Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

to him. According to us therefore, the the above judgment supports the findings rendered by the Ld. CIT(A).

30. We also gainfully refer to the decision of the jurisdictional coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Chennai in the case of M.M. Financers (P) Ltd Vs Dy CIT (17 SOT 5).

5). In the decided case, cas search action was conducted at business premises of assessee and also at premises of a known business associate, 'KM'. From the premises of 'KM', 'KM' an unsigned MoU between the assessee and five others on one hand and 'KM' and 'KMR' firm on the other, was found wherein transaction for purchase of 95 acres of land for a total consideration of Rs. 2,40,40,000/-

2,40,40,000/ was reflected. The AO however found that the actual purchase consideration of land as disclosed by the assessee was Rs. 91 lakhs as against Rs. 2,40,40,000/ 0,000/- admitted by 'KM' vide the unsigned MoU and therefore added the differential sum as undisclosed income of the assessee. On appeal this th Tribunal noted that, although the sworn statement of 'KM' recorded under section 132(4) is piece of evidence but the he Assessing Officer has to establish the link with other seized documents. It was held that, the the statement recorded from the third party cannot be considered as the conclusive evidence. Further, the Tribunal also held that, the words 'may be presumed' appear appear in section 132(4A) and it only gives an 'option' to the authorities concerned to presume the ITA No.3015 No. /Chny/2024 (AY 2021-22) Mr.Pinnathevar Pinnathevar Palanichamy ::34 ::