TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereafter went into the record by examining the actual entries. It is not as if the ITAT deleted the entire amount. The rationale for retaining ₹ 6.93 lakhs has been clearly mentioned, i.e. that it pertained to a specific transaction for which a date was attributable or discernable. However, with respect to the other notings, no definitive date or period could be ascribed. Therefore, the ITAT concluded that the said amount of ₹ 44,47,500/- could not be brought to tax . No substantial questions of law - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 980/2011, ITA No. 994/2011 - - - Dated:- 11-3-2015 - S. Ravindra Bhat And R. K. Gauba,JJ. For the Appellants : Shri N P Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel Shri Nitin Gulati, Jr. Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Sh Salil Aggarwal, Adv. JUDGMENT Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court) 1. In these appeals, the Revenue is aggrieved by a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 03.12.2010 in IT (SS) A No.48/Del/2006 and IT (SS) A. NO./85/Del/2006. The ITAT had affirmed the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter referred to as CIT(A) ] in regard to certain amounts original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lected the examination of only one document. The CIT(A), therefore, after analyzing the other documents, i.e. A-1 to A-39 which emanated from the office premises of the company in which the assessee had substantial interest, i.e M/s. Regal Flats Private Ltd as well as documents A-12 and A-20, took note of the entirety of the transactions and inferred as follows: 7.7 The assessing officer has taken the statement on oath of Mr. Arjun Khosla and his denial regarding payment of ₹ 1 crore cash is perfectly in line with this type of transaction being recorded all over the country. His statement regarding non-payment of ₹ 1 crore runs counter to the entries found in the cash book of the company which was entered on 24/03/2005 in the normal course of writing of cash book at page 60. The statement of Mr. Arjun Khosla is obviously motivated as the market value of the property of Golf Link would definitely be not at ₹ 1.55 crore for house built on 375 sq. yard of plot at the most expensive locality of Delhi. The bonafide of the assessee in this case is proved to a large extent through entries found in the cash book, in the diary and also in the statement of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der that company has sold a property bearing No.167, Golf Links, New Delhi for ₹ 225 lakhs and sale consideration is claimed to have been received by cheque of ₹ 155 lakhs and cash ₹ 100 lakhs. It is further noted by the AO that the assessee has shown a computation of capital gain which has been shown at ₹ 203.16 lakhs and the same is accepted. Undisputed position is that assessee was shown that a cash of ₹ 100 lakhs was received by it from its own company M/s. Regal Flats Pvt. Ltd. and that company was shown cash receipt of ₹ 100 lakhs on account of sale of a property and has declared long term capital gain on the basis of sale proceeds of ₹ 255 lakhs which has been accepted by the AO of that company and hence, it has to be accepted that this much cash was received by that company although Shri Khosla who is the buyer of that property is denying about any payment in cash to the assessee or to that company. It is to be noted that when a person has made payment out of his unaccounted cash, he will not accept it and hence the denial by Shri Khosla that he has not made any cash for purchase of property in question cannot be accepted as a gospe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessees which had an intimate connection with the present assessee, any further enquiry would involve more weighing of evidence rather than interpretation of law. Barring exceptional cases where the findings are based on no evidence or after overlooking material evidence, the scope of appeal under Section 260A of the Act involves examination of substantial questions of law. We see none in respect of this transaction. 10. In respect of the second question sought to be raised, it is noteworthy that block assessment resulted in an addition of ₹ 44,47,500/-. The amounts were based upon seizure of handwritten notes containing particulars of demands made by the assessee. This was comprised of four amounts, i.e. ₹ 30,85,500/- advanced to some persons; ₹ 1.69 lakhs towards payment of air tickets; loan amount of ₹ 5 lakhs and payment of ₹ 6.93 lakhs by the assessee. The assessee's explanation here was that during the course of his business dealings in property and during discussions, the parties used to write rough figures and amounts on a piece of paper relating to estimates for some further dealings. These notings may or may not have materialize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
