TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1709
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are as follows:- "1. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in reopening of assessment that was completed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely on the basis of statements recorded U/s. 132(4) by the DDIT(Inv) Unit (4) of Mr. Manish Mehta & Mrs. Meenal Patil of Cosmos group without giving the appellant change of cross examining the above mentioned two person and without considering the submission made by the assessee vide letter dated December 26, 2016. 2. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in holding that the purchase of residential flat at Phase 2, Block-C, Flat 10, in Cosmos Hawaii Project of Cosmos Group, payment made tow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. g) Alleging that addition in the total income of the appellant by placing sole reliance merely on basis of the statement recorded by the investigation unit is not acceptable. 3. The Assessing Officer wrongly initiated penalty u/s 271(1(c) and also wrongly charged interest u/s 234A, B & C. 4. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax [A] erred in dismissing all the grounds of appeal on merits by overlooking the fact that the Address of the Appellant had been shifted from Kolkata to Mumbai." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 27/07/2010 declaring total income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessing Officer vide order dated 28/07/2016. It is observed that the assessee has paid Rs.70,00,000/- in cash as on-money on purchase of the said flat. The registered value of which was of Rs.52,76,414/- and the same was added as cash credit under section 68 of the I.T. Act. The assessee preferred appeal against the said order before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee contended that the reopening of the assessment was merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) by the DDIT(Inv), Unit-I(4) of Mr. Manish Mehta and Mrs. Meenal Patil of Cosmos group, who, the assessee claims that he is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....covered from the email back-up reveals the description as below:- "Cosmos 09-10 (Comproj) B.No.C10 (Ph II) Singh" This, the Ld.DR states that is a description pertaining to B No.C-10(Ph II), which according to the Ld.DR is identical to the flat booked by the assessee. The Ld.DR further stated that the ledger provided date-wise cash in hand balance in the books of Cosmos group in the name of the assessee. The Ld.DR stated that this piece of evidence corroborates that the statement of the persons linked with the transaction and that the reopening is not based on the borrowed satisfaction as it is evident that the Assessing Officer has given a detailed analysis which was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.DR relied on the ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the unaccounted income received from sale of flats / shops / offices and that the figures mentioned against the sale of flats represent unaccounted cash in multiples of 100 INR. From these documents, the assessee's name alongwith PAN, assessment year and total amount of Rs.70,00,000/- was specified. The Assessing Officer has corroborated the seized materials alongwith the statements of the director, the sales head, head of accounts and one of the three chief promoters of Cosmos group. The assessee has denied the allegation of the Assessing Officer by stating that the said property was purchased from Cosmos group vide agreement of sale dated 31/08/2012 and that the assessee has paid Rs.11,00,000/- during assessment year 2010-11 through acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments were recorded under section 132(4) of the I.T. Act. The assessee has further stated that vide letter dated December,16, 2016 where the assessee has requested for an opportunity to cross examine the persons whose statements were relied upon by the department, the assessee was not given an opportunity of cross examination. Though the Ld.DR has contended that the statements of persons relied upon by the department are concerned with the business with whom the assessee has entered into transaction for purchase of the property, we are not convinced with the said explanation. The assessee has relied upon the decision of Andaman Timber Industry vs CCE (2015) 127 DTR 241 (SC) where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that failure to give the asse....