LAMBODAR GOLD,LONI KALBHOR PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

The sole grievance of the assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,31,20,000/- made by the assessing officer involving section 69A of the Act.

At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for admission of additional evidence enclosed in the Paper Book from Page No. 1-49 (Except page No. 04-20) which have not been submitted before the lower authorities and requested for providing one more opportunity to go before the lower authorities for necessary adjudication of the issue in light of additional evidence.

On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) stated that the impugned addition is based on the statement of the Partner of the assessee firm recorded during the course of survey carried out u/s 133A of the Act on 01.10.2019 and the cash vouchers prepared by the assessee and found by the survey team which remain unexplained. He also submitted that the survey was carried out on 01.10.2019 but the retraction has been made in July 2022 which is almost after 2 years which shows that the retraction is merely after thought.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee has been subjected to survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act carried out on 01.10.2019. During the course of survey proceedings Shri Amol Arvind Kalbhor, Partner of the firm accepted to have received an amount of Rs. 1,31,20,000/- as a part of advance of plots at Post Peth, Opp. Ultratech Cement Company, Tal: Haveli, Pune and the same are not recorded in the Books of Accounts. In support of the same Cash Vouchers were found by the survey team which are placed in the Paper Book at page No. 102-124 and the amounts mentioned in these figures totals to the alleged sum. Now subsequent to the survey assessee filed the return of income on 15.02.2021 declaring income of Rs. 1,33,79,990/- but in the income tax return assessee did not disclosed additional income of Rs. 1,31,20,000/- accepted during the course of survey proceeding. Ld. AO therefore in the assessment proceeding carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act, made addition of Rs. 1,31,20,000/- and the same has been further affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee is claiming that the cash vouchers placed at Paper Book No. 102-124 were prepared by the assessee during the course of survey. He further submitted that the names appearing in the vouchers did not have any co-relation with the sale of plot made by the assessee during the year. He further referred to the additional evidence placed at serial No. 1 and 2 and serial No. 7-12 of the Paper Book running into 49 pages and submitted that this additional evidence may please be considered for adjudication of the issues raised in the instant appeal.

So far as impugned addition is considered both the lower authorities has referred and relied on the statement recorded during the course of survey alongwith the cash vouchers duly signed by the Partner of the assessee firm indicating that cash has been received from various persons but the same being not recorded in the Books of Accounts. However in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties we admit the additional evidences filed before us and restore the issue raised in this appeal on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re adjudication after considering the additional evidence furnished by the assessee and then decide in accordance with law as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.