TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Year [A.Y.] 2007-08. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appeal) erred in upholding order of the Assessing Officer in making addition of RS. 4,700,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 without bringing or providing any corroborative evidence to support the allegation and without affording any opportunity to the Appellant to cross examine the party said to have made any statement against the Appellant as well as not even allowing the Appellant to rebut the contention by not providing any information despite specific prayers from the Appellant. 2. On the facts, and in circumstances of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai regarding a cash payment of Rs. 46,00,000/- by the assessee in FY 2006-07 to M/s Lake View Developers, belonging to Hiranandani Group, for the purchase of a shop at Ventura Building. The assessee denied having made any transaction for the purchase of shop with M/s. Lake View of Developers. Ld. AO held that in the backdrop of specific information received from the investigation wing, the onus lay upon the assessee to prove that it had not made any such transaction. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 47,00,000/- was made vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 13.03.2015. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the Ld. AO had no evidence on record with regard to the purchase of any flat except a third-party statement. Even that statement was not made available to the assessee nor a cross-examination was allowed. The Ld. AR further pointed out that the assessee company is in the business of running beauty parlours for which the premises are taken on rental basis and therefore there is no question of the assessee entering into any transaction for the purchase of a property with M/s. Lake View Developers. There was only an agreement to take a premises on rent during AY 2009-10 for which a security deposit of Rs. 4,14,000/- was given by cheque on 20.04.2008. Since the transaction did not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to transaction, it is incumbent on the assessee to produce the parties alongwith necessary documents in order to prove its contention, in the instant case, there is uncontroverted evidence regarding the purchase of flat by the assessee from M/s. Lakeview Developers (Hiranandani Group)." 8. Subsequently, during the course of appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) sought a remand report from the Ld. AO. However, in the remand report received on 18.07.2021, the main issue was not addressed. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO with the following observations: "3.7 Under the circumstances, the following facts of the case have come into knowledge:- (i) That there is evidential proof of payment of cash of ....