9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: (1) Without prejudice to the above challenge on legality, even on the merits of the case, the learned CIT-Appeals erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 95,56,000 made by the Assessing Officer as Unexplained money u/s. 69A of the IT Act. (2) That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, as also in law, the learned CIT-Appeals grievously erred in not appreciating the merits of the appellant's contentions that the aforesaid addition of Rs. 95,56,000 was grossly unjustified and could not be sustained." 3 In this case, the assessee filed return of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee before the Hon'ble ITSC that the assessee has been accepting on-money in cash for sales of villas, the Revenue alleged that the assessee has paid on-money of Rs. 95,56,000/-. * While treating the amount of Rs. 95,56,000/- as undisclosed amount escaped tax, notice u/s 148 has been issued and assessment has been completed determining the undisclosed income of Rs. 95,56,000/-. 7. The most important facts observed by us pertains to para No. 9.1 to 9.4 of the assessment order. For the sake of ready reference and completeness, the said paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:- 9.1 As per assessee, the decoded is done by the Department is its own and the search party has not given any authenticity for it. However the amount stated in the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly for under question. However, it is brought to kind notice of the assessee that the purchase deed is executed in the year under consideration hence, the all transaction are covered under this year only." 7.1 A detailed analysis of the relevant paragraphs from the assessment order reveals multiple inconsistencies and procedural lapses that render the addition unjustified. 7.2 Firstly, the decoding of figures has been done solely by the department without any independent verification, and the search party has not provided any authenticity for the same. This statement recorded on decoding has not been part of the assessment proceedings. The Revenue has relied on unverified and coded figures, which have been tallied against the un-coded f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its contents, the department cannot use it as the basis for making an addition. 7.5 Furthermore, NODPL has confessed before ITSC that it collected on-money from the sale of land and buildings. However, the admission was made in a general context regarding all purchasers of the scheme developed by NODPL. There is no specific mention or direct evidence linking the assessee to this alleged on-money transaction. In the absence of any concrete evidence that the assessee was involved in undisclosed transactions, making an addition solely on presumptions is unsustainable. Any such addition must be backed by clear, conclusive proof rather than general confessions made by third parties. 7.6 Finally, the purchase deed in question has been executed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
