TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e premises of the assessee on 5-10-2005. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, assessee purchased 60.412 cents of land from three persons for a consideration of ₹ 11,48,45,900/-. In the accounts, the value of this property was shown as 1,57,36,700/- (including stamp duty. From the residence of two sel lers, viz. Raveendran and Raji Sanal, a paper giving full details of the consideration given and cheque consideration paid by them was found. When confronted both Mr. Karthikeyan, and his brother Shri Raveendran accepted the fact that additional amount was received. Smt. Raji Sanal Kumar denied the same. The returns of the two buyers were f i led declaring the additional consideration. Assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration. The action of the Assessing Officer is based only on a computer print out from the vendors which shows the receipt of some cash by them from the assessee. One of the three vendors has denied this receipt. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision Hon ble Apex Court reported in 294 ITR 49 in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram. The ld. counsel for thee assessee filed a copy of a combined order of the Tribunal dated 19-3-2010 in the case of Sanal Kumar and Raji Sanal Kumar for the assessment year 2005-06(ITA No.822 823/Coch/2008), wherein the very same issue was considered and we have held as under: We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The addition towards capita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) is quite justified. In view of the above position, the ld. counsel for the assessee urged us to follow our own finding on the very same dealing. 4. The ld. CIT., DR supported the findings of the Income-tax authorities. 5. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, including the precedents. We have also considered the extracted portion of our order. The seized document is a computer print. It bears no signature and as such there is no evidentiary value. It has not been seized from the custody of the assessee. Similar issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kamahenu Milk Products, Kochi in IT(S S)A No.152/Coch/2004 dated 15- 5-2009 and in ITA No.351/Coch/2009 for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
