Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM]
For the Appellant: Ms. Varsha Jalan, Advocate For the Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A), Siliguri vide Appeal No. 19/CIT(A)/SLG/2014-15 dated 03.09.2015. Assessment was framed by ITO, Wd-1(1), Siliguri u/s. 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2011-12 vide his order dated 26.02.2015.
At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 20 days and assessee has filed condonation petition stating the reasons that the assessee fell severely ill and bed ridden from 10.11.2015 to 04.12.2015. A doctor’s certificate dated 05.12.2015 is filed along with condonation petition. The order of CIT(A) dated 03.09.2015 was received by assessee on 18.09.2015. Accordingly, there is a delay of filing of appeal by 20 days and ultimately appeal was filed before Tribunal on 07.12.2015. When these facts were confronted to Ld. Sr. DR, he could not rebut the same. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted.
The first issue in this appeal of assessee is against the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO u/s. 147 of the Act is not pressed and hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed.
The only remaining issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of Rs.,6 lacs as unexplained investment in purchase of shop at Sai Golden Plaza, Siliguri by invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act.
I have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. I find from the facts of the case that the assessee has booked a shop No. 38 at Sai Golden Plaza and deal was finalized at Rs.23,72,580/-. The assessee made cash payment of Rs.11 lacs as under: Party’s name payment date Money Receipt No. Amount (Rs.) Mangalam 01.03.2011 23238 6,00,000/- Mangalam 07.06.2011 4236 5,00,000/-
2 Akhilesh Mishra, AY 2011-12 Subsequently, a survey was conducted on the business premises of the assessee u/s. 133A of the Act on 06.03.2013 from where a document of payment as mentioned above is found and marked as WM/01. Accordingly, the AO required the assessee to explain the payment of Rs. 6 lacs pertaining to FY 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12 (under consideration). Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that no opportunity to cross examine Shri Pravesh Goyal, whose receipt of Rs. 6 lacs was found during the course of survey was allowed to the assessee. She also referred to the order of CIT(A) para 5 wherein specifically the assessee has required to cross examine Shri Pravesh Goyal and the relevant para 5 reads as under: “The Ld. AR in his submission has heavily emphasized on two points – (i) that in the first statement before the DDIT (Inv.), Siliguri, appellant had categorically denied to have made any payment in the FY 2010-11 and (ii) that entries in the books of the third party does not constitute any material evidence to punish the appellant, especially when the appellant was not allowed to cross examine that third party namely, Shri Pravesh Kumar Goyal.”