9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A No. 258/2009, the assessee has assailed the order of the CIT(Appeals) confirming the addition of Rs. 5,63,263/- towards investment made in SIDCO land. On the other hand, the Revenue has assailed the order of CIT(Appeals) for deleting Rs. 32,51,872/- as un-disclosed investment in land at Ariyanoor. 2. The facts in brief are: a search was conducted in the case of Shri P. Madhurajan, in his individual capacity on 10-08-2004 at his residence and business premises. During search, certain documents belonging to HUF of which Shri P. Madhurajan is the 'Karta' were seized. The assessee [HUF] is primarily engaged in the business of money lending and textile processing under the name and style of M/s. Balaji Process, Gudalur. The assessee had filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for 15000 sq. ft. land was fixed at Rs. 106 per sq. ft. As per the endorsement made on the back of the agreement, Shri C. Balan (Vendor) had received Rs. 2,60,100/- on 09-01-2001and another sum of Rs. 9.00 Lakhs from Smt. K. Vanaja (Vendee) on 10-08-2004. As per agreement, Rs. 4.00 Lakhs was paid at the time of execution of agreement. Subsequently, the agreement was cancelled on 22-04-2002 and Smt. Vanaja had acknowledged that she has received the entire sum of Rs. 15,60,100/- as the re-payment of the advance amount paid by her to the vendors. The DR has placed on record a translated copy of the agreement dated 07-02-2001. The ld. DR submitted that it is highly improbable that the same land which was sold at such considerable price in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(Appeals) on this issue submitted that the additions have been made by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of presumptions. The ld. Counsel submitted that Shri C. Balan is a land broker and hand entered into an agreement with Mr. Pachiappan and others with respect to 92 cents of agricultural land in question. Shri C. Balan had proposed to convert the land in to a residential colony and sell it in smaller plots. Shri C. Balan had entered into an agreement dated 07-02-2001 with Smt. Vanaja for sale of 15000 sq. ft. developed housing plots abutting National Highway @ 106 per sq. ft. For this venture, Shri C. Balan had borrowed Rs. 10.00 Lakhs from two firms in which assessee was partner/manager. Since, Mr. Balan could not start the proje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the assessee submitted that a perusal of para No.15 of the order of the CIT(Appeals) would show that the assessee had admitted the fact that the investment in SIDCO land is un-explained. 5. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of both the sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. The cross-appeals have been filed by the assessee and the Revenue impugning the order of the CIT(Appeals). 6. In ITA No. 258/2009, the assessee had assailed the addition confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) with regard to the investment of Rs. 5,63,263/- made in SIDCO land. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the entire investment in purchase of SIDCO land has been explained. A sum of Rs. 1.00 Lakh was withdrawn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. No reliability can be placed on the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has been taking different stand before the authorities below and before us to cover up the investments made in SIDCO land. There is no merit in the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the same is dismissed. 9. In ITA No. 374/2009, the Revenue has impugned the order of the CIT(Appeals) with regard to partly deleting the addition in respect of investments made in land at Ariyanoor. It is not disputed that with regard to the land in question, there was earlier sale agreement dated 07-02-2001 between Shri C. Balan & others and Smt. K. Vanaja for sale of land measuring 15000 sq. ft. @ Rs. 106 per sq. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee from 'Devabala Group' around same time had appreciated. This fact has not been disputed by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) has only taken into consideration the amount of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs advanced by the assessee to Shri C. Balan. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has admitted that the cost paid by the assessee in respect of land in question is Rs. 12,46,000/- (borrowings by C. Balan Rs.Rs. 10,00,000/- + additional amount paid Rs. Rs. 2,00,000/- + Stamp Duty Rs.Rs. 46,000/-). The ld. Counsel for the assessee has taken another plea that the earlier agreement dated 07-02-2001 was in respect of developed housing plot. The DR has placed on record translated copy of the said agreement. A perusal of the same shows that no where it h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
