TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mine the above issue and make a fresh assessment as per the provisions of the Act , keeping in mind the above observation, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 2634/MUM/2013 - - - Dated:- 11-11-2016 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) For The Appellant : Shri Rakesh Joshi,AR For The Respondent : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2010- 11. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai and arises out of the assessment completed u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 11/02/2010 at the residential premises of the assessee, it is alleged that certain incriminating documents indicating transfer of property i.e. Flat Nos. 0207 and 0208 on 2nd Floor of Tower C at Ashok Towers, Parel, Mumbai-400012 were found and seized. The AO, on examination of page number 123 of seized loose papers ,noted that as on 10.12.2009, the total cost of three bed rooms flat at Ashok Tower had been shown at ₹ 4,60,00,000/-. The same was sold at a total consideration of ₹ 5,58,36,000/- on 31.01.2010. The AO thus arrived at a finding that there is profit on sale of such flat at ₹ 98,36,000/-. In the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, the assessee stated that the he had booked the said property in the month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for taxation in the hands of Mr. Ravi Kiran Agarwal and the same income cannot be taxed twice in the hands of two different persons. He also states that the assessee has discharged his onus by explaining the documents seized in his hands. 5. The ld. DR supports the order passed by the CIT (A) upholding the addition made by the AO. He relies on the decision in Bhagirath Aggarwal vs. CIT [2013] 31 taxmann.com 274 (Delhi); Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT [2001] 118 taxman 252 (All) and Navdeep Dhingra vs. CIT 56 taxmann.com 75 (P H) 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We now discuss the decisions relied on by the ld. DR. In the case of Bhagirath Agarwal (supra) , it has been held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12, 69,85,000/-. My cash balance as per my books of account is around 21 lacs. Thus, I accept that the amount found in my house is in excess of my cash balance and has not been properly reflected in the books of accounts. Thus I offer the above income of ₹ 12,48,85,000/- for adding up to my total income for the current financial year. Please confirm and comment on the above. Ans: The cash found and seized from my residence does belong to me. All the said cash was earned only in January 2010. It was earned primarily from my betting on the season opener of the derby that took place in January 2010 and from a flat sale of Ashok Tower. I have earned a net income of ₹ 11,00,00,000/- from betting on the Horse Racing. Further th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
