TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3(3) was completed on 18.03.2015 at an assessed income of Rs. 6,00,95,560/-. 3. Now what comes up is that there are two additions which are in dispute first of Rs. 1,61,98,000/- as ground nos. 3&4 and another addition of Rs. 4,29,92,220/- covered by ground nos. 1&2. The background to these is the allegation of revenue that a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the appellant on 27.09.2011 at J-97, Sector-10, Faridabad. During the course of survey, a diary named as Day Book was found in the briefcase of the appellant. In the said diary, there were total transactions of Rs. 4,29,92,220/- in cash from 14.09.2010 to 26.09.2011. Allegedly, the appellant admitted that the Day Book belonged to him but did not explain the transactions therein. During the assessment proceedings again, the appellant was confronted to explain the transactions contains therein. It was stated by the appellant before the AO that amount of Rs. 4,29,92,220/- does not represent any amount of cash balance for cash in hand and if was balance due to be paid to Mr. Garg etc. entered with GWC infrastructure, etc. The deal of Mr. Garg etc, was for Rs. 8,80,00,000/- as the appellant was consultant in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e available to the AO for his comments and necessary report. The AO in the remand report vide letter No 257 dated 19.09.2016 stated that the appellant could not produce any corroborative evidence during remand proceedings in order to explain the said documents and contained transaction on behalf of Shri Bharatpal Singh. The AO stated that the copy of agreement (page 4 to 9 of the paper-book) was a photocopy and in the absence of its original, its genuiness could not be verified. Similarly, the other documents furnished by the appellant as additional evidence could not be verified, as the appellant failed to make available the original documents and also failed to produce Shri Bharatpal to substantiate the explanation furnished. In the rejoinder, it was stated by the assessee that the AO has not required the appellant to produce Shri Bharatpal or any original documents. In view of these facts, the appellant was required by CIT(A) vide order sheet entry dated 02.12.2016 to produce the original documents referred in the written submission and also to produce the appellant and Shri Bharatpal for examination in order to find the genuineness of the submissions made during the appellate p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respect of a property transaction. The appellant was given the opportunity to discharge such onus during remand proceedings before the AO as well as by this office during the appellate proceedings. The Learned AR of the appellant was specifically required on 02.12.2016 to produce the original of the documents as relied by the appellant. Shri Bharatpal and the appellant himself. However, no compliance was made in this respect The Learned AR even failed to produce the appellant for examination. In such circumstances, whatever explanation the appellant has given that remained uncorroborated. Thus, the appellant could not discharge the onus as he has felled to explain the transactions contained in the documents found during the course of survey satisfactorily." 8. Assessee is in appeal raising following grounds:- "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making addition of Rs. 4,29,92,220/- by treating it as income from unexplained sources and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and by disregarding the evidences / submissions filed by the assessee and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ker as noted by AO at page 2 of the assessment order and also is director in property brooking company namely LRG Developers P Ltd. Statement was recorded in Survey on 27.9.2011 where in also he admits that appellant was earning income from property broking as referred at page 2 of the assessment order. PB 27, 30, 37 is the statement of the appellant at the time of Survey admitting property broking income. 10. This impugned addition was made on the basis of Document Trison Ledger reproduced at page 9 of the Assessment Order. This document was in connection with a property transaction between Bharat Pal, Director in GWC Infrastructure P Ltd & Garg Family and ld. Counsel has submitted that appellant was acting merely as Property Broker. In this context we find that at PB 4-9 there is the copy of Agreement between GWC & GARG family which makes evident from various covenants showing cheques debited from Bharat PAL's bank account. Referring to paper book ld. Counsel has demonstrated PB 8 clearly shows that appellant PAWAN as property Dealer was to earn commission. PB 1-2 is the bank statement of Bharat Pal showing 50 lacs 3 payments & 2 payments of Rs. 1 lac each aggregating to Rs. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reproduced at page 6 of the assessment order. Ld. Counsel has submitted that this document has not been relied and reproduced completely and correctly but in part to the advantage of making out case by the AO. It was submitted that Contents of this document itself would show that these are the transaction between Bharat Pal and Kulbir Singh are in connection with property no. El/5 Sector 1 ID, Faridabad & other properties. He refered to PB 46-47, which are the written submissions before ld. CIT(A) bringing this fact to his notice but same seems to have not been appreciated at all. 15. On going through PB 13-14, which is the impounded document same shows that this has not been reproduced by AO in the assessment order completely and correctly. A part of same was relied and reproduced. At PB 15- 23 A is the copy of Purchase deed of this very property by KMB Land Developers P Ltd in which Bharat Pal was director. PB 13-14 would show that on this document, name of KULBIR is appearing and his initials are also appearing and there is reference of "cheque 25+45. 70" on 3.8 which was cheque issued from the bank account of Bharat Pal or his proprietorship firm Bharat Construction to KP B....