9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for A.Y. 2011-12 whereby and whereunder the addition of Rs. 50 Lakhs on account of unexplained cash u/s. 69 of the Act has been upheld. 2. Brief facts leading to the case is this that the appellant company engaged in the business of trading -retailers filed its return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring income at Rs. 2,28,67,060/-. Subsequently a search u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in the group cases of M/s. Lakshmi Gold Palace and M/s. Lakshmi Gold Khazaanaa Pvt. Ltd. on 08.02.2013 and warrant was issued upon the assessee viz., M/s. Lakshmi Gold Khazaanaa Pvt. Ltd. Certain incriminating documents have been found and seized from the premises of the assessee. Consequently notice u/s. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns the details of loan given by M/s. Eurekha Builders to M/s. Lakshmi Gold Khazaanaa Pvt Ltd. As per this an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was given to M/s. Lakshmi Gold Khazaanaa Pvt Ltd on 16.06.2010. As per Annexure A/LGKPL/8, Page No.53 contains details of loan given by M/s. Eurekha Builders to Mr. K. P.Nanjundi. As per this the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/ - was given to K.P.Nanjundi on 27.11.2010. * The learned Assessing Officer further reproduced the statement recorded from Mr. M.K.Ramakrishna being question No.13 and answer to the same. Further reproduced the statement recorded from the Eurekha Builders and they have stated that they have not received any amount in cash from Mr. K.P.Nanjundi or any of his firms. * Further the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has not paid any cash payment to M/s. Eurekha Builders. The appellant submits that the appellant received the amount from M/s. Eurekha Builders through banking channel on 16.06.2010 a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The said amount was payable by the appellant for the year ended 31.03.2011. The appellant submits that the M/s. Lakshmi Gold Palace has due to the said M/s. Eurekha Builders for the year ended 31.03.2011 a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The said amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-payable by M/s. Lakshmi Gold Palace to M/s. Eurekha Builders was transferred to the account of the appellant in the financial year 2011-12. Consequently the total amount due by the appellant to M/s. Eurekha Builders is at Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The appellant has not paid the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in violation of principles of natural justice. xiv) The addition made by the learned Assessing officer is not in accordance with law. xv) The learned Assessing Officer accepted the books of accounts of the appellant and it was subject to audit under section 44AB of the Act. xvi) The return of income for the impugned assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 30.09.2011 showing the amount payable to M/s. Eurekha Builders a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- for the year ended 31.03.2011. Copy of the breakup of Trade Payable is enclosed and marked as Annexure-G. The appellant also filed in response to notice issued under section 153A of the Act to treat the same return of income filed on 30.09.2011. The appellant also filed the return of income for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in order to rebut the same, it was stated that nothing was pending as the amount has already been paid to the said party by cash. Infact, no amount has been actually paid to M/s. Eureka Builders in cash and the seized document showing such cash payment of the impugned amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs was created by it just to support its reply. Further that the IT return for the year under consideration filed on 30.09.2011 showing Rs. 50 Lakhs was payable to M/s. Eureka Builders as on 31.03.2011. In view of the litigation subsequently such entry was passed to create a record that cash payment of Rs. 50 Lakhs was made to M/s. Eureka Builders and the amount paid by it later was repayment of the same. 6. On this aspect, he has also drawn our atten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities below. 8. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record particularly the orders passed by the authorities below. 9. The moot point involved in this particular case is this that as to whether the addition u/s. 69 of the Act of the impugned amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs is sustainable particularly when both the parties, the appellant and M/s. Eureka Builders has denied such cash payment made by the appellant. On this aspect, we have considered the legal notice issued by the said M/s. Eureka Builders dated 30.09.2011 and 23.02.2012 appearing at pages 28 & 33 respectively in the paper book filed before us. The authorities below relied upon the stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
