Case Law Details
Kundan Builders Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune)
The assessee contended that the addition made by the AO basing on statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act without there being any documentary evidence to such statement. The CIT(A) sought remand report from the AO which is reproduced at Page No. 11 and 12 of the impugned order. On perusal of the same, we note that the CIT(A) directed the AO call for search material as he considered fit for conducting enquiries to verify the factual aspect and contention of no documentary evidence, no opportunity of cross-examination and denial of concerned person of assessee receipt of any amount other than the consideration recorded in cancellation agreement. The remand report of the AO was furnished to assessee. On perusal of remand report we note that the AO had given opportunity for cross-examination of Shri Bapu Vithal Parande to the assessee. The said person reaffirmed cash payment of Rs.21 lakh to the partners of the assessee and according to the AO that the assessee could prove nothing in favour of the assessee that no cash payment is made. The assessee made rebuttal to the cross-examination of the said Shri Bapu Vithal Parande and that the said Shri Bapu Vithal Parande expressed his inability of those persons present during the alleged search. We note that the alleged cash was withdrawn from the accounts of Shri Bapu Vithal Parande, Shri Sandeep Parande and two others. The said person expressed his inability bring Shri Sandeep Parande and two others from whose accounts amounts have been withdrawn as witnesses to the alleged cash payment who are none of them his own family members. We note that the AO in its order at Para No. 5 clearly observed that certain documents were seized which are related to Dighi property which resulted in making addition in the hands of assessee. The CIT(A) also affirmed the said observation at Para No. 6.13 of the impugned order but no such documentary evidence brought on record before this Tribunal showing that the assessee received the alleged cash payment. We find the case of ld. DR is that Shri Bapu Vithal Parande made statement that the cash payment to assessee withdrawing such amounts from the accounts of his family members but there was no statement recorded by the AO in this regard from such family members and also Shri Bapu Vithal Parande expressed inability such members for the examination. Thus, the evidence of cash payment by Shri Bapu Vithal Parande cannot be believed for the reason that there was no witnesses to the said cash payments and a mere statement by the said person that some of the amounts received from the accounts of others is not sufficient to make the addition in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, it is established that there was no documentary evidence corroborating the statement of Shri Bapu Vithal Parande recorded u/s. 131 of the Act. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is not justified and it is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31-07-2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Central, Pune [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2007-08.
2. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 124 days and the assessee filed an affidavit stating the reasons for delay. On perusal of record and hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee to file the present appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 124 days is condoned.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
