9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 Rs. 69.55 lacs out of the total addition of Rs. 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 Rs. 69,55,000/- out of the total addition of Rs. 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) failed to appreciate that no such addition was called for. 3. The CIT(A) failed to consider or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 tenants occupying the property and the assessee has paid amounting to Rs. 88.55 lacs to vacate the premises of the project ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both of them, amounts of Rs. 54 lakhs and Rs. 14 lakhs, respectively were paid through cheque in the following manner: - Payment of Rs. 54 lakhs to M/s S. Ramdas: a) Cheque No. 807616 dt. 31/03.2004 of Rs. 20,00,000/- b) Cheque No. 995872 dt. 12/02/2005 of Rs. 9,50,000/- c) Cheque No. 219520 dt. 29/2/2005 of Rs. 4,50,000/- d) Cheque No.995884 dt. 3/3/2005 of Rs. 10,00,000/- e) Cheque No.995891 dt.30/3/2005 of Rs. 4,50,000/- f) Cheque No.502077 dt.30/03/2005 of 5,50,000/- Payment of Rs. 14 lakhs to Shri Pramod Desai: (i) Vide ceque No. 502058 dt. 10.03.2005 Rs. 1,00,000/- (ii) Vide cheque No. 502060 dt.12/3/2005 Rs. 13,00,000/- 6. When attention of Ld Counsel was brought to the payments to other parties, he stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
