TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e - Held that:- Receipts produced on record clearly show that almost all the payments which were due upon Shri Rahul Chhabra have been received by assessee in subsequent years. Therefore, there is no question of any amount of ₹ 5 lcs paid by Shri Rahul Chhabra in cash. Thus, the assessee is able to explain at this stage that no amount of ₹ 5 lacs was paid in cash by Shri Rahul Chhabra, otherwise there was no reason to make balance payment in subsequent assessment years. It would, therefore, clearly make out that assessee offered explanation which is supported by evidences and material on record that no cash of ₹ 5 lacs have been paid and that explanation of the assessee has been substantiated through evidence and material on record. The explanation of the assessee appears to be bonafide. Therefore, it is not a fit case of levy of penalty on this addition. - ITA Nos. 233 & 234/CHD/2016 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2017 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member Appellant by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal Respondent by : Shri S. K. Mittal ORDER Per Bhavnesh Saini, JM Both the appeals by the same assessee are directed agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me in the penalty proceedings that Shri J.C.Bansal had already declared ₹ 30.70 lacs before Settlement Commission but it was not accepted because reply of the assessee was vague and was not supported by any evidence. The explanation of the assessee was found after thought and was not backed by any documentary evidence. The Assessing Officer was, therefore, of the view that assessee has concealed the income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income willfully. 6. As regards undisclosed income of ₹ 5 lacs, it is observed by the Assessing Officer that as page 57 of Annexure A-2 seized from business premises was a hand written page showing transaction in cheques and cash received from Shri Charanjit Lal and Shri Rahul Chhabra. The assessee was asked to give details of these transactions and also to reconcile the same with the regular books of account. The assessee submitted that payment of Shri Rahul Chhabra was not regular and since his cheques were dishonoured, he offered to pay ₹ 5 lacs in cash. It was stated that Shri Chhabra backed out and the payment of ₹ 5 lacs was not made. The Assessing Officer noted that said fact does not support contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allotment letter and cheques dishonoured in the name of Shri Rahul Chhabra are filed at page 1-5 of the Paper Book. He has submitted that in the seized paper, no cash receipt of ₹ 5 lacs has been mentioned. He has submitted that assessee did not file proof of dishonoured cheques in the quantum proceedings but now same are filed in the Paper Book. He has also filed details to show that payments have been received from Shri Rahul Chhabra to whom flat had been allotted. On the right side of the seized paper (PB-6) the amount is mentioned as ₹ 7,89,760/-. From this total of ₹ 7,89,760/-, ₹ 2 lacs is to be reduced since there is noting at page 6 that cheque has been dishonoured. He has filed total calculation of the same to show that balance payment due against Shri Rahul Chhabra was ₹ 7,51,340/- which have been recovered from Shri Rahul Chahbra later on in a sum of ₹ 7,46,000/- in different amounts starting from 22.12.2010 to 12.11.2014. Copies of the receipts issued by the assessee in the name of Shri Rahul Chhabra are also placed on record. He has, therefore, submitted that almost all the payments which were due as per calculation on left side of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in case cheques were dishonoured, then how the total of ₹ 7,89,760/- has been taken and it does not talk of any dishonour of the cheques, therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record, quantum addition of ₹ 5 lacs was upheld. The ld. counsel for the assessee, however, produced on record the allotment letter in the name of Shri Rahul Chhabra alongwith schedule of payment of ₹ 15,36,100/- and also filed copies of receipts which were cancelled on dishonour of the cheques. Copies of the dishonoured cheques are also produced on record. The ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, submitted that the total amount as per seized paper is ₹ 7,89,760/- and ₹ 1,95,000/- added of payment mentioned at LHS of page 6 of the Paper Book and then doshonoured cheque of ₹ 2 lacs is reduced, the actual amount received would be ₹ 7,84,760/-. The total amount due was ₹ 15,36,100/- therefore, the balance payment due remained ₹ 7,51,340/-. He has placed on record various receipts from dated 22.12.2010 to 12.11.2014 totaling to ₹ 7,46,000/- which have been received from Shri Rahul Chhabra later on which have been accounted for in the books o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ressed to Shri Lalit Jindal which contained entries relating to M-1 Plaza. In reply, Shri Lalit Jindal explained that letter was written by Shri Anil Monga, resident of Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi giving him details of investments made by him in various projects. In the said letter, he has mentioned the expected price of properties held by him and it was further stated by him that all the payment received from Mr. Monga had already been accounted for in the books of account but some part in the payment relating to M-1 Plaza, property have not been accounted for in the regular books of account which in turn have been surrendered to the tune of ₹ 2 Crores. The scanned copy of page 67 is available at page 3 of the assessment order which is letter written to Shri Lalit Jindal on 10.08.2008 with regard to investment in various properties. The said document talked about the discussion with Mr. Jindal and total amount receivable from Mr. Jindal at ₹ 1,28,89,362/- against which ₹ 13 lacs had already been received from Mr. Jindal and the balance receivable was ₹ 1,15,89,362/-. Against each transaction, letters (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) had been written and the said pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Monga before the Assessing Officer and did not accept contention of the assessee that figures given in the seized paper were notional figures and assessee failed to co-relate entries contained in the seized paper. The Assessing Officer, after considering the explanation of the assessee at the penalty stage noted that explanation of the assessee is not acceptable and assessee has concealed income on the basis of seized paper and levied the penalty on this addition. 16. As regards undisclosed income of ₹ 4,80,000/-, it was noted that as per seized document, the same contained details of commission paid by the assessee to various persons. The assessee failed to reconcile the same with the books of account therefore, addition was made which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee did not press this ground of appeal before the Tribunal therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee was dismissed and addition of ₹ 4,80,000/- was confirmed. The Assessing Officer on this addition also, did not accept explanation of the assessee and noted that explanation of the assessee is after thought and cannot be relied upon. The assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is mentioned if assessee paid any amount to Shri Anil Monga. Whatever amount was received on booking of the properties through Shri Anil Monga, same have been recorded in the books of account. The explanation of the assessee was not found to be false or incorrect. The assessee has, therefore, explained that the seized documents. Even if addition on quantum have been maintained, but penalty is not leviable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 19(i) On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon orders of authorities below. 20. We have considered rival submissions. All the seized papers are noted and reproduced in the assessment order. The letter dated 10.08.2008 contained certain details with regard to the approximate figure of the property booked with the assessee. In the seized paper, it is stated that amount of ₹ 13 lacs have been received and balance was stated to be payable. This letter is supported by certain seized slips which are also reproduced in the impugned order in which it is nowhere mentioned whether assessee paid any amount to Shri Anil Monga or not. It is interesting to note that Shri Anil Monga filed a reply giving explanation on each and every seized do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
