ACIT CEN CIR 37, MUMBAI V. RAKESHKUMAR WADHWAN, THANE

ITA 5040/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83939 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY R SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Assessment record; Retraction; Documents seized; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5040/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 37 VS. SHRI RAKESHKUMAR WADHWAN AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 DEWAN TOWER, NAVGHAR STATION ROAD, VASAI ROAD (W) THANE 401202 PAN - ADIPB2373C APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AJAY R. SINGH DATE OF HEARING: 08.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.10.2014 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A), CENTRAL VIII, MUMBAI AND IT PERTAINS TO A.Y . 2003-04. 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WERE URGED BEFORE US: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F 'ON-MONEY' RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE STATEMENT ON OATH OF SHRI K.K. GOE L RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE IT ACT, SUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMENTS SE IZED IN COURSE OF SEARCH AND ACTION. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F 'ON-MONEY' RECEIVED BY THE RECIPIENT ASSESSEE FROM GOEL GROUP AND MIS ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS (I) PVT. LTD IGNORING THE FACT T HAT THE SAME HAS BEEN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASER OF FLAT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH BY THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F 'ON-MONEY' RECEIVED IN CASH OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF THE RECIPIENT ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT THAT UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT BY M/S ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS (I) PVT. LTD AND M/S K.K. GOEL (HUF) IN IMM OVABLE PROPERTIES ITA NO. 5040/MUM/2009 SHRI RAKESHKUMAR WADHWAN 2 HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED AS THEIR UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 153A ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI K.K. GOEL U/S 132(4). 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F 'ON-MONEY' THEREBY ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE S UMS PAID AND RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE PAYMENT MADE TO CONTRACTORS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAID CONTRACTORS WERE NEV ER PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE SEVERAL REMINDERS BY THE LATTER. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION R ELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SH RI JAG MOHAN SINGH ARORA (101 TTJ 682) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE SHRI ARORA DESPITE BEING GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THIRD PART Y REFUSED TO DO SO AND LATER RETRACTED FROM THE STATEMENT WHICH WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEING DISTI NGUISHABLE FROM THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F 'ON-MONEY' RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF JAG MOHAN ARORA (101 TTJ 682) IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY AND EXAMINE THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND MATERIAL S AND IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SUBSEQUENT RETRACTION OF STATEMEN T ON OATH WAS NOT MADE BY SHRI K.K. GOEL HIMSELF BUT HIS AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE AFTER HIS DEMISE WHICH HAS NO LEGAL AUTHENTICITY. 3. FACTS NECESSARY FOR DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL ARE STAT ED IN BRIEF. ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER AND DEVELOPER. PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTI ON 132 WERE INITIATED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 18.01.2007 AT HIS RESID ENTIAL PREMISES. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A WAS ISSUED. IT DESERVES TO BE NOTICED THAT THE ACIT, CENTRAL 10, MUMBAI SEI ZED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ON 04.09.2007 WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD A RESIDENTIAL FLAT IN THE BUILDING KNOWN DHEERAJ DHAN TO SHRI K.K. GOEL AND OTHERS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 72,00,000/- VIDE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 24.07.2002 WHEREAS SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION CARRIED OUT BY TH E REVENUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI K.K. GOEL AND M/S. ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEM (I ) PVT. LTD. AND CONSEQUENT STATEMENT OF SHRI K.K. GOEL SHOWS THAT O N PURCHASE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FLAT SHRI K.K. GOEL HAS PAID CASH OF ` 46,00,000/- AS ON- MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE OPINION OF THE AO THE ON-MONEY RECEIPT DESERVES TO BE ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. ITA NO. 5040/MUM/2009 SHRI RAKESHKUMAR WADHWAN 3 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE SAID PURCHASER, DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH PROCEEDINGS, IS NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE TILL DATE. EVEN OTHERWISE NO CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHEREBY IT CA N BE CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ON-MONEY FROM THE SAID PURCHASER. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER THE DDI WHO HAS CONDUCTED TH E SEARCH NOR THE AO OF THE SAID PURCHASER HAS EVER COMMUNICATED TO THE ASS ESSEE SEEKING ANY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE SO CALLED ON-MONEY . THE AO, HOWEVER, PROCEEDED TO TREAT THE SUM OF ` 46,00,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THA T THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) AND 131 OF THE ACT, C OPIES OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL, ETC. WERE NOT SUPPLIED INITIALLY. BASED O N THE INFORMATION FURNISHED SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE ADDITION WA S MAINLY BASED UPON PAGES 61 TO 63 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND ON A CLO SE ANALYSIS OF PAGE 63 IT CAN BE SEEN THAT A SUM OF ` 75,00,000/- WAS PAID BY CHEQUE AND ` 46,00,000/- WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY CASH ON VARIOUS DATES BUT IT DID NOT MENTION ANY SPECIFIC ITEM FOR WHICH SUCH PA YMENT WAS MADE. THE PAYMENT RECEIPTS BY CHEQUES ON VARIOUS DATES DO NOT MATCH WITH THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. BASED ON THE FACTUAL DISCREPANCIES IT WA S CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY EXTRA CONSIDERATION O THER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TH AT THE WHOLE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TOOK PLACE SIMPLY ON ACCOUNT OF SEARCH ACTION AND THE STATEMENT OF MR. K.K. GOEL IN THE CAPACITY OF KARTA OF THE HUF WHEREAS THE SAID LOOSE PAPERS AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT OF SHRI K.K. GOEL HAVE NOT BEEN CORROBORATED BY ANY OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR T HIRD PARTY CONFIRMATION. THERE WAS NO ENQUIRY FROM DDI OR THE AO OF SUCH PURCHASER AND AFTER A SPAN OF MORE THAN 25 MONTHS ASSESSEE WA S SERVED WITH A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 153C REQUIRING THE ASSESS EE TO FILE RETURNS OF INCOME, FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS, AND ONLY AT THAT ST AGE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PARTY BUT BEFORE EXERCISING SU CH OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION, THE CONCERNED PERSON, I.E. SHRI K.K. G OEL EXPIRED (IN MAY, 2008). HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY CIRCUMST ANCES BEYOND ITS ITA NO. 5040/MUM/2009 SHRI RAKESHKUMAR WADHWAN 4 CONTROL TO PROVE ITS CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTH ORITIES BY SHOWING THAT IT HAS NEVER RECEIVED ANY ON-MONEY FROM THE SAID PUR CHASER. HOWEVER, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PURCHASER APPEAR ED IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 TO THE PURCHASER SUBMIT TED THAT THE PURCHASER HAS NEVER PAID ANY ON-MONEY TO THE ASSE SSEE AND THE SAID SUM OF ` 46,00,000/- WAS SPENT BY M/S. ROCHEM SEPARATIONS (I ) PVT. LTD., A GROUP COMPANY, TOWARDS INTERIOR WORK IN THE SAID FLAT AS PER THE RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. A PHOTOCOPY OF T HE SAID RESOLUTION WAS ALSO ENCLOSED. IT WAS, THUS, STRONGLY SUBMITTED THA T THE ALLEGED PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY BY K.K. GOEL, HUF IS NOT PROVED BY THE REV ENUE. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE EXHAUSTIVEL Y AND EXTRACTED THE REPLY, GIVEN BY M/S. VINODKUMAR BINDAL & CO., C HARTERED ACCOUNTANTS IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE PURCHASER, TO NOTICE THAT THE GROUP COMPANY INCURRED A SUM OF ` 46,00,000/- TOWARDS INTERIOR WORK IN THE SAID FLAT AND THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE TO PROVE T O THE CONTRARY. IN THIS REGARD THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 3.9 PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE REPLY, SHOWS THAT IT IS C ATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION WAS PAID OF RS.72,00,0 00/- FOR WHICH AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND BUILDER WAS MADE ON 24.07.2002. THE SAID CONSIDERATION WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH HOWEVER STATED IN RELATION T O TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.72,00,000/-. M/S. ROCHEM SEPARA TION SYSTEM (I) PVT. LTD. A GROUP COMPANY INCURRED A SUM OF ` 46,00,000/- TOWARDS THE INTERIOR WORK IN THE SAID FLAT AS PER THE RESOLUTIO N OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. THIS AMOUNT OF RS.46,00,0 00/- WAS PAID TO VARIOUS PERSONS IN CASH ON DIFFERENT DATE FOR INTER IOR WORK DONE IN THE FLAT. IT IS FURTHER STATED ON BEHALF OF SHRI K.K. G OEL THAT IT HAS NEVER PAID ANY CASH TO THE SAID BUILDER FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI K.K. GOEL, IT IS NOWH ERE STATED THAT RS.46,00,000/- WAS PAID TO THE BUILDER I.E. THE APP ELLANT. SINCE THE PURCHASER AND ITS ASSOCIATE COMPANY HAS DENIED PAYM ENT OF ON MONEY TO THE APPELLANT IN CLEAR TERMS AND HAS STATED THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE FOR INTERIORS AND DECORATORS FOR FINISHIN G JOB THEREFORE THE PAYMENT OF ON MONEY TO THE APPELLANT IS NOT ESTABLI SHED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THERE IS NO PROOF OF MAKING PAYMENT OF RS.46,00,000/- TO INTERIOR DECORATORS AND THE CONTE NTION IS AFTER THOUGHT. HOWEVER, THE BURDEN OF NOT FURNISHING EVID ENCE OF PAYMENT OF RS.46,00,000/- TO THE INTERIOR AND DECORATORS DIREC TLY FOR FINISHING WORK IS NOT ON THE APPELLANT AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CA N BE DRAWN AGAINST THE APPELLANT ON THIS ACCOUNT. ITA NO. 5040/MUM/2009 SHRI RAKESHKUMAR WADHWAN 5 3.10 PERUSAL OF THE LOOSE PAPER ANNEXURE A1 PAGE-63 SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO DATE MENTIONED REGARDING PAYMENT OF ON MONEY AND THERE IS NO SIGNATURE OR ANY ACCEPTANCE GIVEN BY THE APPE LLANT COMPANY ON THE SAID PAPER. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT ANY THIRD PARTY DOCUMENT OR AVERMENT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON UNLESS P ROVED OTHERWISE BY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. THIS IS UNILATERAL STATE MENT WITHOUT HAVING ANY CORROBORATIVE THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE, HENCE IT CA NNOT BE INFERRED THAT THE SAID PURCHASER COMPANY HAS PAID THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE APPELLANT. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 3.15 THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN T HE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HON'BLE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF JAGMOHAN SINGH ARORA & ORS. V. DY.CIT & ANR. 101 TT J 682 HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. IN THIS CASE, THE HON'BLE ITA T HELD THAT IN SEARCH AND SEIZURE CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE SE IZED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON ALLEGEDLY HAVING TAKEN ON MONEY IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF A THIRD PARTY A ND FORCED STATEMENT OF HEAD OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP. THE REVENUE HAD NO E VIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME EXCEPT THE PAPE RS SEIZED FROM A THIRD PARTY, HIS STATEMENT (WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED) THE FORCED STATEMENT OF WHICH WAS ALSO RETRACTED. THERE FORE ADDITION CANNOT BE UPHELD. 8. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEAR NED D.R. STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND SUBMITTE D THAT THE PURCHASER ADMITTED TO HAVE PAID ON-MONEY AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL TO PROVE TO THE CONTRARY. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHRI K.K. GOEL, HUF PURCHASED ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY FROM M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ON BE HALF OF THE HUF HE GAVE A SIMILAR STATEMENT I.E., HE PAID ON-MONEY TO THE SELLER, BUT WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THE I TAT H BENCH, MUMBAI (ITA NO. 4979/MUM/2009 DATED 24.07.2013) SET ASIDE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE IN VIOLATION OF T HE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS ARE RELEVANT IN THI S CONTEXT : - 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUS ED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL EVIDENCES BR OUGHT ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS EMERGING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD SHOW THAT ITA NO. 5040/MUM/2009 SHRI RAKESHKUMAR WADHWAN 6 THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WERE CONDUCTED AT MIS. ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEM AND SHRI K.K. GOEL. IT IS ALSO NO T IN DISPUTE THAT THE PAYMENT OF 'ON MONEY' WAS ACCEPTED BY SHRI K.K. GOE L IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IT IS ALS O NOT IN DISPUTE THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS E XAMINE THE SAID STATEMENT OF SHRI K.K. GOEL. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUT ED FACT THAT SUBSEQUENTLY DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF M IS. ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEM, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT NO SUCH PA YMENT WAS MADE DIRECTLY TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE T O CERTAIN CONTRACTORS FOR FURNISHING AND INTERIOR DECORATION WORK. IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE TO THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THIRD PARTY WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSON CONCERNED WHO WERE ALLEGED THE PAYMENT OF 'ON MONEY '. 9. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF MISS LATA MANGESHKAR (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT MERE ENTRIES IN TH E ACCOUNTS REGARDING PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUFFICIE NT AS THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE ENTRIES WERE GENUINE. THE HON'BL E HIGH COURT CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS THEY WERE BASED ON FINDINGS OF THE FACTS. THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THE ENTRIES UPON WHICH THE DEPARTMENT IS RELYING UPON W AS FOUND ON A LOOSE PAPER THEREFORE SUCH EVIDENCE IS MORE VULNERA BLE THAN THE ENTRIES FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS IN THE C ASE OF MISS LATA MANGESHKAR. MOREOVER SUCH ENTRIES FOUND ON THE LOOS E SHEET HAVE NOT BEEN CORROBORATED BY THE REVENUE BY ANY COGENT MATE RIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE ONLY EVIDENCE, IF AT ALL, IT CAN BE CON SIDERED AS EVIDENCE, IS THE STATEMENT OF SHRI K.K. GOEL BUT EVEN THAT CANNO T BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE AU IN GROSS VIO LATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT IS ALSO A FACT TH AT THE CONSIDERATION SPECIFIED IN THE INSTRUMENT OF TRANSFER IS MUCH HIG HER THAN THE MARKET VALUE AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD OFFICE PREM ISES TO MANY OTHER PERSONS THEREFORE, THE SALE PRICE IS VERY MUCH COMP ARABLE WITH SIMILAR KINDS OF SALE AFFECTED IN THE SAME BUILDING. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF T HE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI K.K. GOEL HUF (ITA NO. 4390/MUM/2008 DATED 14.09. 2009) TO SUBMIT THAT THE HUF CLAIMED IN ITS RETURN THAT A SUM OF ` 46,00,000/- WAS INCURRED ON INTERIOR AND OTHER WORKS IN THE SAID FLAT AND TH IS ASPECT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. SIMILARLY, THE ADDITION MADE IN THE C ASE OF M/S. ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEM (I) PVT. LTD. WAS ALSO ACCEPTED B Y THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIE D IN DELETING THE ADDITION IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY P ERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS MADE ON 13.06.2008 WHEREAS SHRI K.K. ITA NO. 5040/MUM/2009 SHRI RAKESHKUMAR WADHWAN 7 GOEL EXPIRED IN MAY, 2008 AND THUS THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT GET OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSON CONCERNED. AT ANY RATE, REPRESENTATIVE OF SHRI K.K. GOEL, I.E. M/S. VINODKUMAR BINDAL & CO., CHART ERED ACCOUNTANTS, IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY AO, APPEARED AND STATED THAT THE PURCHASER NEVER PAID ANY ON-MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE A ND THE SAME WAS SPENT TOWARDS INTERIOR WORK IN THE SAID FLAT AS PER THE R ESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. THIS ASPECT WAS ALSO CONS IDERED BY THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEM (I) PVT. LTD. AS WELL AS SHRI K.K. GOEL, HUF. IN FACT, UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES T HE ITAT H BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & IN FRASTRUCTURE LTD. OBSERVED THAT AN ADDITION MADE ON MERE STATEMENT OF THE PURCHASER, I.E. K.K. GOEL, HUF, CANNOT STAND. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A), WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFER ENCE. WE, THEREFORE, AFFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH OCTOBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( B.R. BASKARAN ) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 8 TH OCTOBER, 2014 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) CENTRAL VIII, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT CENTRAL III, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.