TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elow. In our view, the addition on the basis of unsigned, undated draft agreement, the figures written on which had been struck off, cannot be a basis of addition in this case, especially in the absence of any other incriminating or corroborating evidence of exchange of cash. So far as the addition on the basis of loose paper in relation to payment made to Sh. Mukund keni is concerned, the notable fact is that it has been mentioned in the lose papers that ₹ 60 lakh was paid by cheque and the other figures mentioned were ₹ 20 lakh by cheque and ₹ 1.50 crore by cash. The stand of the Assessing Officer has been that the amount of ₹ 1.50 crore was paid in cash. However, the Assessing Officer even could not prove the payment of ₹ 20 lakh which was also mentioned to be paid by cheque. Whereas, the assessee has explained that the originally ₹ 60 lakh were paid by cheque and out of which ₹ 40 lakh was received back by the assessee from Shri Mukund Keni and that the deal has not been finalized till date. When there is no evidence about the payment of amount of ₹ 20 lakh by cheque about which the investigation wing /search party has made tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) One Loose paper seized from office premises at Lake City Mall. The A.O. observed that all these documents pertained to purchase of a property at Gat No. 61 admeasuring 1 hector and 85 R at village Khari, Distt. Thane, by the assessee from Gauri Family. As per the draft agreement, the assessee had paid ₹ 1,53,00,000/- to Gauri family in cash and had further paid ₹ 1,50,00,000/- in cash to Shri. Mukund Kini, who had certain rights in the said land. These cash payments as per AO had not been accounted in the books by the assessee. The AO, therefore, made the additions of ₹ 1.53 Crores and ₹ 1.50 Crores into the income of the assessee as unexplained expenditure. 3. The assessee filed an appeal to CIT(A) , he however sustained the additions so made by the AO. The assessee is thus in further appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions of the ld. Representatives of the parties. The Ld. AR of the assessee has invited our attention to the detailed submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) which have also been reproduced in the impugned order and has explained that Shri. Naresh Gauri and 12 others were the owners of the said land. Around July, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Motiram Gouri and 12 others and no part of the consideration was paid in cash to any person. The Ld. AR has further submitted that even the explanation for final settlement of consideration at ₹ 3,57,00,000/- was corroborated by the landowner in his statement recorded by Investigation wing on 15.10 .2008 ( copy enclosed at pg nos. 169 to 175 of paper book) wherein in reply to Q. No.7, the landlord explained that due to various defects in the land, the consideration was finally settled at ₹ 3,57,00,000/-. The affidavit from the brokers in the transaction confirming that no cash payment was made was also filed. Regarding the cash payment to Mukund Kini of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- , it has been explained that Shri Mukund Kini had certain rights in the property and for this reason a sum of ₹ 60,00,000/- was paid to him by account payee cheques. The addition of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- has been made on account of seized loose paper. The said paper, apart from further payment of ₹ 20,00,000/- by cheques also refers to payment of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- in cash. It has been submitted that only the cheques against which the word paid has been mentioned were paid and furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statement of Shri Naresh Motiram Gauri, one of the sellers, recorded under section 131 of the I.T. Act by the investigation wing of the Department. He has been cross examined at length. Specific queries had been put to him in relation to the draft agreement and as to whether any cash payment was received by the seller from the assessee in respect of the sale transaction of the land in question. However despite lengthy examination, the investigation wing could not extract any word from the said seller of the land about receipt of any cash in relation to sale transaction in question. The said statement has also been signed by the other sellers of the land confirming that what has been recorded therein was correct. The explanation offered by the assessee has been fully corroborated by the statement of the sellers. Except the above stated unsigned draft document relied upon by the AO, the figures mentioned therein had also been struck off, no other incriminating material was found during the course of search. Even the another draft agreement was also found on which the figures exactly tallied with the sale deed which was registered with the registering authority. It is also not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
