TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retraction made by the assessee. As regards the advance of ₹ 13 lac, the assessee filed a letter before the ld. CIT(A) from one Shri Mohammed Jamil, stated to be the owner of the said property. The ld. CIT(A) noticed that the receipt showed the name of Shri Amit Chauhan as the recipient and not Shri Mohammed Jamil. When this discrepancy was pointed out by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not explain anything. However, on a later date, an affidavit from Shri Amit Chauhan was filed denying the above transaction. Similarly, for ₹ 25 lac, the assessee filed a letter along with an affidavit in the name of Shri Atul Jain stating that he had not received the said amount from the assessee. In our considered opinion, these affidavi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. 2. The only issue in this appeal is against the sustenance of addition of ₹ 26,50,500/-. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a property dealer in real estate business. A survey action was taken at his business premises u/s 133A of the Act. During the course of survey, the assessee surrendered an additional income of ₹ 40 lac in his statement recorded on the same day. Such surrender was made on the basis of impounded documents as per Annexure A-2, page 32 and 33. However, while filing the return, the assessee disclosed additional income of ₹ 11,49,500/- only as against the originally surrendered amount of ₹ 40 lac. The AO made addition of ₹ 28,50,500/- (Rs.40 lac minus S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were not available and that such commission income was not recorded in his books of account. That is how, the assessee surrendered a sum of ₹ 40 lac as undisclosed income. 5. In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting total surrender to ₹ 38 lac as against ₹ 40 lac offered by the assessee, because evidence was only for a sum of ₹ 38 lac and the remaining amount of ₹ 2 lac is not represented by any evidence/document found at the time of survey, except the bald statement of the assessee, which cannot be relied upon. The Revenue is rightly not in appeal against the deletion of addition of ₹ 2 lac. 6. In so far as the total cash payment of ₹ 38 lac not recorded i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 13 lac, the assessee filed a letter before the ld. CIT(A) from one Shri Mohammed Jamil, stated to be the owner of the said property. The ld. CIT(A) noticed that the receipt showed the name of Shri Amit Chauhan as the recipient and not Shri Mohammed Jamil. When this discrepancy was pointed out by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not explain anything. However, on a later date, an affidavit from Shri Amit Chauhan was filed denying the above transaction. Similarly, for ₹ 25 lac, the assessee filed a letter along with an affidavit in the name of Shri Atul Jain stating that he had not received the said amount from the assessee. In our considered opinion, these affidavits filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) are self serving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
