TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e are not shown neither provided copies to assessee to file his written version or say on said excel sheet or documents. 3. There is no concrete proof which shows that "on money" cash payments are made by assessee to builder. 4 The assessing officer has not found, any suspicious cash transaction or cash withdrawal in assesses bank account. 5. The assessing officer has ignored the fact that, the net profit of assessee is Rs 4,43,250/- Lakhs for that period and how he could pay Rs. 21,50,000/- to the builder. 6. The data prepared by builder, on which addition is made are transfer multiple times from one destination to another and one person to another. 7. Search and seizure action U/s 132 of I.T Act against builder was carried out by department on 24/9/2014 but neither intimation was given to the assessee nor his statement recorded during course of investigation. 8. Addition done on the basis of baseless assumption made by assessing officer. The addition is made only on the basis of oral statement made by employee of the builder. 9. Without prejudice to the above the estimate of income is excessive and uncalled for. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ared or recovered from the builder about payment of on-money. There is various contradiction in the statement of various persons of builder. A copy of such statement was never provided to the assessee. The assessee is a goldsmith and doing labour job work and has no capacity to make such payment. 4. The ld. CIT(A) on considering the submission of assessee confirmed the action of assessing officer holding that from the statement of persons employed with builder, it is clearly confirmed that there was involvement of on-money in the purchase / sale of flats from the data shows that assessee has paid on-money of Rs. 21,50,000/-. Further aggrieved assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submission of ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee and the learned senior departmental representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee fairly submits that there is delay of 72 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has already filed application for condonation of delay. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reason that assessee was not medi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paid any on-money. We find that in the assessment order, the assessing officer has nowhere specified as to he has arrived on a figure of Rs. 21,50,000/-. Neither any alleged e-mail or any working of on-money is explained in the assessment order. The assessing officer has no where mentioned in the assessment order that the made any communication either by alleged e-mails or otherwise about the payment of on-money or any person form Cosmos group identify assessee. We find that on similar set of fact, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in Paramjit Singh Seehra vs ACIT (supra) deleted the similar addition. The relevant part of decision is extracted below: "6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is observed that the assessee had filed his return of income and thereafter the assessee's case was reopened on the ground that it was found that the assessee has paid Rs. 70,00,000/- as total sale consideration for a flat acquired from the Cosmos Hawaii project of Cosmos group. It is evident that the said information was received pursuant to a search and seizure action conducted in the case of Cosmos group on 24/09/2014 wherein the said amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....information received from the Investigation Wing of the department. The Assessing Officer has corroborated the said information with other evidences which includes documentary evidence and the statement recorded under section 132(4) from the concerned persons. It is also pertinent to point out that the statements were not retracted by any of the persons subsequently. From the above observation, we find no error in the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment of the assessee for the impugned year and the objection of the assessee on this ground is not sustainable. 7. The assessee in ground 1 has raised the issue that the assessee was not given an opportunity of cross examination of the two persons, viz. Shri Manish Mehta and Mrs. Meenal Patel of Cosmos group, whose statements 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....