PRADYUT KUMAR SAHA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ASANSOL. , ASANSOL

The sole issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is relating to the addition of Rs.1,06,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Act.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee along with two other persons namely Smt. Anindita Nandi & Smt. Dwipannita Ray purchased a flat no.2A, 2nd Floor, 84, M.M. Ghosh Road, Kolkata-700074 for Rs.23,76,550/- vide a registered Conveyance Deed dated 03.10.2012.

Assessment year: 2013-14 Pradyut Kumar Saha However, in a separate statement recorded in the case of promoter of the property namely Shri Kamal Kumar Roy, he had stated that though in the Conveyance Deed the consideration mentioned was Rs.23,76,550/-, however, the actual consideration received from the assessee was Rs.24,82,550/-. The case of the assessee was, therefore, reopened. However, the assessee in the assessment proceedings stated that he had not made extra payment to the promoter, Shri Kamal Kumar Roy. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the above stand of the assessee and made the impugned addition of Rs.1,06,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee.

The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. In this case, the flat was purchased by three persons and not by the assessee alone. The sale consideration of the flat in the registered Conveyance Deed has been mentioned as Rs.23,76,550/-. The assessee has categorically denied any extra payment made to the promoter. Even otherwise, the entire extra payment of Rs.1,06,000/- could not have been attributed in the hands of the assessee, since, admittedly the flat was purchased by three persons. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has duly asked for cross-examination of the promoter which was denied to the assessee. There is no evidence on the file except the statement of the third party recorded in some other case about the extra payment of Rs.1,06,000/-. The assessee has denied of having made such payment. In our view, the making of impugned addition, merely on the basis of statement of the promoter, which he could have given to save his own skin, cannot be the sole basis, without giving opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the said person. Even otherwise, the amount alleged is a very small amount and the Assessment year: 2013-14 Pradyut Kumar Saha purchasers are three persons and if the said amount of Rs.1,06,000/- is divided between three persons, it comes to Rs.35,000/- only. In our view, when the entire payment of the flat has been made through cheque, we see no reason that the assessee would pay a small amount of Rs.35,000/- out of record. In view of this, the impugned addition is not sustainable and the same is set aside.