9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atch of payments found during the course of Search Operation without correctly appreciating the fact that the payments made through cheques mentioned on the loose paper matches with the books of accounts of the builder. 2. Whether on the fact and the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) erred in not correctly appreciating the fact that the area mentioned in the loose paper was super built up area which explains the mismatch in the area mentioned in the sale agreement and that in the loose paper seized. 3. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) was correct in holding that the loose paper seized cannot be held as genuine and reliable even though the same was seized from the site office for the construction project "Legend" in which the assessee has purchased the flat and on the seized paper the flat number and floor of the flat is mentioned and details of cheque and cash payments is mentioned. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made u/s.69 even though the addition made on account of 'On Money' received from the assessee has been confirmed by the ld.CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that during the search proceedings cheque and cash elements were found and elements of cheque was reflected in the books of account. Ld. DR further submitted that this view also concurs with the findings made by AO in the assessment of M/s Layer Export Pvt. Ltd. and the AO has rightly held that the ratio of cheque and cash will go hand in hand and has rightly made additions in the case of assessee as well as his wife. Ld. DR further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/ s.69 of the IT Act on the basis of loose paper and mismatch of payments found during the course of Search Operation. Ld. DR further submitted the area mentioned in the loose paper was super built up area which explains the mismatch in the area mentioned in the sale agreement and that in the loose paper seized. It was further submitted by Ld. DR that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the loose paper seized cannot be held as genuine and reliable even though the same was seized from the site office for the construction project called "Legend". 9. On the other hand, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee while relying upon the orders of Ld. CIT(A)submitted that Hon'ble Tribunal has al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount actually paid by the assessee with his wife is Rs. 237,52,200/-. This fact is also discernable from Q.No.6 in the statement of Shri Ashok Siroya dt. 12.10.2009. Further as per the said sheet, cash amount of Rs. 56.70 Iakhs is shown receivable whereas AO has proceeded on the premise that the entire cash of Rs. 160,90,101/- has been paid at the time of booking of flat on 04.11.2003. 4.10 As per the details of payment furnished vide page 1 of the Paper Book and reproduced in para 4.1'above, total cheque payment in F.Y.2003-04 is Rs. 1,53,00,000/-, 77,00,000/-paid by the assessee and Rs. 76,00,000/- paid by Smt. Lalita Siroya (wife of the assessee). Date of search in this case is 15.03.2008 and from the details of payment in the said chart, the entire cheque payment of Rs. 2,37,52,200/- has been made by 18.02.2008. As per the, seized document, cheque payment received, as seen, is Rs. 1 Crore only. Therefore, even the details of cheque payment till the date of search do not match with the noting in the sheet. 4.11 On a careful examination of the copy of seized document as provided together with the facts as admitted, and in light of the glaring mismatches as above, and abse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Group. A very important point is that the said loose paper does not contain the name of the assessee, it was an undated document and does not bear signature of anyone. Another important point is that both the purchaser as well as seller has denied the contents of the said document. We notice that the assessing officer has tried to decipher the information found in the said document by interpreting that "Sh" represents Cash payment and "Q" represents cheque payment. We notice that the assessing officer has not brought any material on record to corroborate his interpretation. A perusal of the document would show that the letter written after 45 looks like "C" and hence it is capable to different interpretation also as against the interpretation given by the AG as "Lakhs". The assessing officer has only tried to corroborate his interpretation by comparing the aggregate amount noted in the loose sheet with the stamp duty valuation. However, as pointed out by the assessee, the alleged cash payment together with the purchase value declared by the assessee far exceeds the stamp duty valuation and hence such kind of corroboration is not acceptable. Even otherwise, the stamp duty valuatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this case is 15.03.2008 and from the details of payment in the said chart, the entire cheque payment of Rs. 2,37,52,200/- has been made by 18.02.2008. As per the seized document, cheque payment received, as seen, is Rs. 1 crore only. Therefore, even the details of cheque payment till the date of search do not match with the noting in the sheet. After appreciating the detailed findings recorded by Ld. CIT(A), we found that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly concluded that on the examination of the copy of seized documents as provided together with the facts of the case and also considering the glaring mis-matches, there was an absence of independent, reliable, corroborative evidence and therefore it was rightly held by Ld. CIT(A) that the said document, in any manner cannot be held as genuine and reliable to hold that the assessee has paid unaccounted cash for the purchase of property. We are also of the considered view that in the absence of any other corroborative evidence to establish a direct nexus, it cannot be said that the notings in the loose paper are genuine and hence by virtue of said document, the AO could not have hold that undisclosed cash payment of Rs. 1,60,90,191/- has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
