TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant had escaped assessment and therefore the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act is bad in law resulting in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 required to be quashed and set aside on that count. 2. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 31,28,000/-, u/s 69 of the IT Act 1961, as unexplained investment on account of alleged on-money paid in cash towards purchase of share in residential flat no. T8-1604, Pinewood, Runwal Greens at Mulund (W), Mumbai, to Runwal Group, not appreciating that the appellant had not paid any amount in cash to the said Runwal Group nor was there any evidence of such cash payment and therefore the addition as unexplained investment was not justified and bears to be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 31,28,000/-, on account of alleged on-money paid in cash towards purchase of share in residential flat no T8-1604, Pinewood, Runwal Greens at Mulund (W), Mumbai, to Runwal Group, not appreciating that inspite of written application by the appellant no evidence of such alleged cash payment was ever shared with the appellant nor was any opportunity to cross examine the source of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee and stated that Subodh Runwal, Director of the "Runwal Green" Group had admitted in his statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act that cash payment to the amount of Rs. 31,28,000 was received from the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs. 31,28,000 u/s.69 of the Act to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the learned counsel contended that no 'on money' was given by the assessee for the purchase of flat in the above referred project. The learned counsel particularly referred the order of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Runwal Home Pvt. Ltd. Dated 20.12.2017 placed in the Paper Book and submitted that as per the finding given in the order, no 'on money' was paid by the assessee in respect of purchase of flat No.T8-1604 in the Runwal project. 7. On the other hand, the learned Department Representative placed reliance on the decision of authorities below. 8. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Without reiterating the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve answered in earlier question I again reiterate that this project was a joint venture with HDFC Limited right from the inception till they exited. Subsequently to that the market has become very competitive and due to opening of a forest land we had to sell aggressively to achieve the numbers from the calendar year 2014, I accommodated a few customers who wanted to pay part consideration in cash. The difference in the above chart is specifically related to these customers who have been accommodated. I offer this difference as my income. I hereby farther reiterate and state that prior to this we have never accepted in cash for any of the units sold in that project." Thus the assessee has acknowledged the discrepancy and has accepted that "on-money" has been taken in all the above instances. Further the assessee was asked to state the other instances where unaccounted cash has boon taken in lieu of sale of residential / commercial units in their projects. Following Is the except of the relevant portion of his statement "Q.17 Please provide the details as to other fiats in which similar practice is followed. Ans: Although in the other cases, I do ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es 436 to 441 of the paper-book, the on money received, on the basis of the seized documents, by the assessee in respect of flats comes to 13,44,68,725/-and in respect of shops comes to 6,50,10,096/-. For the rest of the addition in respect of which no incriminating material was found, we noted from pages 439 to 441 of the paper book, the Assessing Officer just estimated the on-money of the flat @15,750/- per sq. ft totaling to Rs. 33,47,33,101/- and that of the shops @26,000/- totaling to Rs. 9,97,40,450/-. But the Assessing Officer was fair enough to state that no incriminating material was found but had estimate @15750/- per sq. ft for flats and @26000/- per sq. ft. for shops. This is a case where assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3), therefore, the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer as if the assessee has received whatever is stated in the documents executed by the assessee. In our opinion, the onus is on the Revenue to prove that the assessee has actually received the consideration much more than what has been agreed to or stated in the documents executed between the intended buyer and the assessee. No cogent material or evidence was brought to our knowledge ....