TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that ₹ 60,00,000/- is duly accounted for in the books of accounts. Remaining amount of ₹ 2,60,000/- have also been paid by cheque as appearing in the seized document, thus the figure of ₹ 2,60,000/- also stands duly explained by the assessee. Since the assessee is one of the working partner in Regal Samarth Construction Company and the alleged transaction have direct nexus with the assessee but during the course of proceedings before both the lower authorities and before us assessee failed to produce any material evidence in support of his claim that the alleged amount of ₹ 85,00,000/-is not having any ingredient of undisclosed/un recorded income. So we are of the view that ₹ 85,00,000/- is the amount to be received by the assessee and it can be purely unaccounted income or it can be an amount which comprises of income and capital introduced by the assessee. Since the revenue has not brought any other material evidence to prove that the alleged amount is purely an income the assessee certainly deserves benefit of doubt and further since below the alleged account itself the sum of ₹ 22,40,000/- is me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. One of the seized document namely LPS-1 page 1 to 8 contained some information about the assessee. In compliance to notice u/s 153A of the Act assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 to 2015-16. Instant appeal relates to Assessment Year 2013-14 for which the assessee declared income of ₹ 4,06,160/-. In the seized document there was an account in the name of Mr. Mazumdar i.e. the assessee in which certain transactions were appearing on the left hand/ debit side and right hand/credit side. When the assessee was confronted by the Ld. A.O it was submitted that the amount of ₹ 62,60,000/- appearing in the left side is towards capital introduced at ₹ 30,00,000/- each in two partnership firms namely Regal Samarth Construction Company and Regal Samarth Krishna Builders. An amount of ₹ 2,60,000/- appearing in these seized document is a cheque given towards boundary wall. The total amount of ₹ 62,60,000/- is duly accounted in the books and thus is explained. As regards ₹ 85,00,000/- appearing in the right/credit side, assessee stated that it is the liability shown against the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of each partner and the amount received from each partner through cash and cheque has been mentioned. The loose paper has been found from the premises of Shri KL Shsrma who is one of the partner in the said project. The simultaneous searches have been carried out at the premises of the appellant and Shri KL Sharma on the ground that both are common partners in the firms and there is every likely hood that paper belonging to one person might be found at premises of other person. The entries in these papers are related to land purchased where the appellant is one of the partner. The page 4 of loose paper is ledger account of appellant whereas it has been written as 85,00,000/- to be taken from chitrakoet , Chitrakoot is the name of the project, run by the firm M/s Regal Samarth Construction company in which appellant is a partner, The details of project Triveni Heights and project Chitrakoot cannot be considered as rough working because in the firms appellant is one of the partner. Therefore, the AO correctly held in para 9.6 of the assessment order that the loose paper cannot be said to be a rough working paper because ln both the projects Le. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copies of the loose papers have been reproduced in the assessment order from page 4 to 6. At page 5 the account of S.S Yadav has been mentioned in which the following amounts have been mentioned with the remark Mujumdarji-vale ₹ 60,00,qOOI- and ₹ 2,60,000/-- At Page 6 of the assessment order the following amounts have been mentioned: ₹ 60,00,000/-- Cash + Ch ₹ 85,00,000/-- Chitrakut se lena ₹ 2,60,000/-- Ch boundary W ---------------- ₹ 62,60,000/-- ₹ 85,00,000/-- ₹ 22,40,000/- balance to be taken On the basis of these loose papers which contain the name of the assessee the additions have been made in para 9.7 of ₹ 87,60,000/- on the following basis. ₹ 32,60,000/- unaccounted investment ( ₹ 62,60,000/- minus ₹ 30,00,000/- which is paid by cheque) ₹ 55,00,000/-- Investment in the firm M/s Regal Samarth Krishna Builders ₹ 85,00,000/- as per seized documents minus ₹ 30,00,000/-- which is accounted investment. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the contention that no addition is called since incriminating material does not belong to assessee, Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal CIT-1 V/s Shri Pukhraj Soni ITA No.53 of 2017 dated 6.2.2019. 8. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the findings of both the lower authorities and also submitted that the alleged seized material cannot be claimed by the assessee as not related to him since some part of the seized document pertaining to assessee contains the transactions which were duly accounted in the regular books of accounts maintained by the assessee. She further contended that the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal CIT-1 V/s Shri Pukhraj Soni (supra) is not be applicable on the facts of the instant case. 9. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The assessee s sole grievance is on account of addition for unaccounted investment at ₹ 86,60,000/- made by the Ld. A.O and duly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is a part of Regal Homes group which was subj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on the left hand/debit side we observe that the assessee entered into partnership in Regal Samarth Krishna Construction Company which was executing the project of construction of flats in the name of Chitrakoot . The assessee also entered into partnership with other concern Regal Samarth Krishna Builders on 20.10.11 which was running another project named Triveni Heights . At Page No. 13 to 21 of paper book filed on 13.3.2019, copies of capital account of the assessee in the above stated partnership firms are placed. On perusal of the same we find that in the firm Regal Samarth Construction Company the assessee has introduced capital of ₹ 30,00,000/- through cheque during financial year 2012-13 and similarly in Regal Samarth Construction Company also assessee being 30% partner has introduced capital by cheque/cash of ₹ 30,00,000/-. So there remains no dispute that the amount of ₹ 60,00,000/- which is appearing in the seized material, stands duly explained with the capital accounts of the partnership firms and supports the contention of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that ₹ 60,00,000/- is duly accounted for in the books of accounts. Remaini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be an amount which comprises of income and capital introduced by the assessee. Since the revenue has not brought any other material evidence to prove that the alleged amount is purely an income the assessee certainly deserves benefit of doubt and further since below the alleged account itself the sum of ₹ 22,40,000/- is mentioned as an amount referred as balance to be for payment. This amount of ₹ 22,40,000/- is the difference between ₹ 85,00,000/- (i.e. amount to be taken less ₹ 62,60,000/- the amount invested by the assessee), therefore the addition for unaccounted investment in our view cannot be more than ₹ 22,40,000/-. We therefore in the given facts and in view of our discussions herein above are of the considered view that the alleged addition of unaccounted investment needs to be sustained only to the extent of ₹ 22,40,000/- and thus the finding of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the assessee gets relief of Rsd.65,20,000/-. Ground No.1 of the assessee is partly allowed. 15. Ground No.2 is general in nature which needs no adjudication. 16. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
