AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ash generated from clients of the assessee ignoring the documents produced substantiating the source of cash. 4. That appellant has not got opportunity of being heard in the course of assessment proceedings for the sake of natural justice as adjournment sought was ignored. 5. That the appellant craves to leave to add, alter, modify, amend or delete any of the ground of appeal of hearing and all above grounds are without prejudice to each other." 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee was intercepted by the police authorities, who found cash amounting Rs. 22,50,000/- from the possession of the assessee. Later, the said cash was requisitioned by the Income Tax Department under section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). Subsequently, the statement of the appellant assessee was recorded under section 131 of the Act, wherein he admitted that he was engaged in the real estate business and presently he along with other partners; namely, Shri Pawandeep Singh, Shri Shyam Sunder Gangwani, Shri Chandeep Singh Chandhok and Shri Gurjeet Singh had constructed a building on plot no. 13/14, AB, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, which consisted of eight floors of 100....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 09/07/2019 were different from the individuals admitted by Sh. Mukesh Bharija in the first statement recorded u/s 131(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 09/05/2019. Sh. Mukesh Bharija was confronted with the above-mentioned facts and his statement was recorded on oath regarding the same. Based on the statement recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Sh. Mukesh Bharija, Sh. Vishal Sethi, Sh. Amit Khurana and evidences in the form of cash receipt of Rs. 10 lakhs which was admitted by Sh. Mukesh Bharija during the statement and after post requisition investigations, it is apparent that huge cash has been received by Sh. Mukesh Bharija and his partners in the sale of above mentioned eight floors in the property having address as 13/14 AB, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and it is clear that Sh. Mukesh Bharija and his partners have been involved in cash transactions which are not entered in their books of account. It is also possible that during post requisition/action, Sh. Mukesh Bharija might have cancelled some of the earlier BAYANA agreements and might have entered into sale transactions with new buyers. But this does not discount the factthat Sh. Mukesh Bharija would not h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ep Singh, who during his course of statement also denied that it was not signed by him. The signatures of Sis. Pawandeep Singh mentioned in Receipt/Part-Payment slip does not match with his signature mentioned in the purchase deed. Thus, it appears that the contentions of Sh. Pawandeep Singh that the signature mentioned in the Receipt/Part-Payment Slip were not done by him. Further, all the partners have denied to have received any cash component during the sale proceeds of the above said flats. The receipt was actually signed by Sh. Mukesh Bharija only and not by the other partners. Furthermore, in his statement dated 03.12.2020, in reply to Q.12 he has submitted that he has not received any cash from Sh. Kartik Luthra and the cash of Rs. 9,00,000/- was received from Sh. Kartik Taneja. Thus, in the absence of any concrete documentary evidence the theory produced before DDIT(Inv.), Unit -5(4), New Delhi for receipt of cash of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Sh. Kartik Luthra appears fabricated and concocted. 22. Further, with regard to receipt of cash from Sh. Vishal Sethi, who in his statement has submitted that he has given Rs. 10,00,000/-to Sh. Mukesh Bharija. In response, the assessee h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ishing the flat as stated by the assessee in his reply dated 20.08.2021. The assessee in his reply also submitted that he and his partners used to meet the specific requirements of the buyers of the flat so sold is also not proved as during their statements all the partners have denied to have received any part of cash from Sh. Vishal Sethi or any other buyer for any purpose. Further, Sh. Vishal Sethi in his statement has never mentioned the name of any of his partners as well. The assessee also did not submit any such bill for purchase of goods for any such specific requirement or any other documentary evidence that he or any of his partners was involved in meeting the specific requirement of Sh. Vishal Sethi, Sh. Kartik Luthra or any other buyer. Furthermore, in his statement dated 03.12.2020, in reply to Q.26 he has submitted that he has not received any cash from Sh. Vishal Sethi. Thus, this reply of the assessee also cannot be considered. 24. ............... 25. .............. 26. ............ 27. ............ 28. Before discussing the reply of the assessee, let's go through the whole story once again. On 09.05.2021, the assessee was caught with a cash of Rs. 22,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agreements were cancelled and the bayana was forfeited by me as their loan could not be sanctioned. He even failed to submit date of cancellation of these agreements and also failed to produce any cancellation document. He again submitted that each flat was sold by me at 24-25 lacs and no cash component was received by me from these sale considerations. During the course of assessment proceedings, he again changed his submission that the cash of Rs. 10,00,000/- was received from each of Sh. Kartik Luthra and Sh. Vishal Sethi for fulfilment of their specific requirement. However, he failed to produce the documentary evidence for the same this time also. Again, in response to this office show cause dated 09/09/2021 with regard to receipt of cash from Sh. Kartik Luthra and Sh. Vishal Sethi, the assessee submitted that the whole of consideration was received vide banking channels only for sale of immovable property. 30. From the above, it is clear that the assessee is repeatedly changed his statement and produced falsified documents before the tax authorities. The assessee has nothing in support of his claim that the amount of Rs. 22,50,000/- detained from him is from which source. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or Iron & Steel. The construction of the property and its sale thereof had not been doubted by the AO; hence, the expenditure incurred for the constructions sourced from partners and prospective buyers were explained and thus, no addition on this score was uncalled for. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed for relief. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued the case and supported the orders of AO and CIT(A). 6. We have heard both parties at length and have perused the material available on the record. There is no dispute on sale of properties made by the assessee along with others. Further, the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- [out of requisitioned cash of Rs. 22,50,000/-] claimed to have been received from Mr. Vishal Sethi and Mr. Kartik Luthra had been stated in initial statement recorded on 09.05.2019. In the said statement recorded on 09.05.2019, the assessee admitted the name of Mr. Sonu Khurana and thereafter corrected it by taking the name of Mr. Vishal (Answer to Q. No. 29 and 30 of the statement recorded on 09.05.2019). Admittedly, the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- had been claimed to have been received in cash. Now the claim of the assessee before us is that the sums aggregating....