9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rshan Construction Co., Ltd., in the hands of the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in upholding the assessment of income for A.Y. 2007-08 though the amount was actually received in the year relevant for A.Y. 2006-07." 2. Briefly stated, assessee is an individual and Director of M/s. Vijay Balaji Construction Company which is a sister concern of M/s. Bhoorathnam Group. Search and seizure operations under section 132 of the I.T. Act were conducted on 30th August, 2007 in the group cases and on the basis of incriminating material found assessments under section 143(3) read with section 153A were completed. During the search and seizure proceedings, an agreement of sale dated 14.11.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction Co. Ltd., Accordingly, assessment was finalized bringing to tax an amount of Rs. 1 crore in the hands of the said company and Rs. 20 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. Assessee objected to the same stating that the agreement for sale was entered in earlier year on 14.11.2005 relevant for A.Y. 2006-07 and since that agreement was cancelled, the amount received by way of cheque was returned by way of cheque and cash was returned to the said party. On the pretext that said amount was not evidenced, the A.O. treated the receipt of Rs. 20 lakhs as income of assessee in the year under consideration. 3. It was the submission before the Ld. CIT(A) that property in respect of which, amount was received was held by A L Sudarshan construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property to Sri S. Rama Chandra Reddy for a consideration of Rs. l crore in the hands of M/s. A.L. Sudharshan Construction Company Ltd., has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Tribunal on the basis of the original agreement deed, the relevant part of the Tribunal's decision is reproduced as under : We have heard both the parties and also perused the material available on record. There is a valid agreement entered by the assessee dated 14.11.2005 and this agreement was found during the course of search action conducted on the assessee u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961on 30.08.2007 reflecting the sale consideration at Rs. 120 lakhs. Contrary to this, the assessee has taken a plea before us that the said Bowenpally property was sold to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation actually received by the assessee and brings to tax capital gains on the footing that the fair market value of the capital asset represents the actual consideration received by the assessee as against the consideration untruly declared or disclosed by him". Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are inclined to uphold the addition made by the last. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 08.1. It may be noted that the Hon'ble Tribunal has considered only Rs. l crore from out of the Rs. 1.2 crores which was the amount of consideration as per the original agreement deed, for the purpose of capital gains and did not consider the amount of balance Rs. 20 lakh received by the assessee. Sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to Mr. A.L. Uday Shanker to receive money and accordingly, if the entire consideration received, if any pertains to the said company but not to assessee. It was further submitted that the advance amount was received on 14.11.2005 and the same cannot be assessed in the hands of assessee in A.Y. 2007-08 just because the agreement was cancelled in this assessment year. 5. Learned D.R. further referred to the facts admitted by A.O. in the order and submitted that it was decided that only Rs. 1 crore would be taxed in the hands of assessee company and the balance Rs. 20 lakhs will be taxed in the hands of individual. 6. We have considered the issue and rival submissions and perused the details placed on record. It is a fact that assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the business of trading. Just because partners in the erstwhile firm authorized him to receive amount of Rs. 40 lakhs, on behalf of other vendors it cannot be considered as income of assessee, as he has no right to receive amount of Rs. 20 lakhs in his individual capacity. Looking at any angle, we are unable to understand how the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs, supposed to have been consideration for the transfer of property in the hands of firm/company can be assessed in the hands of individual. even if there is an agreement to that extent as noted by A.O. As seen from the order of A.O. the facts recorded by A.O. in his order is as under : "As per seized annexure A/ALSCCL/PO/5, an agreement dated 14.11.2005 was found in respect of sale of 847 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
