Case Law Details
Mansukh Timbadia Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune)
In this case scrutiny of entries of seized loose papers reveals that the transactions noted thereon were not genuine and have no evidentiary value for the reason no clear details concerning the AY consideration are ascertainable as rightly pointed by the ld. AR as it establishes estimations only. This is apparent from the impugned order that the CIT(A) recorded a finding that the transaction noted in the seized papers as relied on by the AO were not genuine. Therefore, in our opinion, there was no document to show the payment of such a huge cash payment of Rs.34,36,00,000/- and the evidence of a third party which was retracted is clearly inadmissible and insufficient to prove any such huge cash payment. Coming to the vehement arguments of ld. DR, a mere suspicion that the real estate business are prone to take part on sale amount in cash is not a ground to accept such a huge cash payment was received by the assessee specially when such payment had not been supported by any other evidence.
26. There had been no corroborative evidence and no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee in terms of alleged entries of loose papers. Unless it is established on record that as a matter of fact the cash payment as alleged by the respondent-revenue did pass to the assessee from M/s. Krupa Land Pvt. Ltd. it cannot be said respondent-revenue had any right to make any addition. On perusal of the statement of Dilip Dherai at Page No. 135-14 1 of paper book and no conclusion can be drawn that the entries in loose papers belongs to assessee representing cash payment. Even the CIT(A) clearly held in the impugned order at para 3.11 at page 20, that the AO squarely failed to carry out necessary investigation/enquiries from the buyer M/s Krupa Land, meaning thereby, the CIT(A) also discredited the entries alleged to have been found in the seized loose papers of annexure 1-4, as dumb documents. When the seized loose papers Annexure 1 to 4 by itself, in our opinion, did not indicate receipt of alleged cash payment and no relevancy to the year under consideration, therefore, addition confirmed by the CIT-A to the extent of Rs.3,33,06,667/- is not justified. Thus, ground Nos. 1 to 3 and connected ground no.5 raised by the assessee are allowed. Ground No. 4 requires no adjudication in view of our decision in additional ground.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
These two appeals by the assessee and Revenue against the common order dated 30-10-2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane, [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2008-09.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
