TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort) 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal including the legal grounds, challenging the validity of the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, which are as follows: "1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding validity of notice u/s.148 merely based on information received from DCIT, Central Circle 1 (4), Ahmedabad, alleging cash payment by the appellant company on booking of office with M/s. Goyal Safal Developers on 3-12-2011, although fact of payment not supported by any material available on record. 1.1 The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding validity of notice u/s.148 although LD AO issued notice u/s 148 just based on information received from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proving cash payment. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding addition u/s 69A although the annexure retrieved from pen drive data of M/s. Goyal Safal Developers nowhere reflected any cash/discount paid by appellant but reflected as unpaid and outstanding., Alleged cash payment not being made no addition u/s 69A was permissible. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding addition based on extract of Pen Drive found in search of 3rd party being no valid evidence under Evidence Act. 7. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding assessment made u/s 147 based on seized material belonging to appellant found in search of 3rd party without following ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 15.04.2024, upheld the addition made by the ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate its contentions. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). 6. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that Rs. 11 lacs paid as token for the said booking was returned back by the developer to the assessee and that the said transaction did not materialize. This has been admitted by the ld. AO during the assessment proceeding and the same has also been stated in the assessment order. The ld. AR for the assessee further stated that the ld. AO has merel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the reason that the assessee has paid on-money of Rs. 1,62,08,640/- which was unearthed during the search and seizure action carried out in the group of M/s. Goyal Safal Developers. It is also an undisputed fact that the assessee has paid Rs. 11 lacs by cheque at the time of booking of the office premises which transaction was subsequently cancelled and the said amount was received back by cheque dated 29.12.2012, by the assessee from the builder. It is also observed that the ld. AO has reproduced the details of the accounts of the assessee in the books of M/s. Goyal Safal Developers which is reproduced hereinunder: Date S. No. Floor Unit No. Area Ref. Name Sold U Sold Rate G. Value CH Receivable DISC ....