TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat these were unaccounted ‘transactions’ in cash. No question was put to state or furnish the details of the writer or recipient i.e. the details of the companies, which had received the said amounts. He was also not asked to specify or state whether the amount received was on account of advances for flats or loan. Revenue was fully satisfied by the surrender made and closed their investigation. Thus, in the present case, there is doubt, but it is not established that the respondent- assessee had taken loan/deposit in cash. There is suspicion but this alone without further verification and investigation cannot justify the finding that the respondent-assessee had taken loan/deposit in cash. The findings recorded by the tribunal are not perv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07.02.2001 5,00,000/- Cash 2 03.04.2001 6,00,000/- Cash 3 15.05.2001 4,50,000/- Cash 4 15.07.2001 2,75,000/- Cash 5 22.08.2001 4,00,000/- Cash 6 10.08.2001 5,00,000/- Ritesh 7 05.11.2001 16,00,000/- Cash 8 07.12.2001 5,00,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as made by the Assessing Officer in the proceedings under Section 153A read with Section 143(3). This aspect is partly relevant but does disclose/show that no addition on account of interest paid/payable towards unaccounted loans/deposit was made. (ii) The document A-12 relied upon by the Assessing Officer uses the words loan as well as the advances for booking of flats . It was not verified whether the amounts received were cash loan or advances for booking of flats. Advances for booking of flats are not covered by Section 296-SS or 271 D. The document A-12 does not refer to or mention the name of the respondent-assessee. No investigation was made who had written the said letter and whether the respondent assessee was recipient of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
