Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Rajender Jain Versus DCIT, Central Circle-21, New Delhi.

2015 (11) TMI 1435 - ITAT DELHI

Addition on disclosed additional income - Held that:- For the total cash payment of ₹ 38 lac for first time, in reply to show cause notice, the assessee faintly urged that the statement by the director was not voluntary and sought to retract it. The tribunal refused to accept such retraction. Dismissing the assessee’s appeal, the Hon’ble High Court held that the tribunal was correct in adding back amount after adjusting expenditure. As the retraction in the extant case also came after a lo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

epancy 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 documents having no evidenti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e stage of the first appeal. These affidavits in our considered opinion have been rightly jettisoned by the ld. CIT(A) as the averments in them run contrary to the evidence found at the time of survey, which evidence was accepted by the assessee as correct. No exception can be found from the impugned order sustaining the addition to the tune of ₹ 26,50,500/-. The same is, therefore, upheld. - Decided against assessee - ITA No.2231/Del/2008 - Dated:- 8-10-2015 - SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & MS .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h duly recorded payments made by the assessee, viz., first payment of ₹ 13 lac to Shri Amit Chauhan as advance for purchase of Plot No.C-270, Sector 122, Noida and second payment of ₹ 25 lac as advance deposit in TDI (Taneja Development Infrastructure) through Shri Atul Jain for underwriting of project. The assessee was confronted with these documents and called upon, vide question no. 28, to explain the contents, nature of these recordings, and the source of the amount. In reply, th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

c. In response, the assessee submitted that the payments were made out of commission earned on resale of plots, the details of 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d at the time of survey, tried to make out a case before the ld. CIT(A) that surrender was not voluntary. In this regard, we find that having surrendered the amount of income on 17.2.2006, the assessee s retraction at the end of the year 2007, i.e., roughly quarter to two years, is of no consequence. It is more so because the surrender made at the time of survey was duly backed by the evidence of undisclosed income found from the possession of the assessee. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in Raj Ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

High Court held that the tribunal was correct in adding back amount after adjusting expenditure. As the retraction in the extant case also came after a long time and further it is contrary to the evidence found at the time of survey, we, therefore, approve the view of the ld. CIT(A) in not accepting the retraction made by the assessee. 7. 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 pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version