9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alised vide order under section 127 in F.No 127/Pr.CIT/VJA/2022-23 dated 24.03.2023 of Pr.CIT, Vijayawada, as it was observed that the assessee has involved in financial transactions will all the four brothers and key persons of M/s. Meenakshi Agro Chemicals. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 27.06.2023. Thereafter, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 17.11.2023, 04.12.2023, 28.12.2023 & 24.01.2024 calling for various details. In response to the notices, assessee furnished information through online. Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short "Ld.AO"] after examining the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee has purchased land at Autonagar, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh from four brothers namely Shri Mohammad Ahmad, Shri Mohammad Munaf, Shri Mohammad Arif and Shri Mohammad Younus for a consideration of Rs. 1,62,80,000/-. During the course of search proceedings, a excel calculation sheet found and seized and marked as Page No. 55 of Annexure A/MAC/RES/GNT/01. The said calculation sheet was confronted with the searched parties. Shri Mohammad Ismail stated that the cash of Rs. 3,80,05,000/- is received in connection with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidencing payment of cash of by the assessee Sri Yerra Rajesh towards purchase of Land and it was an extraction from the laptop of Sri Mohd Ismail S/o Sri Mohd Younus (one of the sellers). which was created on the date of registration, i.e. 16.06.2021@ In his sworn statement dated 2312.2022, recorded u/s 132(4), Sri Mohd 'Ismail has confirmed the said fact. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the sworn statement of One of the sellers and key person, Sri Mohd Munaf recorded u/s 132(4) on 23.12.2022, wherein he had confirmed receipt of cash of Rs. 3,80,05,000/- from the assessee, Sri Yerra Rajesh. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT 62 Taxmann.com 215 (SC) (2015), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee thus retying on 132(4) statement wholly as relying on this strong piece of evidence. 4. The leamed CIT(A) has erred in not considering the admission of receipt of cash of Rs. 3,80,05,000/-.by the sellers of the Land as income in their respective returns and paid relevant taxes. 'Thus, the sworn statement u/s 132(4) of one of the sellers, Sri Mohd Munaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onviction. 9. The CIT(A) has erred in allowing the ground of the assessee, based on the decision of Hon'ble ITAL Hyderabad in the case of K.V. Lakshmi Savitri Devi Vs. ACIT [2012] 148 TTJ 157 which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court of A.P in ITA No. 563 of 2011, as the facts of the present case are distinguishable. In the present case, there exists sworn statements of the sellers u/s 132(4) with corroborative evidence in the form of seized material and the sellers had admitted the said cash component in their respective returns and paid relevant taxes. 10 The CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that sellers of the transaction had accepted and paid taxes thereof and being the transaction is mirror image, it is unrealistic how the buyer (assessee) did not admit the transaction and pay resultant taxes. Thus, there is absurdity in the Appeal order. 11. The CIT(A) has erred in not considering the evidence that was found and seized from the Laptop of the Sellers and the same has evidentiary value as per the provisions of sec 65A and sec 65B of Indian Evidence Act 1872. 12. The CIT(A) has erred in holding that there was a variation in the statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the on-money payment by the assessee. He also further reiterated that there is no mention of any name in the Excel Sheet seized during the search proceedings. Ld.AR vehemently objected to the addition made by the Ld. AO by stating that simply because the file was created on the same date of registration of the sale deed, it cannot be construed as on-money payment by the assessee. Further, Ld.AR also stated that in the sworn statement recorded under section 131 of the Act from the assessee (Shri Yerra Rajesh) on 22.12.2022 assessee has denied any on-money payment for the purchase of property. Further, Ld.AR also submitted that the sellers have bought a property in Hyderabad by paying on-money and in order to substantiate the source for purchase of property in Hyderabad as an afterthought has stated that on-money has been received from the sale of property at Autonagar, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, from assessee. Ld.AR placed reliance on various case laws as mentioned in the paper book. He therefore pleaded that order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is the case of the Ld. AO that the assessee has paid on-mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not related the entries in the Excel sheet by way of independent corroborative evidences involving the nexus of the buyer and the property details, we are of the view that Ld. AO has erred in considering the amount of Rs. 3,80,05,000/- as on-money payment by the assessee. Further, Excel Sheet was found in the premises of M/s. Meenakshi Agro Chemicals for which the assessee is not at all related. We also observe from the order of the Ld. AO that no incriminating material has been seized from the premises of the assessee. We also find that Ld. AO has not conducted any independent enquiry on the contents of the Excel Sheet by linking it to the assessee and bringing any material on the record that the assessee has transferred cash to the sellers. The case law relied by the Ld.DR in the case of B. Kishore Kumar v. DCIT (supra) is distinguishable on the facts that in that case assessee himself has stated in sworn statement about his undisclosed income and hence tax was to be levied on basis of admission without scrutinizing documents. However, in the instant case assessee has not admitted payment of on-money to the sellers while recording his sworn statement on 22.12.2022 and hence this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
