It is enough to proved the source of investment

Last updated: 23 November 2012

Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
The facts as per the relevant orders are that a search was conducted on the assessee on 15.01.2009, together with searches in the Gopal Zarda group of cases. The assessee individual is a partner in certain firms and has, during the year, derived income from house property and interest income. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the basis of the seized page 10 which related to booking of a residential flat, Unit No.601 in Paramount Symphony at Grossings Republic, NH-24 for a total consideration of ` 26,68,567/- with M/s Paramount Residency P. Ltd. On this page itself, recital of the detail of payment made by cheque dated 18.11.2007, for ` 2,75,000/- by the assessee was given. No other payment was referred to on this document. While making the addition, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had completely failed to substantiate the contention that no payment on the seized document had been made by the assessee; that the assessee had not filed any sale document or confirmation from the seller of the property mentioning the sale particulars; that the assessee had failed to prove that the difference had not been paid; and that the difference was nothing, but ‘on money’ paid outside the books of account. The addition of ` 23,93,567/- was, thus, made.

Citation :
ACIT, Central Circle-2, Room No.323, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, E-2,Jhandewalan Extn.,New Delhi.(Appellant) Vs.Anju Chaudhary, 240, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III, New Delhi.PAN: AACPC4087F

Daily Limit Reached