TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e transaction. The assessee has failed to dislodge the allegation of on-money payments. The documents seized from the premises of Tapadias during search operation coupled with unrebutted statement of Ajay B Tapadiya explaining the entire transaction as recorded on seized document clearly indicates assessee‟s involvement in on-money payment for purchase of land. No infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the addition with respect to on-money payment for purchase of land, in the hands of assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.2280/PUN/2016, ITA No.2609/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2019 - Shri R.S. SYAL, Vice President And Shri Vikas Awasth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... padia family from assessee in two financial years, as under : Financial Year Assessment Year Amount 2005-06 2006-07 ₹ 97,74,069/- 2009-10 2010-11 ₹ 1,42,65,106/- Total ₹ 2,53,76,665/- 2.1 Consequent to seizure of incriminating documents in search action, assessment of the assessee for assessment years 2006-07 and 2010-11 were reopened. Notices u/s. 148 were issued to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer and that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹ 97,74,069/- u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unaccounted cash expenditure. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter the grounds or act to the same as being necessary. Similar grounds have been raised by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 in ITA No. 2609/PUN/2017. 4. Shri V.L. Jain appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the authorities below have erred in making addition u/s. 69B for alleged payment of cash as on-money‟ for purchase of plot at Baner, Pune to the vend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23;ble Rajasthan High Court on 31-07-2017; ii. Sri G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax in SLP No. 39980 of 2017 decided on 23-02-2018 by Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India; iii. Jaydeep M. Kher Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 973/PN/2013 for assessment year 2003-04 decided on 28-12-2016; iv. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Ashish International in Income Tax Appeal No. 4299 of 2009 decided on 22-02-2011 by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court. 4.2 The ld. AR submitted that the additions have been made for both the impugned assessment years i.e. assessment years 2006-07 and 2010-11 in respect of same transaction of purchase of land by the assessee from Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 61,98,429/- 2006-07 Yash B Tapadiya ₹ 35,75,640/- 2010-11 Ajay B Tapadiya ₹ 1,42,65,106/- Total ₹ 2,40,39,175/- 5.1 As regards the opportunity of cross-examination, the ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had issued summons to Ajay Tapadia twice. On both the occasions, Ajay B. Tapadia remained absent for cross-examination. Hence, it is not a case where the opportunity of crossexamination was not afforded to the assessee. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. However, a perusal of document clearly shows the entire transaction and bifurcation of money to be received by way of cheque and cash on sale of land, purchased by the assessee. In so far as the plea of assessee that opportunity to cross examination Ajay B Tapadiya on whose statement addition is made in the hands of the assessee is concerned, we find that the Assessing Officer had summoned Ajay B Tapadiya for cross-examination on two occasions. However, on both the occasions Ajay B Tapadiya did not turn up for cross-examination. Thus, it is not a case where the opportunity of cross-examination was not provided to the assessee. The assessee had entered into transaction for purchase of land with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
