JAGDISHBHAI R. PATEL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Jagdishbhai R. Patel
INCOME TAX OFFICER
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is the assessee's appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Gandhinagar dated 30 -08 -2010.
(2.) THE assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: -
"1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against law equity and justice and same is wholly illegal, unlawful and bad in law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and/or facts upholding the order of the ld. A.O. in considering unexplained investment in house propriety thus upholding addition of Rs. 478750/ - u/s. 69 of the Act."
(3.) AT the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the that fact that notice for today's hearing was sent to him. No application for adjournment was also filed by the assessee. So, we
proceeded to decide the appeal after hearing ld. DR.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee's case was re -opened on the basis of statement of builder recorded in the course of search conducted on 27 -03 -92 at the premises of M/s. Desai Brothers and
Associates. The notice u/s. 148 was issued to examine the chargeability of income of Rs. 14,60,000/ -
(inclusive of on money of Rs. 4,78,750/ -) towards Bungalow No. 11, Tulip Bungalows Scheme. In the
original order, the AO has noted that the builder had admitted of receiving 60% payment by cheque as
official payment and 40% payment in cash as 'on money' towards the cost of Bungalow in Tulip -I and II
scheme. The assessee has purchased Bungalow in assessment year 1994 -95 and paid the cost of
Bungalow in the same year. But it was booked before conducting the search on builder as evident from
incriminating document seized from builder. Accordingly, as per AO assessee has paid Rs. 9,81,250/ - by
cheque as shown in the return of income for assessment year 1994 -95 and Rs. 4,78,750/ - as "on money"
@ 40% of cost by Bungalow of Rs. 14,60,000/ -. On assessee's request summons dated 16 -01 -2001 was
issued to assessee as well as the builder for cross examination. Neither of them attended the office on the
date given in the notice/summon. Therefore, the AO held that the builder had nothing to say in addition to
hisstatement recorded during the course of search. However, the assessee filed a letter dated 20 -01 -2001
for providing the copy of statement of Desai Brothers and Associates regarding on money. During the
course of assessment proceedings, the AR of the assessee was specifically shown the statement recorded
of the builder and also shown the copy of letter pad of Ambica Cotton Company seized during the search,
in which the Bungalow -wise cost was mentioned by the builder. The cost of Bungalow No. 11 was shown
at Rs. 14,60,000/ -.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.