TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant's wife, as also a part of the consideration in the appellant's bank account without giving details of the quantum of land owned by the appellant and also by his wife individually or jointly lead to the factual position, that the appellant was procuring the land from the other small land owners and without getting the same registered in his own name, was passing on the same to the developers, is indicative of the absence of bonafides on the part of the assessee. Issue has come to the knowledge of the Revenue by initiation of investigation in 2009 onwards. As per the learned advocate, the investigations which were started in February 2009 were completed in March 2009 and as such the show-cause notice issued in June 2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per cent to the said buyer. The value of the land in the agreement was shown as ₹ 3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs only) per cent and the balance amount of ₹ 3.25 lakhs was shown as nomination charges . However, there was no details of the fact as to what nomination charges referred to. The land was ultimately sold at ₹ 4.6 lakhs per cent and the entire consideration of ₹ 15.32 crores was approximately received by the appellant as also his wife. Out of the total consideration received, an amount of ₹ 5,00,00,000/- (rupees five crores) was put into the present appellant's bank account and the balance amount was put into the bank account of his wife. However the entire consideration was reflected by his wife ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r by June 2009. The show-cause notice was issued subsequently on 24.06.2011. As such, he submits that the demand is barred by limitation. The leaned advocate has also referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs CCE Raipur [2013 (288) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) wherein it was held that mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collision or willful misstatement or suppression of facts. 5. On going through the said decision, we find that in that matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court arrived at the bonafide conduct of the appellant on the various evidences available therein. Needless to say that the finding of suppression, misstatement or collision are based upon the evidences available on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that identical circumstances were the subject matter of the earlier stay order of the Tribunal being Miscellaneous Order No. 26965/2013 dated 19.08.2013. One of the parties to the agreement for sale of the land was M/s Purvankara Projects Pvt. Ltd. and the activities attributable to that appellant are more or less same activities which stands attributed to the present appellant. In those circumstances, the Tribunal has thought it fit to direct the applicant to deposit a part of the demand of service tax, confirmed in that case. 8. As regards the limitation, we find that the issue has come to the knowledge of the Revenue by initiation of investigation in 2009 onwards. As per the learned advocate, the investigations which were started ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
