Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1164 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTAddition made in respect of investment in land - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- Assessee had paid through cheques a total sum of ₹ 22,02,100/to one Sherin Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. during the period between 28. 7. 2003 to 31. 1. 2005. CIT(Appeals) also noted that entire amount was repaid by Sherin Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. in different cheques during the period between 2.6.2005 to 5.12.2005. The Revenue did not have any further material to suggest that though the assessee might have exited from the land deal, Sherin Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. had eventually sold the land to third party and in the process, the assessee had extracted its share of profit. The Tribunal therefore, accepted the assessees' contention that the loose documents did not refer to the actual receipt of onmoney since the documents itself carried a title “PROJECTIONS” and further that the Assessing Officer had nothing to discard the assessees' theory that these land deals did not eventually materialise. Essentially the Tribunal having referred to the materials on record and come to factual conclusion, in our opinion, no question of law arises. Addition made in respect of unaccounted income in the form of on-money from sale of shops at Himalaya mall - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- The assessee pointed out that many of these shops were not tenanted thereby suggesting that these shops did not have ready income generating potential. CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal both accepted the assessees' viewpoint. There was no concrete material suggesting that in the sale of remaining shops also, the assessee had accepted the on-money. Merely because in rest of the sales, the assessee had admitted having received on-money, such admission cannot be projected for the remaining area where there was no such matching material found or admission made by the assessee. This was the view of the Tribunal. Significantly, the seized material did not include any reference of on-money with respect to these remaining shops. This issue therefore, is virtually factual. CIT(Appeals) and Tribunal having concurrently held in favour of the assessee, we do not entertain this issue. - Revenue appeal dismissed.
|