TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COURT], CIT vs. K. Bhuvanendran [2006 (12) TMI 127 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Balaji Wire Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (8) TMI 7 - HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI] - Decided against Revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 675 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2013 - M. R. Shah Gokani And Sonia Gokani,JJ. For the Petitioner : Paurami B Sheth, Advocate ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice M. R. Shah) [1.0] Present tax appeal has been preferred by the appellant Revenue challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2013 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to ITAT) in appeal being ITA No.53/AHD/1998 by which the learned Appellate Tribunal has allowed the said appeal by deleting the addition of Rs.1,45,37,500/-, made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on office in Ganesh Plaza (83434 sq. feet) and that the assessee has also collected on-money at the rate of Rs.400 per sq. feet on shops in Ganesh Plaza (5056 sq. feet). That after applying the aforesaid rate with respect to the on-money on the area which was suspected to be sold by the assessee, the AO calculated the quantum of the on-money at Rs.1,45,37,500/- and consequently while passing the order of assessment made the addition of aforesaid amount in the income of the assessee as undisclosed income of the block period. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of assessment passed by the AO making the addition of Rs.1,45,37,500/- as undisclosed income of the block period assessment year 1996-97 upto the date of search, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re those clinching documentary evidences. By making the aforesaid addition, nowhere it is mentioned by the AO that what was the nature of clinching documentary evidence on the basis of which the AO has come to the conclusion that the assessee has received Rs.1,45,37,500/- as on-money with respect to the office cum shop as well as the shops in Ganesh Plaza. It appears that while passing the order of assessment, the AO has solely relied upon the statement of the assessee which has been subsequently retracted and the question answers recorded while recording the statement of the working partner on 01.05.1996. [3.1] The issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of K. Bhuvanen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
