Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2022 (8) TMI 1022 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69 - Share of the assessee paid for purchase of Savargaon land - addition based on seized material - seller parties Kokani Group filed a petition before Settlement Commission who passed an order u/s 245D(4) wherein the seller admitted of having received sale consideration in cash from Thakker Group - CIT-A allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the order of the coordinate bench in the case of the other co-owners which were decided on the same set of facts and the same transaction involving same seized material - HELD THAT - As decided in the case of other co buyers M/S. DHANANJAY MARKETING PVT. LTD. 2021 (5) TMI 664 - ITAT PUNE and M/S. ASIAN FOOD PRODUCTS 2021 (6) TMI 719 - ITAT PUNE coordinate bench has considered the above issue and held that that the learned assessing officer has failed to bring on record any reliable evidence to prove that the respondent assessee has made investment in purchase of land over and above the stated consideration - it cannot be said that the Co-ordinate bench did not consider the seized documents properly. The coordinate bench also considered the statement recorded u/s 132 (4) of the act of the company family as well as the preliminary restatement recorded u/s 131 - The coordinate bench in paragraph number 12 has dealt with such statement. In paragraph number 25 26 has considered the statement of the sellers as well as the statement of cross examination wherein all the buyers of confirmed that they have not received any own money consideration on the sale of land from Thakkar group. Further with respect to the disclosure made by them of additional income the affidavit is were filed which were considered in paragraph number 29 of the order that the same disclosure was made with an intention to buy peace and avoid further litigation and also denied the knowledge of receipt of the own money consideration is the subject transaction of sale of land to Thakkar group. It also dealt with in paragraph number 32 with respect to the additional income disclosed by the vendor s before the settlement commission. In view of this the coordinate bench has clearly taken into consideration all the statements of the family members of the Kokani group as well as disclosure made by them before the settlement commission. Merely because there is an error in mentioning the date of search in the order of the coordinate bench does not make the findings of the coordinate bench not binding on us. Further merely as the orders were passed either u/s 153A on u/s 153C the findings of the coordinate bench does not change because the same was rendered after considering seized material statement of the vendors disclosure of the vendors before the settlement commission the statement in cross examination by the vendors denying receipt of any on money consideration. Thus in the present case the learned it authorised representative has produced before us 2 orders of the coordinate bench in case of the joint buyers of the property along with the respondent assessee is in this appeal. On the identical facts same transaction on the basis of same seized material on the basis of same statements of the buyer and disclosure made by them before the settlement commission in those cases of the joint buyers the additions have been deleted. Therefore those orders become binding on us as there is no change in any of the facts pointed out before us which is a material bearing on the findings given by the coordinate bench. Therefore judicial discipline demands that those judicial precedents is to be followed. CIT (A) has followed two decision of coordinate benches in case of two different joint buyers of the same property on the same set of facts no infirmities can be found therein. Therefore we respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Dhananjaya marketing private limited and Asian Foods products Ltd confirm the orders of the ld CIT (A) and accordingly all the grounds of appeal are dismissed.
|