 45.71 lakhs and Rs. 7 lakhs, it was stated that the requisite explanation was already furnished before the AO and AO had accepted the same. Assessee also submitted photocopies of different affidavits which were submitted during assessment proceedings. It was also submitted that Mr. Rohit Dhawan has denied of giving any advance or loan yet the assessee submitted that it is not true because Mr. Rohit Dhawan has filed suit against the assessee accepting that he has given advance/loan for purchase of the property. Further PCIT observed that assessee has not disclosed the interest income earned during the year. After considering the submissions of the assessee, PCIT observed as under :- "i) As far as interest income of Rs. 25,975/- is concerned, the assessee did not show this income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent dated 23.12.2013 and denied of giving that statement under some threat or coercion. Otherwise. also it is highly improbable that Sh.Nand Khurana would pay Rs. 7 Lacs to the assessee for the purchase of a plot which was sold by Sh.Randeep Rana and purchased by Sh.Raj Kumar as the available evidence do not support this submission. vi) As far as the affidavit of the assessee in respect of Plot No.463 is concerned. it simply says that Rs. 17.54 Lacs in cash was paid by Sh.Rohit Dhawan to him in cash on different dates for purchasing the plot on behalf of Sh.Krishan Lalit. Considering the statement of Sh.Rohit Dhawan and in the absence of any other evidence, the affidavit of the assessee cannot be accepted at its face value. 7. With the above observation, PCIT observed that cash deposits appearing in the saving bank account in HDFC and ICICI, Karnal are unaccounted investment of the assessee, which needs in depth scrutiny/investigation. Similarly, interest income of Rs. 25,975/- also remained to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. Further details of Rs. 92,000/- interest income from different parties and corresponding loan amounts also need to be enquired by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; 21.10.2010 Advance received from Rohit Dhawan 50,000 29.10.2010 Advance received from Rohit Dhawan 1,00,000 30.10.2010 Advance received from Rohit Dhawan 1,00,000 01.11.2010 Advance received from Rohit Dhawan 2,70,000 11.11.2010 Advance received from Rohit Dhawan 2,00,000 26.11.2010 Advance received from Rohit Dhawan 2,00,000 10.12.2010 Advance received from Rohit Dhawan 2,83,000 30.12.2010 Advance received from Rohit Dhawan 2,24,000 05.01.2011 Advance received from Rohit Dhawan 2,00,000 12.01.2011 Advance received from Rohit Dhawan 2,50,000 25.01.2011 Advance received from Rohit Dhawan 2,60,000 04.02.2011 Advance received from Rohit Dhawan 2,00,000 05.02.2011 Advance received from Rohit Dhawan 1,25,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso payment by cash. Therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted and he also agreed that the order giving effect to order passed u/s 263 was ex-parte and several opportunities were granted to the assessee by the lower authorities and assessee has not utilized the same. Accordingly, he prayed that additions made in the assessment order may be sustained. 12. Considered the rival submissions and material available on record. We observed that the assessment order passed by the AO is cryptic and there is no record to show that he has carried on the requisite investigation. During revision proceedings, PCIT observed that the parties involved, Mr. Nand Lal Khuran and Mr. Rohit Dhawan, have denied specifically the relevant cash payments made to the assessee for the relevant transactions. However, before PCIT, assessee has submitted that Mr. Rohit Dhawan has filed a case against the assessee for recovery of Rs. 15 lakhs. All the information available on assessment record clearly shows that AO has not carried out requisite investigation before completing the assessment and he has merely relied on the affidavits filed by the assessee without corroborating the relevant evidences....