TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purchase of the property. - Decided against the revenue. Deletion of addition by the CIT(A) on account of unaccounted income paid to outgoing surgeon doctors by holding that said amount should be taxed in the hands of the company M/s, CCCPL - Held that:- In a situation when we have already taken a view that there was no element of on money in the purchase of the property in question then in consequence thereof, there was no element of payment of cash to the outgoing doctors. - No addition - Decided against the assessee. - IT(ss)A No. 604,610,601,674,603,639,612,602, 640,634,652,611/Ahd/2011 & CO No.29,28/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 18-10-2013 - Mukul Kr Shrawat And Anil Chaturvedi, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri O P Vaishnav, CIT-DR For the Respondents : Shri S N Soparkar, Kirtibhai Soni Dhiren Shah ORDER:- PER : Mukul Kr Shrawat These are cross appeals, respectively filed by the Assessee and the Revenue Department, arising from a consolidated order of eight doctors passed by Ld. CIT(A)-III, Ahmedabad, dated 27.9.2011. For the sake of convenience, these appeals are consolidated and hereby decided by this common order. A. IT(ss) A No. 610/Ahd/2011, A.Y. 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the land for the purpose of construction of the hospital. The main allegation of the AO was that the assessee had paid Rs.15.07 crore for purchase of land instead of Rs.2.50 crore. This allegation was stated to be based upon the notings in the Hard Disk of the computer which had allegedly revealed that 85% of the cost of the land was paid in cash. 4.1 It has also been noted by the AO that there were differences among the doctors hence few cardiac surgeons have left the project, names given are viz Dr. Anil Jain, Dr. S.N. Mallya, Dr. Naman Shastri, Dr. Vishal Gupta, Dr. Bharat Trivedi and Dr. Chirag Mehta. Their statements u/s 131 were recorded. According to A.O. they have admitted the payment of cash in the ratio of their share holding for the purchase of land. It has also been noted by the AO in the assessment order that those doctors have disclosed the amount as unaccounted income in their respective returns u/s 153A /153C of IT Act and paid the taxes also. Copies of their statements have also been provided to the assessee. 4.2 The documents on the basis of which the AO had arrived at the conclusion that there was a cash component for purchase of land was as under: ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as that the said document was found from the computer of the company which was a clear indication of the discussion held among the doctors for future composition of the group. C. Document- Page no.70 to 94 of Annexure A/3 seized from premises of CCCPL and Page 9 and 10 of print out from the computer of CCCPL. 4.5 This document was in respect of the identification of the land situated at Sola. Other details in respect of the land were also mentioned. The land in question was purchased by CCCPL from the following persons, stated to be 7 companies, as under: 1. Matang Properties Pvt. Ltd. 2. Martand Estate Private Ltd. 3. Maitrik Buildcon Private Ltd. 4. Medbhuti Complex Private Ltd. 5. Madhumati Reality Private Ltd. 6. Madhuj Reality Private Ltd. 7. Tirth Developers Private Ltd. 4.6 An another fact has also been noted by the AO that originally the land belonged to a cooperative society which was converted into these private limited companies. The stamp duty on the conversion was not paid. Later on CCCPL wrote a letter to the Supt. of Stamps Gandhinagar expressing the willingness to pay the stamp duty on behalf of those companies. The assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have already invested a sum of Rs.18 crores towards land. E. Document- page no.18 to 29 file name Letter of Understanding Cardio care 29.03 pdf 4.8 Those were nothing but correspondence between Investor and the chairman of CCCPL. As per the scanned copies, it was found that there was a file namely letter of understanding cardio care 29.03 PDF . The AO has also referred few letters which were exchanged among the doctors. The main reply of the assessee was that those were unsigned letters which were exchanged during the formation of the Hospital. F. Document Page No.54 to 56 in the file name payment details for Hospital Project . 4.9 It was also a print out document. According to AO on this document (pg no.56) it was mentioned Rs.18,50,00,000/- -land acquisition cost. According to AO, it was 36% of the cost of the project which was about 51.22 crore. The assessee s reply was that those were projections made during discussion and the amounts mentioned were accepted by the doctors. Therefore, after preparing a list of doctor wise investment, there is a document of cost of project and means of finance . Assessee s reply was that on those documents there was no indicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of search action, there was a rift in surgeon group and cardiologist group. In order to pay-off the surgeon group Dr. Keyur Parikh has put-in further funds and some more doctors were also introduced. These doctors were also to be allotted shares as on 31.03.2008. The status of holding in the file named share capital.xls found from the computer at the residence of Dr. Minal Chag and placed at page no.79, which is copy of document in the computer of CCCPL. Shares were also to be allotted to Dr. Ashit Jain and Kirti Patel on this day also. To them shares were allotted at a premium. It is clear that these persons had also brought in additional cash, which has been used for paying surgeon group. After exit of surgeon group, 8,06,838 shares were additionally allotted to assessee. Since the surgeon group were to be paid off of their cheque and cash component, therefore, the amount of Rs.56.67 were contributed in cash and an amount of Rs.10/- was contributed in cheque by assessee as well as other new entrants. Based on this computation, the additional cash introduced by doctor Keyur Parikh and fresh capital in the form of cash brought by other doctors is computed as below in the column ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is to be mentioned that the stamp duty valuation cell is interested in stamp duty collection on transfer of the land on the basis of higher of Jantri rate or the sale rate. In the absence of higher sale rate, for the purpose of stamp duty, valuation is done by them on the basis of Jantri rate which has been shown at Rs.254,16,200 for the said property which was brought by the CCCPL as on July 2007. Therefore, it is wrong on the part of the AR to contend that the market rate of the property was Rs.254,16,200. In fact, it was the jantri rate as decided by the stamp duty valuation cell for the purpose of collection of stamp duty on transfer of the immovable property. 5.1 About the addition of Rs.10,09,73,510/- the breakup given was as under: The break up of Rs.10,09,73,510/- is as under: Particulars Amount Remark Unaccounted Income 5,52,50,000 Directly Given to CCCPL for the Purchase of Land Unaccounted Income 4,57,23,509 Paid to Surgeon Group on their exit from the Hospital Project. 5.2 It was explained that the land was not purchased by the assessee, Dr. Keyur H. Parik, but it was purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h and Rs. 2 Lacs was received by CCCPL from Keyur Parikh on 1/10/2006 and 15/10/2006 respectively. Thereafter, certain payments are shown as made to Savlas, Chavdas, Hare Krishna Developers and Shaligram Buildcon Private Limited. This means that the appellant Dr Keyur Parikh had issued the cheques in the name of the above mentioned parties and handedover the same to the company CCCPL. Further on 13/6/2007 cash of Rs. 24 Lacs and Rs. 60 Lakh has been shown as received from Dr. Keyur Parikh. In the books of accounts, Dr Keyur Parikh has shown loans and advances to Dr Paras Doshi of Rs.14 Lacs and Rupal Doshi of Rs.10 Lacs (both junior doctors attached to Dr Keyur Parikh). Similarly against the entry of Rs. 60 lakh, the appellant has shown investment in the shares of Akaash Ceramics Private Limited of Rs. 60 Lacs. The amount of Rs. 24 Lacs and 60 Lacs are still shown as receivable by Dr Keyur Parikh from these parties. It is likely that these parties namely Dr Paras Doshi, Rupal Doshi and Akaash Ceramics Private Limited might have given cash of Rs.24 Lacs and Rs.60 Lacs against the cheques issued by Dr Keyur Parikh to them but this fact has not been accepted by the appellant doctors a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appendix-1, page 46 titled as Synopsis . Under the investment from founder doctor, it was mentioned as Rs.18,00,00,000/- Invested in 2006-07. Learned DR has therefore emphasized on the words invested . He has argued that as far as the investment in the land was concerned it was not noted as a future projection. It was an investment made by the founder director. He has also pleaded that a land cannot be purchased in a phased manner. According to him, the investment on the land was already made by one of the director and the recoveries were to be made in the phased manner. Learned DR has then placed reliance on page 84 of Appendix 1 wherein the hospital project was elaborately noted along with the details of payment of all the doctors and at the bottom of the table it was noted as under: Total land Cost 150729000 25000000 175729000 Stamp Registration 1495400 1495400 Sub-Reg. Exp 14600 14600 Angadia Fees 73200 73200 Total 150816800 26495400 177312200 Diff. in 85% 2,755,533 6.1. On the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd disk of the computer and other circumstances of the case it was clear that there was cash component in the impugned land transaction. He has finally pleaded to affirm the action of the AO. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE :- 7. From the side of the assessee, learned AR Mr. S.N. Soparkar appeared. He has pleaded that there was no document on the basis of which it could be established that the assessee had paid on money at the time of acquisition of land in question. At first he has emphasized that the statement of Dr. Anil Jain and his action of filing of return was with a prejudice mind. He was earlier involved in the project but later on decided to quit the same. His statement was recorded three times by the Revenue Department and in those statements he had changed the facts. One statement of Dr. Anil Jain was recorded u/s. 132(4) of IT Act on 23.09.2008. It was asked that are you aware that CCPL was setting up a hospital. Dr. Jain has answered that he was aware of the said project. He has then informed that he had decided not to be associated with the project. He has also affirmed that the print outs were related to the hospital project. In answer no.4 he has affirmed that MOUs w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the hard disk were merely the projections of the hospital constructions. Those were not the actual payments. On the basis of the projection, no addition should have been made. He has pleaded that there was no direct evidence against the appellant even when the search operation was carried out against him. If one of the doctors had become hostile then it was not the responsibility of the assessee. According to him, the assessee s responsibility is only in respect of the transaction in question. Ld. AR has emphasized that the payment was made after considering the fact that the said land was having controversy in respect of the payment of the stamp duty. That dispute was resolved by the efforts of the company. Therefore, a reasonable payment was made and the property was transferred through a registered sale deed. Even when the extreme action of search was carried out no incriminating documentary evidence was recovered. He has concluded that merely on the basis of the presumption the addition was made which should be deleted. CONCLUSION/ VERDICT : 8. We have heard both the sides at length. We have perused the orders of the authorities below in the light of the compilations fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entities, seven in number, on the other hand. Therefore, the transaction carried out was a well publisized transaction. Rather facts of the case have further revealed that earlier the land in question belonged to certain co-operative societies. Such a sale deed thus cannot be treated as a close-door-deal . Before us it has been vehemently argued that it was wrong on the part of the Revenue Department to allege that the purchaser and seller have connived with each other and therefore settled a secret deal which was out of the record. The argument before us is that such a possibility is only if a deal is between two individuals but not possible when two corporate entities are dealing with each other. Rather the sale deed in question was executed between number of entities; hence, such a multi-party deal must not be doubted, especially when each party ought to have watched their respective interest. This argument of the assessee cannot be brushed aside altogether. We can justifiably adjudicate on this point only after taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances and corroborative evidence. 8.2 Next point. Our attention has been drawn on a letter of Deputy Collector, st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doctors who have left the project have become hostile with the project of the hospital and therefore made certain harmful statements. One of the clause was that the doctors leaving the project shall not be allowed to practice within 100 kms. of the hospital. Because of this clause the doctors were not at ease with the assessee company and hence made statement to take the revenge. We are not deciding the personal issues cropped up among the group of doctors, but we are concerned about the allegation of the unrecorded investment made by the assessee. The possibility is that the doctors who have left the project might be having some grudge against the doctors subsequently running the hospital and due to that reason might have made the statement against the assessee. However the MOU is giving an indication that the cost of the project was duly understood by the doctors and that investment was required to be made in the years to come. Therefore, a question can be raised in respect of the correctness of the statement made by those leaving doctors. On these facts, we can hold that the statement of the group of doctors who have left the project have made a controversial statement, hence th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to be contributed by the group of doctors. By mentioning the word premium the learned AR has pleaded that in fact no premium amount towards land was paid but it was merely a projected figure to attract the higher figure of investment. He has drawn our attention on number of such pages which were extracted from the computer disk to demonstrate that there were several projections of the total value of the project. The projected value had changed on number of occasion considering the interest shown by the investors. So the argument is that since the projections have not disclosed a static or a constant figure therefore such figures should not be held as an actual investment by the assessee. This probability, which generally prevails in such type of projects, thus must not be brushed aside on the face of it. 8.5 Next point. We have also examined the statements of various doctors which were used by the Revenue Department against the assessee. A statement of Dr. Anil R. Jain was recorded on 23rd of September, 2008 u/s. 132(4) of IT Act. In that statement, there was no such acceptance of involvement of cash transaction. Question No.7, 8 9 and Answer No.7, 8 9 of the said stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be weighed in the light of the surrounding circumstances. We therefore, make an observation that few statements or the filing of return of those doctors who have parted-ways from the assessee cannot be made the sole basis for the impugned addition. This legal issue can also be judged from an another angel. The credibility of a witness in the eyes of law has certain definite norms and standards. A common law is that it is unsafe to rely upon an interested witness . It is possible that an interested witness might be having revenge in his mind to the extent to implicate falsely, therefore, keen in seeing the other person punished. Naturally the law says that such a testimony is not to be believed. A dependable as also reliable witness has to be a third-party disinterested as well as unrelated witness. It is a stare-decisis now rest in peace being so often adjudged. We are right now dealing with the tax proceedings hence can not even attempt to make a sweeping generalization on this subject being out of the scope of the I T Act, but can add that instead of following a thumbrule each case ought to be decided on its own facts. Hence as far as the facts of the case in hand i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had paid on-money over and above the sale price as determined by the Registrar for stamp duty purpose. It has been argued that the sale price was escalated by the stamp duty authority time and again to match with the fair market price of the land of that area. Due to this reason, the sale price as determined by the stamp duty officer was at par with the prevailing market price of the land. This argument of the assessee has substantial force especially when the Revenue Department has not placed any comparable instance of prevailing market price. There is no evidence on record through which it could be demonstrated by the Revenue Department that as per some other sale instance there was indeed higher prevailing market price then the sale price recorded in the sale deed. In the absence of any such evidence it is wrong on the part of the Revenue Department to presume that the prevailing market price was higher than the sale price as recorded in the registered sale-deed. 8.9 An another important point has also brought to our notice that whether Revenue Department had gathered any evidence through which it could be demonstrated that the assessee had generated unaccounted i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On those bank transactions and the transactions recorded in the books the Revenue Department has not casted any doubt. Those were found to be true and correct as there was no fallacy in the transaction happened to be made through bank. 8.11 Learned AR has raised an argument that no corresponding legal action so far was taken against the sellers of the property. According to him, Revenue Department should have charged the capital gain on the alleged cash component from those companies who have sold the property. By not taking any action the Revenue Department had weakened the allegation. We have asked this question from the Revenue Department but failed to get any satisfactory reply. 8.12 From the side of assessee few case laws have been cited in support of the contention that learned CIT(A) went wrong in directing the assessment to be in the hands of the assessee company. In the case of CIT Vs. Krishi Udpadan Mandi Samiti, 336 ITR 77 (Ald), it was held that there was no material with CIT(A) to direct the receipts to be taxed in the hand of the Mandi Parishad. It was held that such directions were without jurisdictions. Likewise in the case of Mrs. Banoo E. Cawasji, 10 Taxm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the evidences and under the totality of the circumstances, we hereby hold that those were not even the incriminating material but simply computer generated projectionsheets, therefore, hard to say, synonymous to clinching material evidence depicting cash transaction, hence erroneously suspected by the Revenue Department. We hereby hold that there was no evidence in possession of the Revenue Department to hold that the assessee had in fact made an unaccounted investment towards the purchase of the property. 9. Second ground of the Revenue is reproduced below: The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case and directed to delete the addition of Rs.4,57,23,509/- in respect of unaccounted income paid to outgoing surgeon doctors by holding that said amount should be taxed in the hands of the company M/s, CCCPL. 10. Facts in respect of this ground have already been discussed in above paragraphs. Due to difference between surgeon group and the cardiologist group , the group of surgeons have decided to separate from the project. The allegation was that to pay-off the said group who had departed away from the assessee, were paid in cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resumed that they have also contributed cash for the allotment of the shares. Accordingly, the addition was made in their hands also. 11. After examining the statement of the outgoing doctors learned CIT(A) has directed to tax the said amount in the hands of the company CCCPL. The reasons given by learned CIT(A) were as under: From the above mentioned seized document, it is clear that the share application money from Dr Keyur Parikh alongwith four new doctors namely Dr P. S lyenger, Dr Joyal Shah, Dr Gunvant Patel and Dr Mihir Tanna was outstanding in the books of CCCPL as on 31/3/2008. On verification the share application money was received from these 4 doctors during 24th to 26th March 2008 and from Dr Keyur Parikh on or before 8/2/2008. Prior to this date, as on 3/2/2008 new shares had been allotted by the company to various doctors. The amount paid by the four new doctors is shown as share application money as on 31/3/2008 alongwith 806,838 from Dr Keyur Parikh. In this table, there is no mention regarding any .payment over and above the face value of Rs. 10. Under the last column of "Other Share Application money Received upto 31-3-08 of Rs. 66/-+ Premium" the name o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he land is concerned, we have already taken a view that it was not conclusively established by the Revenue Department. In addition to the discussion made hereinabove on this issue, again we have noted that while deciding this ground learned CIT(A) has reiterated that the AO had presumed that some of the doctors have contributed cash for the allotment of the shares. This is the point which has been emphasized and vehemently objected by the assessee that the entire proceedings in respect of the involvement of cash towards purchase of property was based upon the presumption made by the AO. Even the learned CIT(A) has opined that, even if it is presumed that the cash was paid back to the outgoing surgeons, the same was paid by the company CCCPL and not by Keyur Parikh in his individual capacity . Undisputedly it was the company who had allotted the shares to Dr. Keyur Parikh. Therefore, the Revenue Officers were not sure whether the cash was actually paid back to the outgoing doctors by CCCPL or by Dr Parikh. In the absence of any concrete evidence, it was not justifiable for the Revenue Officers to tax the impugned amount in the hands of the assesseee. Learned CIT(A) has rather confu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in acquiring the land by the company CCCPL. 5. (A) The learned Commissioner (Appeal) erred in fact and in law in directing the addition of Rs.1,07,000/- in the hands of company CCCPL as unaccounted income in assessment year 2007-08 utilized in acquiring the land. (B) The learned Commissioner (Appeal) erred in fact and in law in directing the addition of Rs.3,15,00,000/- in the hands of company CCCPL as unaccounted income in assessment year 2008-09 utilized in acquiring the land. (c) The learned Commissioner (Appeal) erred in fact and in law in directing the addition of Rs.4,57,23,509/- in the hands of company CCCPL as unaccounted income utilized in paying back surgeons cash contribution at the time of their exit from the Hospital project. 16. All these grounds have been raised by this assessee because of the reason that the learned CIT(A) has given direction to assess the amounts in the hands of the company CCCPL either in the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y. 2008-09 or in the A.Y. 2007-08. In fact these additions have been suggested primarily because of the reason that the learned CIT(A) has taken a view that there was payment in cash for the purchase of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned addition which was primarily made merely on presumption. Resultantly, we find no force in this ground of the Revenue. Hence dismissed. 21. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. D. IT(ss)A No. 674/Ahd/2011, A.Y. 2008-09 (Assessee-Dr. Anish Chandarana s Appeal) 22. The main ground contested before the Tribunal is as follows: The addition of Rs.31,75,000/- on account of alleged cash payment treating the same as unaccounted income confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 23. The final verdict on this issue of learned CIT(A) was as under: In other words, even doctor Bharat Trivedi admitted that the cash of Rs.10 lakh was given by Dr. Anish Chandarana to Shri Nihir Shah, manager of CCCPL on 10.4.2007. This means the balance amount of Rs.31.75 Lacs was paid by him for the purchase of land in cash. In short, out of the addition of Rs.46.75 Lacs, the addition of Rs.31.75 Lacs is sustained in his hands and the balance amount of Rs.15 Lacs is directed to be assessed in the hands of the company CCCPL in the assessment year 2007-08. 24. In the light of the above discussion, we hereby hold that it was wrong on the part of learned CIT(A) to ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue is, therefore, dismissed. F. IT(ss)A No. 639/Ahd/2011, A.Y. 2008-09 (Assessee-Dr. Milan Chinubhai Chag s Appeal) 30. The substantive ground raised by the assessee is reproduced below: The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sutaining the addition to the extent of Rs.12,50,000/- out of total addition of Rs.1,26,08,333/- made by the Assessing Officer for the alleged unexplained investment in land for hospital project. 31. A view has already been taken in the foregoing paragraphs that there was no basis for the impugned addition; hence the direction of learned CIT(A) upto this extent are hereby reversed and this ground is allowed. 32. In the result, assessee s appeal is allowed. G. IT(ss)A No. 612/Ahd/2011, A.Y. 2008-09 (Revenue s Appeal) (Dr. Parthsarthy Seshan Iyenger) 33. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue arising from the order of learned CIT(A)-III, Ahmedabad dated 13.09.2011 and the ground is reproduced below: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in deleting addition of Rs.17,00,000/- on account of unaccounted cash payment for purchase of shares of the company M/s. CCCPL. 34. At the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized documents, statements recorded during or after the date of search or during the assessment proceedings which proves that these four-doctors have also paid cash over and above the cheque amounts. In the absence of any evidence regarding the cash paid by the appellant 4 doctors, the AO is directed to delete the addition of unaccounted investments in shares of CCCPL made in their cases. However, the AO is free to examine the taxability in the hands of the company CCCPL who have issued the shares to the appellant doctors as held by me in the case of Dr Keyur Parikh. 35. We have already taken a view that there was no evidence unearthed during the course of search to prove that the doctors have actually paid cash over and above the cheque amount towards the purchase of the property. Therefore, the view taken by learned CIT(A) is hereby confirmed and this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 36. In the result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. H. CO No. 29/Ahd/2012, A.Y. 2008-09 (Assessee-Dr. Parthsarthy Seshan Iyenger s Cross Objection) 37. Ground of CO is reproduced below: The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Ahmedabad after carefully considering the det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name of the TORREL Cosmetics Private Limited and of Rs.5 Lacs dated 14/10/2007 in the names of Bharat Shah (Rs.3 lacs) and Milan Shah (Rs.2 lacs) was given by the appellant Doctor to CCCPL for further action at their end. This contention of the appellant appears to be correct as the dates and the amount exactly tally with the seized material. The AO will verify this point. In case CCCPL admits that the cheques are paid by the appellant Doctor to the officials of CCCPL, then to that extent the amounts cannot be taxed in the hand of the appellant Doctor but in the hands of CCCPL as held by me in other cases. In that case Rs.35 lacs will have to be taxed in the hands of the company CCCPL and the balance amount of Rs.11.75 lacs in the hands of the appellant Doctor. Otherwise, the whole amount of Rs.46.75 lacs is to be taxed in the hands of the appellant Doctor. 42. We are not convinced the manner in which learned CIT(A) has held that the balance amount of Rs.11.75 lacs was to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. As far as cash investment towards purchase of property is concerned a view has already been taken which is to be applied in the present case as well. Resultantly, the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersed the finding of learned CIT(A). As a result, this ground of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 48. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. L. IT(ss)A No. 652/Ahd/2011, A.Y. 2008-09 (Assessee-Dr. Dhiren S. Shah s Appeal) 49. Learned AR has informed that ground no.1 and 2 are general in nature, hence not pressed, therefore dismissed. 49.1. Grounds argued are as follows: 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in giving a finding that the addition made by AO of Rs.25,50,000/- (reads as Rs.25,15,000/- in appellate order) as alleged contribution to the company CCCPL for purchase of land for hospital project as unaccounted income of the appellant for A.Y. 2007/08 without any corroborative evidence. Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have made any observation or given a finding once he reached the conclusion that the said addition requires to be deleted as income of the year under consideration. 4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in ignoring various explanations, submissions and evidences placed on record by the appellant in its proper perspective and further erred in holding that the amount of Rs.25.15 lacs was received by CCCPL in cash from the appellant that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in their cases. However, the AO is free to examine the taxability in the hands of the company CCCPL who have issued the shares to the appellant doctors as held by me in the case of Dr Keyur Parikh. unquote. On reading of this finding, it is apparent that in the absence of any direct evidence the learned CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee. One more thing is apparent that learned CIT(A) had presumed that the company might have charged a cash. By using these words, it is clear that merely on suspicion a view was taken by learned CIT(A). As discussed in above paragraphs, we have held that it was not justifiable on the part of the Revenue Authorities to tax merely on presumption. As a result, we find no force in this ground. Hence hereby dismissed. 54. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. N. CO No. 28/Ahd/2012, A.Y. 2008-09 (Assessee-Dr.Gunvant Tulsibhai Patel s CO) 55. Through this Cross-Objection, the assessee has supported the relief given by learned CIT(A), but objected the direction for assessment in the hands of CCCPL. A view has already been taken; hence this CO has become redundant, therefore, dismissed. 56. In the result, Revenue s appeal as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
