TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member) P. C. Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant. Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Commissioner of Income-tax (Departmental representative), for the respondent. ORDER Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member).- This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated November 27, 2014 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXVII, New Delhi for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under : 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹ 25,20,884 as income from undisclosed sources which was added by the Assist ant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-9, New Delhi in- asmuch as the entire addition is unwarranted, based on surmises and conjectures, without any basis, illegal and thus, requires to be deleted in toto. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the addition of ₹ 25,20,884 has been made without any positive and cogent evi dence and rather on irrelevant facts. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the assessee. In the course of search proceedings in cases of the AEZ group, an excel sheet in the form of hard disk was found at the corporate office of the AEZ group at 301-303, Bakshi House, Nehru Place, New Delhi which was seized and marked as annexure A-32. The file name of the hard disk was D. P. Correction Sheet.xls. On a perusal of the said details the Assessing Officer found that the assessee invested a sum of ₹ 32,70,884 for purchase of flat/space/land with M/s. Indirapuram Habitat Centre, a concern of the AEZ group. The Assessing Officer observed the out of the above amount of ₹ 32,70,884, the assessee paid a sum of ₹ 7,50,000 by cheque which was duly reflected in the balance-sheet but no details of the cash payment amounting to ₹ 25,20,884 were available on record. According to the Assessing Officer no satisfactory explanation was also furnished by the assessee except denial of the cash payment. Since the cash payment was proved on basis of material seized, the Assessing Officer opined that the assessee made the above cash payment out of the books of account and treated it as unexplained income of the assessee. However, before adding back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The same was not pending on the date of search. On August 17, 2011, a search and seizure action has undertaken in the case of the AEZ group during this search it is alleged that it has come to light (details of this light is not mentioned in assessment order) that the assessee has invested an amount of ₹ 25,39,809 via cash in Indarpuram Habitat Center. Thereafter, a search action has also been undertaken in the case of the assessee on October 22, 2013. However, no evidence supporting the case of the Revenue vis-a- vis investment in cash in Nehru Vikash Minar has been found. The learned authorised representative further submitted that the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee asking the source of the alleged investment. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that the assessee had not invested anything in the alleged property. However, the Assessing Officer relied on the confession of some I. E. Soomar made the addition in the hands of the assessee. Beside this the Assessing Officer has also made and addition of ₹ 8,925 wrongly mentioned as ₹ 18,925. This addition has been made on the ground that the advertisement expenses i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but could not controvert the decision in case of Subhash Khattar. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the co-investor which is mentioned in the proceedings of the present assessee (Subhash Khattar v. Asst. CIT assessment year 2006-07 I. T. A. No. 902/Delhi/2015 order dated June 30, 2016). The hon'ble Tribunal held in paragraph 8 as under : 8. Considering the above submissions, we find that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has upheld the addition in question mainly on the basis of (i) the details written on the hard disc found during the course of search from the premises Aerens group, wherein payment through cheque and cash have been mentioned against the name of the assessee at Sr. No. 32 ; Shri I. E. Soomar appearing at Sr. No. 39 of the said hard disc had admitted the cash investment of ₹ 6.64 crores being made in the said project and had paid the taxes on the same ; (iii) the said hard disc cannot be relied upon in part as the assessee has admitted the payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
