TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mehta and Ravi Dasija, A.Rs. For the Respondent by : Shri Purushotam Kumar, D.R. ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai, dated 20.04.2016, which in itself arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax act, 1961(for short Act‟), dated 21.03.2014. The assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A) had raised before us the following grounds of appeal:- Being aggrieved by the orders of the learned lower authorities, the Appellant craves your Honor s leave to file the appeal on the following alternative grounds of appeal: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not holding that the reassessment made u/s 147/148 was bad in law. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 47,00,000/- made u/s 69 on account of alleged on money paid for the purchase of flat. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not holding that no addition could be made based solely on the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A) and averred that the A.O had made the addition only on the basis of conjectures and misconceived observations. The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that as against the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 21,00,000/- the flat was purchased by him for a consideration of Rs. 29,00,000/-, which fact further fortified the veracity of the purchase transaction of the property under consideration. However, the CIT(A) not finding favour with the contentions of the assessee, being of the view that the assessee had failed to rebut the presumptions regarding the noting of the cash payments in the impounded document, therefore, upheld the addition of Rs. 47,00,000/- made by the A.O. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) had carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorised representative (for short A.R‟) for the assessee at the very outset submitted that he was not pressing Ground of appeal No. 1. The Ground of appeal No. 1 is thus dismissed as not pressed. The ld. A.R took us through the Agreement to Sell‟, dated 23.06.2005, vide which he had had purchased the Flat No. 2002, Kent Garden, Borivali (W), Mumbai, during the year under consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies after carrying out a conjoint perusal of the said documents had rightly concluded that the assessee had paid on money of Rs. 47,00,000/- for the purchase of the property. The ld. D.R in order to support his contention relied on the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Surendra M. Khandhar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Ors (2010) 321 ITR 254 (Bom). The ld. D.R relying on the said judgment submitted that it was held by the Hon‟ble High Court that as the assessee had failed to rebut the presumption drawn by the A.O under Sec 292C, therefore, the addition under Sec. 69 on the basis of the document seized from the possession of assessee was rightly made by AO and sustained by the Tribunal. It was thus submitted by the ld. D.R that now when the assessee had failed to rebut the presumption drawn by the A.O on the basis of the notings in the diary impounded in the course of the survey proceedings conducted on M/s Dev Sharda developers, therefore, the addition of Rs. 47,00,000/- was rightly made by the A.O. 6. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivali (W), Mumbai, then how could adverse inferences as regards payment of on money by the assessee for the purchase of the said property could have be drawn by the A.O. We are rather of the considered view that as the details mentioned against the amount of Rs. 67,20,000/-(supra) are clearly at variance as against that of the property under consideration, therefore, there was no occasion for the A.O to have acted upon the said impugned notings in context of the purchase of the property under consideration. We have further perused the notings marked as Commission at Page 105 of the impounded document, and though find that as against the term Commission certain amounts are found mentioned, but are unable to comprehend as to how such dumb notings have been related to the purchase of the property under consideration, viz. Flat No. 2002, Kent Garden, Borivali (W), Mumbai by the assessee. We further find that the judgment of the of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Surendra M. Khandhar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Ors (2010) 321 ITR 254 (Bom) relied upon by the ld. D.R is distinguishable on facts. We find that in the case before the High Court a zerox c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
