9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lone issued which subsist is that the assessee is aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (A) for confirming the additions of Rs. 29,10,162/- made towards unexplained investment. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in business, and also earns income from house property and income from other sources, filed his return of income pursuant to notice U/s. 153A on 18.08.2010 for the assessment year 2004-05 subsequent to search actions under section 132 of the Act. During the course of search, the assessee admitted for having paid Rs. 29,10,625/- for purchase of an immovable property and offered the same for tax. Therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 29,10,625/ U/s. 69 of the Act. Before the Ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 24.10.2010 and after the expiry of 2 ½ years the assessee had raised objections for his admission. Reliance was placed in the decisions of the Kantilal C.Shah Vs. ACIT ( 133 ITD 57), Videomaster V. JCIT (82 ITD 102(Mum.), Smt. Vasanti Sethi V. ACIT 45 TTJ 503 (Del.) and Dr.S.V.Gupta Vs.ACIT 248 ITR 782 (All.). 4. Ld. A.R submitted before us that the Ld. Assessing Officer had ignored the detailed reply given by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, which was in substance a retraction of the part of the earlier statement. Nowhere in the statement, the appellant had admitted that he paid the sale consideration of Rs. 64,10,625/- for the purchase of the property. No evidence was found during the course of search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no conscious admission by the assessee. Moreover the Ld. CIT (A) had simply endorsed the view of the Ld. Assessing Officer. Further the Revenue has not placed anything before us to show that the assessee had agreed in writing for such addition. We find that to Qn. No.37 raised by the Revenue in the sworn statement of the assessee that he had merely stated that "accepting your opinion I agreed to pay tax of Rs. 29,10,625/- ." This bald statement of the assessee does not suggest that the assessee had willingly admitted for having paid onmoney for the purchase of property. As pointed out by the Ld. A.R., the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in an identical case has held in the case of CIT Vs. K. Bhuvanendran & Others reported in [2008] 303 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
