TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayments actually made to Mr. Monga. The amount paid to Mr. Monga was to the tune to ₹ 46,43,115/- and the balance was shown as receivable by Mr. Monga and his family members from the assessee vide letter dated 10.08.2008. A sum of ₹ 13,00,000/- as mentioned in the said letter was also received by him. In totality thus the total payments made by the assessee to Mr. Monga were of ₹ 46,43,115/- + ₹ 13,00,000/- and the addition had been restricted to ₹ 59,43,115/-. The Assessing Officer had erred in making addition of ₹ 1,28,69,362/- to the income of the assessee. The balance amount payable by the assessee to Shri Monga and his family members which was shown in the books of account of the assessee as outstand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticed. A search operation under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 7.7.2009. The assessee filed its return of income under Section 153A of the Act on 22.11.2011 declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure A-1) by assessing the income at ₹ 1,71,18,360/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 1,28,68,362/- to the taxable income of the assessee under Section 69 of the Act besides other additions. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity the CIT(A) ] who vide order dated 6.3.2013 (Annexure A-2) for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 partly allowed the appeals and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Mr. Monga whereas the remaining amount was still outstanding in the books of account of the assessee. The relevant findings read thus:- From the narrations above, it is crystal clear that the documents in dispute corroborate and are selfspeaking, containing financial transactions of various projects. At page 14 of the impugned order, a table has been drawn which enumerates the total amount of transactions from the seized pages; Amount shown as credit/payment of ₹ 46,43,115/- and outstanding totaling ₹ 1,28,69,362/- which is the same figure as per the letter dated 10.08.2008 (page 3) from Sh. Monga described as receivables and of which ₹ 13,00,000/- was shown as already received. The AO has added ₹ 1,28,69,362 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d balance due from you ₹ 1,15,89,362/-. To the said letter, Mr. Monga has further attached annexures i.e. transaction letter marked as (a) to (e) which incorporates the conclusion in respect of the different claims made in the letter dated 10.08.2008. The said letter is scanned by the Assessing Officer and is reproduced at page 3 of the assessment order and the same is not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. 38. XX XX XX 39. Along with the said letter, five other pages were attached and each page related to a different transaction between Mr. Monga and his family members with the assessee in respect of various investments made by the family of Mr. Monga in the projects floated by the assessee. The Assessing Officer re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we are in conformity with the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in restricting the addition to ₹ 59,43,115/-, as against addition of ₹ 1,28,69,362/- made by the Assessing Officer because the said amount of ₹ 1,28,69,362/- depicts the amount receivable by Mr. Monga. The Assessing Officer at page 14 has tabulated the total amount of transaction page-wise and the amount shown as credit/payment and the balance outstanding amount. The notings at page 66 reflect the total value of investment at ₹ 79,60,250/- as against which there was a credit of ₹ 33,01,375/- and the outstanding was ₹ 46,48/875/-. At page 65, the transaction was of ₹ 36,00,000/- against which there was a credit of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udible as income of the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the addition of ₹ 59,43,115/- in the hands of the assessee and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the revenue in this regard. 7. A perusal of the above shows that the CIT(A) restricted the addition of ₹ 59,43,115/- as against the addition of ₹ 1,28,69,362/- made by the Assessing Officer as the said amount depicted the payments actually made to Mr. Monga. The amount paid to Mr. Monga was to the tune to ₹ 46,43,115/- and the balance was shown as receivable by Mr. Monga and his family members from the assessee vide letter dated 10.08.2008. A sum of ₹ 13,00,000/- as mentioned in the said letter was also received by him. In tota ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
