Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The assessee company was incorporated on 2/4/1993 and engaged in the business of real estate developers and contractors. It has entered into a joint venture with M/s Vipul infrastructure developers Ltd for development of several projects having 50% share in all the projects except in one case where the assessee company was having only 37.5 percent shares. During the course of search on 01/06/2006 at the residence of Shri Moti S Masand, director of M/s Vipul Ltd, several documents were seized which are MIS receipts of collection of customers money for different projects of Vipul Ltd and assessee. During the course of search, the statement of Mr. Moti S Masand was recorded wherein he has admitted that he has prepared the same on the basis of data gathered from the management Page | 4 Information Systems statements from the account section of Vipul Ltd. He further offered the sum of as his additional income. Based on the analysis of the seized documents the learned assessing officer held that those papers contain details of total receipts against all the projects of M/s Vipul group. He further noted that documents revealed that the payment in cash amounting to INR 40.56 crore has been received by M/s Vipul Limited up to 31/3/2005 as its share of cash receipts. As the assessee was jointly developing the projects having equal share in those projects, assessee company share in cash receipt too was stated to be as per LD AO at INR 40.56 crores. Therefore, the learned AO gave a copy of the statement along with the seized documents to the assessee to rebut the above findings. The opportunity of cross-examination was also given. During the course of hearing, assessee stated that those documents have neither been prepared by the assessee not seized from the possession of the assessee and they are not in the handwriting of any employees of the assessee company. He further stated that the statement of Mr. Masand has no reference about the assessee company and in the seized documents; the name of the assessee is not appearing. It was further stated that Mr. Masand has accepted that he has never collected any and has not indicated any definite source of the documents on the figure mentioned therein. Assessee also stated that that Mr. Masand has never handled financial part of M/s Vipul Ltd and was only associated with the execution of the projects as an engineer. Assessee stated that the documents seized from that person are dumb documents and there is no authentic source of the said documents and figures written therein. It was further stated that projects were being developed and marketed by M/s Vipul Ltd and during the course of search, afterward in any confessional statement it has not been admitted that the cash was being received and assessee also stated that the statement of the purchasers have not been recorded to examine the veracity of the statement of that man. The learned assessing officer rejected the argument of the assessee. The learned AO held that the document seized from the residence of that man was in his own hand writing who is a director of M/s Vipul Ltd and was holding a very important post , signing the balance sheet and cheques and was a key management personnel of that company. The Page | 5 learned AO also noted that it is a known fact that the amount received as own money is neither recorded in the conveyance deed nor accounted for in the books of accounts. Therefore the argument of the assessee that the purchaser of these commercial spaces have not been confronted and their statements were not recorded is totally ridiculous as no purchaser would come forward and admit that they had paid over and above the price shown in the sale deeds. The learned AO further noted that the cash is an integral part of transaction hence in property deal is evident from various document seized during the course of search. Therefore, based on the above fact and details available from seized documents, learned assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 43.76 crores in the hands of the assessee company as undisclosed income. The learned assessing officer further noted that during the course of search in the residential premises of Mr. Aman Sharma annexure A - 1, page number 434 seized which is a receipt dated 8/5/2004 of INR 30 lakhs signed by Sri Raj Singh, Dharmveershinh and Sri Surinder Singh. This amount has been paid by M/s Vipul infrastructure developer‟s private limited and another company of orchid group. The assessee was asked to correlate the same with the books of account and further explain as to why the amount of INR 15 lakhs being 50% share of the investment made by the assessee company should not be treated as unexplained investment. The assessee submitted a detailed reply challenging the authenticity of the receipt. The assessee also contended that it has not been signed by any of the directors and is not backed by any confessional statements. The learned assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee stating that it has no validity as a normal practice the proposed sale deeds are made with the representative and in property deals the „Kaccha sale agreements‟ are normally prepared which is also proof of the property having exchanged the hands. Therefore, he made the addition of INR 1500000/- being half of the share of INR 3,000,000 as undisclosed income of the assessee. However he did not make any separate addition with respect to the above sum because of the addition made by the assessing officer of undisclosed cash receipt of INR 40.58 crore has been made, which subsumes it. Accordingly, assessment order u/s 143 (3) read with section 153C of the income tax act was passed on 30/12/2008 Page | 6 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 447401350/- against the returned income of INR 9 801350/- wherein an addition of Rs. 43.76 crores have been made as undisclosed income of the assessee.

Page | 9 Ans. Page 43 contains the collection report of the company of different commercial projects dated 25.03.2006. Q. Page No. 49 of the annexure is shown to you. Please state in whose handwriting entries have been made, what has been worked put at the rate of 0.5, who has written less comm.. Sona across 32.15 lacs. Who has written 59L, receipt- 5L 1.9.05-54L, 5.12.05-4L?

Ans. Figures are in my own handwriting.

Q. Please explain the entries made on this page ?

Ans. These are the calculations made for Various projects, The figures were calculated as that in case of salaries, employee if I would have worked as a consultant, how many would have been calculated as incentive.

Page No. 52 of this annexure is shown to you. On tills page in front there are notings in ink arid with pencil on the backside, please state in whose handwriting these notings have been made and for what these notings stand for.

Ans: These are the figures indicating the receipts of the projects of the company from various projects and they are written in my own handwring.

Page | 11 The analysis of the document number 52 in annexure A-l reveals the following:

1. It is written by the Technical Director in his own handwriting and Sh. Masand was holding a very important position in the company. He was authorized to sign bank books etc.
2. These notings have been made during ordinary course of business
3. The entries recorded in the document are incriminating and related to the business conducted by the appellant.