9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dhanraj Kochar on 17.12.2002. During the course of search, certain loose sheets were found from which it came out that assessee had advanced certain sums to one Shri Puratchidasan. It also came to the notice of the Revenue that the said sums were received back by the assessee alongwith interest. However, it seems these transactions were not included by the assessee in its regular return of income. Notice was issued under Section 158BD of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and pursuant to that, assessee filed a return for the block period disclosing NIL income. During the course of assessment, Assessing Officer noted that assessee had entered into an agreement for sale of property with Shri Puratchidasan and the said deed was cancell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in respect of its claim. A.O., therefore, held that whole of Rs. 5 lakhs was unaccounted and this was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee and taxed accordingly. 3. Before the CIT(Appeals), argument of the assessee was that in addition to Rs. 2,50,000/- paid in 1989, he had also paid a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs in cash on different dates to Shri Puratchidasan. As per the assessee, sum of Rs. 50,000/- each was paid on 25.4.1990 and 4.8.1990, and sums of Rs. 1 lakh each was paid on 13.9.1990 and 13.11.1990, totalling to Rs. 3 lakhs. Therefore, as per the assessee, apart from Rs. 2,62,000/- already paid as per property purchase agreement, a further sum of Rs. 3 lakhs was also given to Shri Puratchidasan. On cancellation, what was received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 13.11.1990, totalling to Rs. 3 lakhs, were all accepted by Shri Puratchidasan and four demand promissory notes were also issued by him. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs returned by Shri Puratchidasan stood fully explained. Learned A.R. produced before us copies of the demand promissory notes for supporting his case that Rs. 3 lakhs was paid by the assessee to Shri Puratchidasan during the period 25.4.1990 to 13.11.1990. But, despite directions from the Bench, he did not certify such documents to be either true or to be part of the seized records or to have been produced before the Assessing Officer. However, according to him, the matter had to be remitted back to Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in view of the evidence produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es were either part of seized records or was part of the documents produced before the Assessing Officer. There is nothing on record to show that these promissory notes, claimed to have been issued by Shri Puratchidasan, were part of the seized records. Assessee has shown no reason as to why such promissory notes were not produced before the A.O. We are of the opinion that in such a situation, the CIT(Appeals) was absolutely justified for rejecting the claim of the assessee. CIT(Appeals) gave considerable relief to the assessee based on the agreement which was allegedly cancelled, which itself in our opinion was never established to be the source for the receipt. We are of the opinion that the assessee has been given more than eligible reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
