TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2009-10 assails the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 24 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-22/ITO-10(3)(2)/IT 157/2013-14 dated 28/10/2015. The assessment for the impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer-10(3)(2), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 on 30/03/2013. The assessee has raised 8 Grounds in all out of which Ground Numbers 1 2 are not pressed and Ground Numbers 7 8 is consequential and general in nature. Ground Numbers 4 to 6 are supportive of main Ground No.3. The only effective Ground No. 3 reads as follows:- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being developed in the vicinity of Mumbai, namely Navi Mumbai Special Economic Zone [NMSEZ] and Mumbai Special Economic Zone [MSEZ]. The group had purchased huge chunks of land in the vicinity of these SEZs with an objective to develop township in these areas anticipating potential price rise and good return. This group s real estate operations were being handled mainly by Virendra Jain, Gaurav Jain and Dilip Dherai. As per evidences gathered during search, Dilip Dherai was found to be managing and handling the entire land acquisition operations for MSEZ and outside MSEZ which was popularly known as OMSEZ. The land outside MSEZ was purchased in the name of numerous Private Limited companies numbering more than one hundred which were called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered by the decisions of Hon ble Delhi High Court (supra) because in the present case, it is confirmed by the land owner also that they have received cash payment which was duly declared in the return of income and paid taxes accordingly. Although, the search and survey was conducted only in two cases of M/s. Pathik Constructions and Shri Sunil Gulati, they have confirmed that cash payments have been received from the appellant company over and above the cheque payments declared in their books of account. Since the Ld. AR of the appellant has failed to submit any documentary evidence to rebut the entries of seized papers and statement recorded during the course of search of Shri Dilip Dherai, therefore, the addition made by the Ld. AO of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eproduced below:- 24. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Malik Brothers Pvt.Ltd. Vs CIT 162 Taxmann 43 which is relied upon by the Ld. DR. In that case, the assesse purchased the property allegedly for ₹ 6 lakhs. The vendor in her statement confirmed that the sale consideration of said property was ₹ 45 lakhs and paid tax thereon. In view of vendor s statement, the AO made an addition of ₹ 39 lakhs to the income of the assessee towards unexplained investment. The action of the AO was justified and the additions were confirmed. Thus in view of the aforesaid decision, in the present case, one of the sellers have been examined by the AO to strengthen his views that cash has been pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h huge expenditure outside its books of account. Further in his entire assessment order, the AO himself has pointed out time and again different persons, who are alleged, to have made cash payments. Even on that count, the additions cannot be sustained in the hands of the assesse. In our considerate view, there being no evidence to support the Revenue s case that a huge figure whatever be its quantum , over and above the figure booked in the records and accounts changed hands between the parties no addition could therefore be made u/s.69C of the Act to the income of the assesse. Considering the entire facts brought on record, we have no hesitation to hold that even on merits, no addition could be sustained. Further, the appeal of the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
