TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts that the addition of Rs. 2,17,00,000/- was made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act based on the original cash receipts seized from residential premises of Shri Roshan Dhore who is a close aid of Shri Sachin Agnihotri (seller of plot), the receipt signed in original by the seller and it contains the details of property to be sold and amount agreed to be received. 3. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts that the addition of Rs. 2,17,00,000/- was made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act based on the original cash receipts seized from residential premises of Shri Roshan Dhore who is a close aid of Shri Sachin Agnihotri (seller of plot) and these receipts are supported by the dairy impounded as Annexure B-10 during the survey u/s 133A at the premises of Narayana Education Society in which Shri Sachin Agnihotri (Seller of plot) is a trustee. 4. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts that during the course of search/survey, loose paper or any in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paper Bundle exhibited as Annexure B-1, the original cash receipt dated 11/11/2013, for an amount of Rs. 25,00,000, and original cash receipt dated 15/11/2013, for an amount of Rs. 25,00,000, which were paid by Shri Yashwant Ajabrao Khodke & Ranjana Khodke (wife of the assessee herein) and received by Shri Sachin Agnihotri, in lieu of sale of the said land mentioned on these receipts at Rs. 3,52,00,000. A copy of these receipts are exhibited in the assessment order vide Page-3, passed by the Assessing Officer. However, the said land was sold at Rs. 1,35,00,000, which shows that a total cash of Rs. 2,17,00,000, was paid by Shri Yashwant Ajabrao Khodke, over and above the sale consideration in accordance with the sale agreement of Rs. 1,35,00,000, against the sale of the said property. On the other hand, the Department has also conducted a survey at the premise of Narayana Education Society, wherein Shri Sachin Agnihotri (the seller of the immovable property) is a trustee, the Department impounded a diary which is exhibited as Annexure B-10, which contains details of sale of the said property to the assessee Shri Yashwant Ajabrao Khodke, mentioned at Page-7, 8 and 13 of the impounded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have been seized/impounded in two different premises which clearly proves the cash payment by the assessee to the seller. The assessee's counsel has pleaded that generally the original receipt is always in the possession of the person who makes the payment and not in the possession of person who receives the payment. He has claimed that in this case the assessee is payer and therefore, the said amount was never paid by the assessee. The submission of the assessee's counsel is not acceptable as these transactions are out of books and generally once the sale deed is registered, these types of documents are returned back to the person who has signed it. On basis of above documents, it is concluded that the above-described plot was agreed to be purchased for Rs. 3,52,00,000/- and was finally soldfor Rs. 1,35,00,000/- thus on money of Rs. 2,17,00,000/- paid by Shri Yashwant Khodke to Shri Sachin Agnihotri in the purchase of above plot. 7. In view of the above facts, it is concluded that the assessee has paid on money of Rs. 2,17,00,000/- on the above transactions and is being treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and added to the total....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pparent contradiction in the receipt and the sale deed. It was pointed out that as per the cash receipt, an amount is received from Shri Yashwant Khodke (appellant) and Smt. Ranjana Khodke (wife of appellant), however as per the registered sale deed, only appellant is the purchaser. The AR of the appellant also stated that even Shri Sachin Agnihotri has denied of receiving any such sum. The AR of the appellant further placed reliance on various judicial references. The entire case of the Assessing Officer is based on the cash receipts found in the premises of Mr Roshan Dhore. On perusal of these receipts, it was observed that these are original cash receipts. As per these cash receipts, Shri Sachin Agnihotri has acknowledged receipts of cash of Rs. 25,00,000/- each on two dates (i.e.) 11.11.2013 & 15.11.2013. It is mentioned on the receipts, that aforementioned amount was received in pursuance to an agreement to sell the immovable property for Rs. 3,25,00,000/-. It is stated that the amount was received from (i) Shri Yashwant Khodke (S/o Ajabrao Khodke) & (ii) Smt. Ranjana Khodke (W/o Shri Yashwant Khodke). The said receipt was signed by Shri Sachin Agnihotri, but was not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Para 5 of the said Circular states that The communication issued manually in the three situations specified in para 3- (i), (ii) or (iii) above shall have to be regularised within 15 working days of its issuance, by:- i. uploading the manual communication on the System. ii. compulsorily generating the DIN on the System; iii. Communicating the DIN so generated to the assessee/any other person as per electronically generated pro-forma available on the System. The appellant pleaded that though the defect of non generation of PIN was regularized within the 15 working days as the date of assessment order is 07.07.2021 and the intimation letter wherein DIN was generated was dated 16.07.2021, the Para 3 of the said Circular was contravened as no specific mention of the approval of the prescribed authority was mentioned in the assessment order and on this count the appellant pleaded to quash the assessment order. The Appellant relied on various judicial precedents like M/s Ashok Commercial Enterprises V/s ACIT Central Circle 2(4) (Mumbai) and Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (Hon'ble Delhi High Court). In my opinion, as far as the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....book containing all relevant evidences, which she relied upon during the course of hearing. She vehemently argued that the addition cannot be made, as the receipts of Rs. 25,00,000, dated 11/11/2013 and 15/11/2013, found during the search conducted at the residential premise of Shri Roshan Dhore, were never issued to the assessee and there is no signature of the assessee on the receipt. Further, the learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the agreement to sale took place at Rs. 1,35,00,000, which is found at the premise of Shri Roshan Dhore, and the sale deed is also executed at Rs. 1,35,00,000 and, therefore, there is no difference between consideration of sale agreement and sale deed executed. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that once the property is acquired through a registered sale deed, it is a conclusive proof for the sale mentioned in the sale deed which is final, unless contrary is proved. 11. The learned Counsel for the assessee further argued that that Shri Sachin Agnihotri, denied receipt of cash in totality. Furthermore, no statement of Shri Sachin Agnihotri, has been provided stating Shri Sachin Moon and Shri Sushil Sir, are close as....