TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ellampillai Ashok Corporation for utilizing the same for investment in SIDCO – the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided against assessee. Investments made in land at Ariyanoor – Held that:- The Tribunal was rightly of the view that the subsequent sale in favour of the assessee vide registered document dated 17.3.2004 was for ₹ 2.00 lakhs only and it is not a case of distress sale by C. Balan in favour of the assessee - there was no decline in the real estate prices during the relevant period and on the contrary the value of another piece of land purchased by Devabala Group showed appreciation in price - even as per the translated copy of the agreement, he did not show that it is in respect of developed residential plots - The assessee tried to explain the difference in value between February, 2001 agreement and the present one as a distress sale, but that was found to be not correct - mere statement of the Vanaja saying that she did not pay money or receive money will be of no avail, when she herself admits that she signed on the back of the agreement having received the money on the cancellation of the sale agreement - Her statement throws more light that is was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd style of M/s.Balaji Process, Gudalur. He filed return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 on 24.3.2005 declaring its income as ₹ 44,930/- and agricultural income of ₹ 3.00 lakhs. Consequent to the search, notice under Section 153C read with Section 153A(a) was issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer made additions in the income returned by the assessee on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land measuring 92 cents at Ariyanoor - ₹ 42,70,072/- and investment in SIDCO land - ₹ 5,63,263/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who, by order dated 02.12.2008 deleted the addition to the extent of ₹ 32,51,872/- in respect of purchase of land at Ariyanoor but upheld the addition made with regard to investment in SIDCO land. 4. Challenging the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the addition made with regard to the investment in SIDCO land, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an, another sum of 4.00 Lakhs was withdrawn from Canara Bank on 06-12-2003. Out of the aforesaid 5.00 Lakhs, a sum of 4,50,000/- was deposited into assessee's account with Allahabad Bank on 08-12-2003. Another sum of 1,20,000/- was received through cheque in favour of M/s.Balaji Processors. Thus, sufficient funds were available with the assessee for taking out a Demand Draft of 5,63,263/-. 7. We find that the above details were never given by assessee either before Assessing Officer or the CIT (Appeals). No reason whatsoever is given by the ld. Counsel, as to what prevented the assessee to furnish the details before lower authorities. The Assessing Officer in his order has categorically stated that vide letter dated 19-11-2004, the assessee had submitted that he would admit the whole amount of 35.00 Lakhs for purchasing land from SIDCO as un-explained investment as the loan taken for the above investment is un-explainable. Subsequently, the assessee changed its stance and after fabrication of accounts, claimed that the amounts were credits for investment. The CIT(Appeals) in his order has categorically stated that the assessee had not produced any additional evidence to show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted the Department's plea taking note of the fact that there was no decline in the real estate prices during the relevant period and on the contrary the value of another piece of land purchased by Devabala Group showed appreciation in price. This fact is not disputed by the assessee. The Tribunal also looked into the agreement dated 07.02.2001 at the instance of the assessee and came to the conclusion that even as per the translated copy of the agreement, he did not show that it is in respect of developed residential plots. The assessee tried to explain the difference in value between February, 2001 agreement and the present one as a distress sale, but that was, on facts, found to be not correct by the Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the clear conclusion that the Assessing Officer has rightly made additions on this account. 12. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the appellant wanted to rely on the statement of Smt.K.Vanaja, who is said to be the partner of C.Balan. In her statement, she had stated that she signed the agreement as was told by Shri.C.Balan, but she did not receive any money from anybody. Similarly, when the sale agreement was cancelled, she did not rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
