TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ves the right to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at any time of hearing." 2. Brief facts in this case are that the assessee had purchased one unit Flat i.e. E-802 at Wallfort Heights, Bhatagaon, Raipur from Chhattisgarh Project (India) Pvt. Ltd. There was search and seizure action carried out in the case of Wallfort Group and others who are the owners of the said Chhattisgarh Project (India) Pvt. Ltd. on 03.11.2023. During the course of search proceedings various evidences were found which revealed that the group had indulged in tax evasion by carrying out sale of flats/plots in cash to various buyers and the same has not been offered to taxation. One such evidence was an excel sheet named WH 2020 NOT REG.xlsx which was retrieved from email id of one of the director of the said Wallfort Properties Pvt. Ltd. namely, Shri Pankaj Lahoti who is also a director in Chhattisgarh Project (India) Pvt. Ltd. The A.O writes in the assessment order that analysis of the said excel sheet revealed that the group has received cash in addition to consideration price reported in registry of various units sold in the Wallfort Height project of the group and hence, this cash forms part of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... satisfactory explanation or supporting documentation. Consequently, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added the said amount of Rs. 5,07,690/- to the total income of the appellant as an unexplained investment. I have carefully considered the written submissions of the appellant and have perused the assessment records, including the findings of the AO and the seized material. The crux of the matter lies in the appellant's failure to provide a credible explanation for the source of the cash payment of Rs. 5,07,690/-. The AO's action was not based on mere suspicion but on concrete evidence seized during a search and seizure operation. The admission made by a key group director, Shri Pankaj Lahoti, under oath in his statement recorded under Section 132(4) provides a strong foundation for the AO's action. This admission, which has not been retracted, directly links the Wallfort Group to a practice of receiving cash payments for property sales. Furthermore, the seized excel sheet specifically points to the appellant's involvement in such a transaction, detailing the payment of a cash amount of Rs. 5,07,690/-. The onus was therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncluding RTGS Charges [(Rs. 5,07,690/- +58.42 (RTGS Charges)] Copy of registered deed, agreement copy and relevant bank statement is enclosed herewith to evident the same. Kindly refer Annexure-2,3,4 respectively. Total Rs. 80,22,190/- It is pertinent to note that the amount allegedly showing as invested in cash of Rs. 5,07,690/- in the excel sheet, found during the course of search in Wallfort Group, exactly matches the RTGS transaction of Rs. 5,07,690/-, clearly substantiating that no cash payment was involved. Copy of Bank statement highlighting the transaction is enclosed in Amtexure-4. Kindly refer the same. Further in the said excel sheet which is reproduced in page 20 of the assessment order, where the total amount comes to Rs. 80,22,190/- exactly match with the total amount paid by the assessee through banking channel and is recorded in registered sale deed as well. It clearly reflects that the said amount of Rs. 5,07,690/- has been inadvertently shown in cash column of the excel sheet found from the Wallfort Group. This fact has also been accepted by the seller i.e. Chhattisgarh Project (India) Pvt. Ltd. through their letter dated 02.04.2025, a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on from the vendor company that they have not received any cash from the assessee and that they have got entire money through banking transaction. In fact, the bank statement of the UCO Bank, Telibandha Branch, Raipur of the assessee that clearly shows RTGS of the said amount which was inadvertently added by the A.O stating it to be a cash payment. The mistake committed by the A.O was further carried on by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC without adhering to the provisions of Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act and without any enquiry or verification of the facts, the said authority has summarily and arbitrarily upheld the addition without independent application of mind. This is more strange, when all evidences have been furnished by the assessee demonstrating no cash payment and the assessee had filed bank statements, confirmations, in such case the reasons are best known to the Revenue for making additions in the hands of the assessee alleging cash payments even without any corroborative evidence placed on record, such an order becomes inherently perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. Accordingly, I setaside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and direct the A.O to delete the additions fro....