IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH
N.K. BILLAIYA, A.M. & SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J.M.
Picheswar Gadde v. ITO
ITA Nos. 288/Del/2019 & 6856/Del/2018
A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10
20 January, 2021
Appellant by: Pranshu Goel , CA
Respondent by: Atiyu Ahmed, Sr. Departmental Representative
N.K. Billaiya, A.M.
ITA No. 288/Del/2019 and 6856/Del/2018 are two separate appeals of the assessee preferred against two separate orders of the Commissioner (Appeals)-22, New Delhi, dated 30-10-2018 and 30-8-2018 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10.
2. Both these appeals were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
3. We will first take up ITA No. 288/Del/2019 assessment year 2008-09. At the very outset the counsel for the assessee stated that he is not pressing the grounds by which the assessee has challenged the validity of the reopening of the assessment. Accordingly ground No. 1 and 2 are dismissed as not pressed.
4. Vide ground No. 3 and 4 the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 2.50 crores.
5. Facts relating this ground show that during the course of survey at the business premises of the assessee on 30-6-2014 and 1-7-2014 one of the documents impounded was marked as A-1 page 89 and which is as under :--
6. On the basis of this document the assessing officer formed a belief that cash of Rs. 50 lacs was paid for Vijaywada land. Further the assessing officer found that Rs. 65 lacs, 75 lacs and 60 lacs were paid to LJT Viveka Institute by the assessee
7. The assessee was asked to explain these transactions found to be noted on the document impounded at the time of survey. In his reply the assessee vehemently stated that said document is dumb document and the entries in the said document have no logical inference.
8. The assessing officer rubbished the contention of the assessee stating the provisions of section 292C of the Act clearly apply and, therefore, onus is upon the assessee to explain the nature of transaction.
9. The assessee through an affidavit once again reiterated that the account number mentioned in the impounded document does not belong to him or to his family member. The assessing officer issued summons under section 131 of the Act to the General Manager, State Bank of India who in his reply stated that the State Bank account pertains to Vijaywada Branch and the Bank Manager of Vijaywada Branch confirmed that the bank account pertained to Lingaya Society. The assessing officer was of the firm belief that the assessee is related to Lingaya Society and based upon his conviction, the assessing officer made the addition of Rs. 2.50 crores. The assessee carried the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals) but without any success.