TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 815
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ructures and certain documents were found and seized. As per the loose sheets found and seized in the premises of M/s. Srinivasa Infrastructures, there are several cash transactions involved in the sheet which are marked as page no.149 of Annexure-1. The said documents were confronted to the assessee and a statement u/sec.132(4) of the Act was recorded on 07.02.2020 wherein the assessee admitted that, he along with his wife Krishna Veni Kandala has paid Rs. 1 crore to M/s. Vandana Infra Developers Private Limited as advance for purchase of property out of which Rs. 50 lakhs was paid through cheque which was withdrawn from his Firm viz., M/s. Srinivasa Infrastructures and the balance sum of Rs. 50 lakhs was paid in cash. Hence, the Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings u/sec.153C of the Act and issued notice dated 25.08.2021 calling the assessee to file his return of income. In response, the assessee filed his return of income on 06.02.2024 for the assessment year 2020- 2021 declaring total income of Rs. 12,56,070/-. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.143(2) of the Act on 06.02.2024 and various notices u/sec.142(1) of the Act calling the assessee to furnish his explanat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bserved that, the assessee was failed to discharge his onus to prove the source of investment made in purchase of property and therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs [being 50% of assessee's share] is in accordance with the provisions of sec.69 the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the authorities below has made the impugned addition of Rs. 25 lakhs [being 50% of assessee's share] in the hands of the assessee u/sec.69 of the Act without there being any incriminating material found or seized and the impugned addition has been made based on 'dumb document' and, therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained the learned CIT(A), is not in accordance with law. He further submitted that, the Assessing Officer has failed to pin-point what material found and seized which leads to the impugned addition of Rs. 25 lakhs except relying on a 'dumb document' marked as page no.149 of Annexure-A1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Colony, LB Nagar, Hyderabad and as per the loose sheets found, marked as page no.149 of Annexure- 1, there are several cash transactions involved. The same was confronted to the assessee viz., Sri D. Srinivasa Reddy and a sworn statement was recorded u/sec.132(4) of the Act dated 07.02.2020, in which, the assessee confirmed that, he along with his wife paid Rs. 1 crore to M/s. Vandana Infra Developers Private Limited as advance for purchase of property, out of which, a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs was paid through cheque which was withdrawn from his Firm M/s. Srinivasa Infrastructures and the balance sum was paid in cash. Since the assessee did not respond to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs in the hands of the assessee being half share of Rs. 50 lakhs. Even during the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee was unable to prove the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs invested out of his known sources and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) has sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer by rejecting the explanation submitted by the assessee. The main issue involved in this appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wife with M/s. Vandana Infra Developers Private Limited for purchase of open plot of 83 sq. yards and 248 sq. yards situated at Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal. As per the sale agreement, the assessee has paid Rs. 50 lakhs through cheque and an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs on 27.01.2020 by way of cash for purchase of property. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that addition made by the Assessing Officer is not supported by any incriminating material found as a result of search and further, the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer is a 'dumb document' and cannot be treated as incriminating material is devoid of merit and thus, rejected. 8. In so far as the case law relied upon by the assessee in the case of Pr. CIT vs., Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., (supra), in our considered view, the facts of the present case are entirely different from the case considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case and, therefore, in our considered view, the said case is not applicable and thus, rejected. Further, although, the assessee claims that he has paid consideration for purchase of property out of funds drawn from partnership firm, but, in our considered view, the learn....