TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by Ram Panchayat Trust. We have noted that the CIT(A) has observed this fact but noted that Grishma Constructions also not owned up these transactions and these transactions have not been considered in its hands during the assessment made in its case. He further noted that the additions made by the AO, as of now, unless and until the assessee group owns up such transactions elsewhere is to be added here. As for as payment to Shri Desai is concerned, the CIT(A) partly rejected this page by observing that sufficient evidence has been made available by the assessee, as this payment has been made through cheque and an agreement in this regard has been entered into between Shri Desai and Grishma Constructions & Trading Pvt. Ltd. As reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t DCIT/ AO ) for the A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 31.12.2010 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act ). 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition of ₹ 69.55 lacs out of the total addition of ₹ 88.50 lacs made by the AO under the head cash payments to tenants. For this assessee has raised the following three grounds: - 1. On facts and in law, the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the addition to the extent of ₹ 69,55,000/- out of the total addition of ₹ 88,50,000/- made under the head cash payments made to the tenants 2. On facts and in circumstances and in law the CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee, in his statement recorded under section 131 dated 24.06.2008, admitted that these are the details of payments made to the tenants who were occupying the Ram Panchayat Temple property. The assessee, vide query No 31 of the questionnaire already issued, was requested to explain the contents on these seized papers. The assessee s representative, vide letter dated 08.12.2010 field the explanation for seized papers (Annexure-1 of the letter) submitted before the DDIT (Investigation). As per the serial No 26 of this Annexure, the assessee has explained this seized paper No.102 as related to project Pluto. However, he has failed to explain the contents mentioned on the back side of this paper. These are the cash payment made to the tenan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Pvt. Ltd, there were only two tenants of this property namely M/S S. Ramdas proprietor Sh Millan Dalal and Sh Pramod Desai. It was further contended that to both of them, amounts of ₹ 54 lakhs and ₹ 14 lakhs, respectively were paid through cheque in the following manner: - Payment of ₹ 54 lakhs to M/s S. Ramdas: a) Cheque No. 807616 dt. 31/03.2004 of ₹ 20,00,000/- b) Cheque No. 995872 dt. 12/02/2005 of ₹ 9,50,000/- c) Cheque No. 219520 dt. 29/2/2005 of ₹ 4,50,000/- d) Cheque No.995884 dt. 3/3/2005 of ₹ 10,00,000/- e) Cheque No.995891 dt.30/3/2005 of ₹ 4,50,000/- f) Cheque No.502077 dt.30/03/2005 of 5,50,000/- Payment of ₹ 14 lakhs to Shri Pramod D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayments appearing on the back side of page No.102 of Annexure A-I seized during the course of search. The AO has held that these payments had been made to the tenants of Ram Panchayat Temple Trust, apparently, for vacation of property, and sources of the same had not been explained by the assessee, resulting into addition u/s.69C of the Act. We find from records of the case that the facts are clear that these payments, if at all, have been made or are received by Grishma Constructions Trading Pvt. Ltd and not by the assessee, as the front side of the same page has got details relating to the project being undertaken by Grishma Constructions on the land owned by Ram Panchayat Trust. We have noted that the CIT(A) has observed this fact but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
