TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1780
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e against the respective orders of ld. CIT(A). 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals & cross objections were heard together, we are disposing off these appeals and cross objections by this common order. 3. For the sake of reference, we are referring to the facts and figures in the case of Deepak Bherwani. The only ground taken by the Revenue read as under:- "That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,72,76,403/- made u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 4. In this case, proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was initiated on the basis of information received from Assessing Officer of certain par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are general in nature and hence no separate findings required. In ground nos. 2 to 4 the appellant challenged the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. Ground no. 5 relates to the merits of addition. It is found expedient to first discuss and adjudicate ground no. 5, which is towards merits of the addition. 7. The appellant vehemently argued against the addition of Rs. 1,72,76,403/- being 50% of the "on money" alleged to have been paid for the purchase of property from the group of Safal Reality Pvt. Ltd. in whose case a search was conducted and some documents were found in a file, kept in the computer system. 7.1 The appellant stated, as reproduced earlier that the property has been purchased by cheque, which was made during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0% of the said amount as unexplained investment u/s 69C of the Act. 7.3 It is observed from the said excel sheet that actual date of booking has been mentioned as 09 Aug-00. This was decoded by AO as 09.08.2010. However the basis for this decoding is not free of doubts as it is more of a guess work and not based on any reference documents or statement by the custodian of these documents. 7.4 jointly Further, it is a fact that appellant has purchased the property, with Smt. Lajwanti Bherwani for Rs.3,71,16,000/-. The property has been duly registered and the payments have been made through banking channels between 13.12.2011 to 01.01.2012, which falls during the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, to assume that this paymen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved by the searched companies from the appellant. Therefore, only on the basis of these documents, it is not conclusively proved that appellant has given on money of Rs. 1,72,76,403/- towards purchase of property. 7.7 Moreover, the appellant purchased the property, duly registered as per the prevailing circle rate and there is no allegation with regard to the under valuation of property. Therefore, it is not substantiated that this alleged "on money" has been actually paid by the appellant in cash, nor established through the documents on record. 7.8 Therefore, the addition made is not found tenable and accordingly directed to be deleted. Appellant gets relief on the entire addition made." 6. Against the above order, Re....