Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (8) TMI 120

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of unexplained expenses in respect of Motia Khan Property. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the issue unexplained expenses in respect of Motia Khan Property has been adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. 3. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out in the Gopal Zarda group of cases on 15.1.2009 and during the course of search at the residential premises of Sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ve which remains unexplained. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, AO made an addition of Rs. 47,02,750/- on account of unexplained source of expenses u/s. 69C r.w.s. 37 of the Act and completed the assessment vide order dated 29.12.2010 passed u/s. 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Against the aforesaid assessment order of the Assessing Officer, Asseessee appealed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who vide impugned order 15.12.2011 has allowed the appeal of the assesee and deleted the addition in dispute. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 15.12.2011, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing Ld. Departmental Representative has relied upon the order of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oth these companies and thus made addition of Rs. 47,02,750/- (50% of total expenditure of Rs. 94,05,500/-) each in the hands of the assessee company and M/s Penguine Farms Pvt. Ltd. 8. We further find that the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the crux of the submission of the assessee dated 13.12.2011 were around the preposition that the additions made in case of the assessee with regard to unexplained and undisclosed expenses related to property at Motia Khan by the AO are covered by the order U/S 2450(4) passed by the Settlement Commission dated 31.12.2010 therefore in terms of the Section 245-I of the IT Act the matters which are covered by the Order of Settlement Commission could neither be reopened nor eligible for any further addition u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (4) of the Act dated 31st December, 2010. The relevant para 24 of the Order reiterating the judgment of Hon'ble Settlement Commission is presented hereunder for your kind perusal: "We have considered the rival submissions. The issues were discussed in detail during the hearing. There is one item which is figuring in the statement of Shri Gopal Gupta where he has surrendered Rs. 6.5 crores. Even going by the calculation a/premium, the amount comes to Rs. 13.3 crores (1/3rd of Rs. 40 crores). The applicants have declared more. So the amount of disclosure need not be disturbed. Regarding the hand in which this amount should be taxed, - Shri Dinesh Jain or Smt. Lata Jain - it is immaterial since it would be revenue neutral. So we may allow tax .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... several investments of a small amount which could not be deciphered. The applicant could not explain these notings. It appears that . there were heavy cash transactions and applicants had sufficient rolling fund in cash. Taking an overall view, we take unexplained cash of Rs. 5 crores in the hand of the main applicant of the two groups". 8.4 Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances explained above, we are of the considered view that the Settlement Commission has made total addition of Rs. 2.5 crores each in the hands of Dinesh Jain Group and Pardeep Aggarwal Group based on the aforesaid seized paper at pages 47 of A-I and consequently the addition of Rs. 47,02,750/- made by the Assessing Officer has rightly been deleted by the Ld. C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates