Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 889 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment U/s. 153C - assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 153C - Whether no material “belonging” to the assessee was found? - whether the document i.e. the sale deed, which mentions the assessee as attorney holders of sellers; can be said to “belong to” the assessee? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, assessee was the attorney holder of the seller. The sale deed was found during the course of search at the premises of the buyer. The sale deed, at best can be said to “relate to” or “refer to” the assessee, but it cannot be said to “belong to” the seller or to the attorney holder. Before us Ld. CIT(DR) could not place any judgment in its favour against this judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings P Ltd. Vs Asst CIT[2014 (8) TMI 898 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Respectfully following this judgment, we therefore hold that the proceedings u/s.153C are bad in law and therefore the assessments so made deserves to be quashed. This ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Undisclosed on money payment - As on 27.11.2010 an amount of ₹ 10,00,000 was paid as per the agreement, and an amount of ₹ 8,00,000 was deposited in the bank account of the sellers. Similarly, upto 10.12.2010, ₹ 40,00,000 was to be paid and ₹ 37,00,000 was deposited nearing to that date. Further, upto 10.04.2011 ₹ 50,00,000 was to be paid as per the agreement; and ₹ 29,99,000 was deposited on 31.03.2011 and ₹ 24,70,000 was deposited between 15 to 18 April 2011. Similarly, upto 10.08.2011 ₹ 4,03,00,000 was to be paid; and between Aug. and Sept. 2011, all payments were done and sale deed was also registered in the favour of M/s. Agrawal Buildcon. Considering the entirety of the facts, so far as the payments made, the nexus between amount received from M/s. Agrawal Buildcon and payment to Smt. Rekha Bai and others can be established. Since it is proved that the consideration of ₹ 4,03,00,000/- which included both the accounted and unaccounted consideration has been paid by M/s Agrawal Buildcon for the purchase of land in question from the sellers namely Smt. Rekha Bai and others, revenue authorities are free to carry out necessary exercise/ verification in the case of M/s Agrawal Buildcon with regard to the balance purchase consideration at Rs..4,03,00,000/-. However, so far as the cash deposits in the account of Smt. Rekha Bai and others in April 2011, to the tune of ₹ 24,70,000 no nexus can be established in respect to amount received from M/s. Agrawal Buildcon. Since there in no direct evidence as to when the amount was actually paid, considering the surrounding circumstances based on agreement and bank accounts of the sellers, we hold that during the current A.Y. 2012-13 the source of payment of ₹ 24,70,000 to Smt. Rekha Bai and others could not be established and therefore ought to be confirmed. Since the share of the assessee Pradeep Sharma was 40% in the land deal, an amount of ₹ 9,88,000 is to be confirmed in the hands of Pradeep Sharma for A.Y. 2012-13. Balance addition of ₹ 1,02,39,401 (₹ 1,12,27,401 – ₹ 9,88,000) is hereby deleted.
|