TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appears to be no reasonable nexus and substantial evidence available to show that the agreement made by Mr Modi with the erstwhile owner was in fact for the benefit of the company and that the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective, thus erred in allowing the appeal. - Decided against revenue. The respondent company has shown the sale price in the account books at ₹ 9-crore odd. The department has not found any contra material to controvert the entries in the account books of the respondent company.Tribunal was justified and correct in law in holding that even if the addition was justified, it should had been made under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessing officer in the enquiry found on the basis of the statement of Mr Modi and the agreement found in the search proceedings that the respondent company is guilty of suppressing its income and avoiding the tax and after issuing a show-cause notice for reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed an assessment order under section 16 of the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) - Guwa-255/2010-11. 4) The Commissioner of Income Tax dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ~ ITA 104/Gau/2011. The Tribunal allowed the appeal. Aggri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny. The respondent company issued cheques towards advance payment to the vendor and virtually purchased the property. Therefore there appears to be no reasonable nexus and substantial evidence available to show that the agreement made by Mr Modi with the erstwhile owner was in fact for the benefit of the company and that the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective, thus erred in allowing the appeal. 7) Per contra, the counsel for the respondent submits that (1) the agreement which the department is placing reliance on is dated 4th August, 2006 when the company was not even incorporated, therefore the question of authorising Mr Modi by the company does not arise. (2) The cheques issued by the vendor company are in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
