Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
per seized documents match with actual sale deed. When most of the particulars match with the sale deed, the inference is compelling that the cash entries also form part of the same transaction. The assessee’s reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (supra) is distinguishable. That decision dealt with stray loose papers. Here, the document is not a random scrap but a structured statement, having linkage with the registered document, thus carrying corroborative value. Therefore, when most of the details of the seized document matches with the actual sale deed i.e. Plot number, size, assessee’s name and some part of sales consideration, the assessee cannot selectively deny the cash components of Rs.29,80,403/-. Accordingly, we uphold the findings of the lower authorities that cash payments of Rs.29,80,403/- represent unexplained investment.
With regard to the addition of Rs.4,39,000/-, the assessee explained that the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was received through bank transfers and Rs.89,000/- was received in cash from his father and mother, whose incomes were from business and tailoring work.
It is correct that equivalent cash deposits were made in their bank accounts before transfer, but the assessee has furnished at least an explanation of their sources. The Ld. AO did not conduct any further enquiry or bring contrary evidence. The reliance of the Ld. DR on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadiq Sheikh vs. CIT (supra) is distinguishable. In that case, the assessee offered no explanation regarding the capacity of creditors. However in the present case, the assessee has furnished an explanation, identifying the parents as sources with known activities, and the Revenue has not disproved it by further verification. In these facts, we hold that the addition of Rs.4,39,000/- cannot be sustained. The same is directed to be deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is partly allowed.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
13. The issues involved in this appeal is identical to the issues involved in the appeal in regarding addition made by Ld. AO on the basis of seized documents, wherein we have uphold the addition made by the Ld. AO under section 69 of the Act. Therefore, our discussion and findings in are mutatis mutandis applicable to this appeal also. Accordingly, we uphold the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in this appeal also.