Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 450 - ITAT PUNE

2015 (12) TMI 450 - ITAT PUNE - TMI - Revision u/s.263 - as per CIT(A) instead of showing the entire sale proceeds the assessee has shown only 50% of the sale proceeds as his income which the AO failed to verify and the AO has not made proper enquiries regarding the cash received amounting from M/s. Krupa Land Ltd. against sale of land - Held that:- We find from the various agreements and deeds of conveyance that the assessee has entered into transactions with different parties along with Shri S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was non-application of mind and that the order is erroneous.

The assessment order in this case was passed on 18-11-2011. The assessment record was called for during the course of hearing. It was revealed that the JCIT vide letter dated 02-02-2012 addressed to the AO has intimated for appropriate action u/s.147 in the case of the assessee on account of receipt of unaccounted income in cash in respect of land deals with M/s. Krupa Land Ltd. in A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Krupa Land Ltd. Therefore, on the basis of a subsequent letter addressed to the AO after completion of the assessment the Ld.CIT could not have assumed jurisdiction u/s.263 on this issue holding that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld.CIT has wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s.263 which is not correct under the facts and circumstances of the case. We therefore set aside the order pass .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntractor and also derives income from house property and long term capital gain. He filed his return of income on 27-01-2010 declaring income of ₹ 5,37,32,323 and agricultural income of ₹ 3,28,877/-. The return was accompanied by audited profit and loss account and auditors report as per provisions of section 44AB of the I.T. Act. The AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) on 18-11-2011 determining the total income at ₹ 5,38,72,320/- and agricultural income of ₹ 3,28,877/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ni from Saastha Warehousing Ltd. for a consideration of ₹ 1,46,04,000/-. As per the agreement only an amount of ₹ 2 lakhs was paid and balance was payable within 45 days. Meanwhile the land was sold on 07- 04-2008 to Ekdanta Land Pvt. Ltd. for ₹ 3,65,10,000/-. After deducting ₹ 1,44,04,000/- being the amount payable by the assessee as per the agreement dated 20-03-2008 to Saastha Warehousing Ltd. the balance amount of ₹ 2,21,06,000/- was received by the assessee. Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e. However, the sale price has been distributed between the assessee and Shri Sunil T. Patil. 4. He further noted that information was received from the JCIT, Central Circle-29, Mumbai that the assessee has received ₹ 9,28,72,500/- from M/s. Krupa Land Ltd. in cash against the sale of land in A.Y. 2009-10 which has not been offered by the assessee for taxation. The AO has not made proper enquiries and cross verifications with respect to transactions entered into by the assessee and the inc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y with Shri Sunil T. Patil. The sale consideration was received by both parties separately by 2 separate demand drafts. Shri Sunil T. Patil has declared capital gain on these transactions in his return of income. By mutual understanding, the token amount of ₹ 2 lakhs and ₹ 1 lakh was paid by the assessee. Hence, it does not mean that he is the sole owner of those lands and that the entire capital gain is earned by him. 5.1 So far as the receipt of cash amounting to ₹ 9,28,72,50 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by him on behalf of both parties, i.e., himself and Shri Sunil T. Patil. There is no agreement between the assessee and said Shri Sunil T. Patil. The assessee has expressed his ignorance towards receipt of ₹ 9,28,72,500/- from M/s. Krupa Land Ltd. The JCIT, Central Circle-39, Mumbai vide his letter dated 02-02-2012 informs that search and seizure action u/s.132 was carried out on 05-03-2009 in the case of Jai Corp. Group, it s employees and close associates, who were involved in the proce .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee), for purchase of lands in Nevali village. The assessee has not offered the amount for taxation. In view of the above, the CIT held that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore this is a fit case for invoking jurisdiction u/s.263. Accordingly, he set aside the order of the AO passed u/s.143(3) on 18-11-2011 with a direction to redo the assessment denovo after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. Aggrieved .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mand in dispute may be stayed. (iii) Personal hearing may be granted. (iv) Any other relief your honours may deem fit 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT. She submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has furnished all details regarding the land transactions. The books of accounts were also produced before the AO who test-checked .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

along with Shri Sunil T. Patil is the confirming party for the deed of conveyance between M/s. Ekdanta Land Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Saastha Warehousing Ltd. Thus, in all the purchase and sale transactions the assessee has entered into such transactions along with Shri Sunil T. Patil. Therefore, it cannot be said that the entire income belonged to the assessee. She submitted that the sale considerations were also received by demand drafts separately by the 2 persons in equal share. Therefore, the ass .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. So far as the amount received in cash from M/s. Krupa Land Ltd. is concerned she submitted that the assessee has not received any such cash from M/s. Krupa Land Ltd. Therefore, there was no question of any enquiry by the AO on this issue. She accordingly submitted that the order of the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the order passed u/s.263 by the CIT should be se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ers reported in (2010) 194 Taxmann 57 (Delhi) 9. CIT Vs. Design & Automation Engineers Bombay Pvt. Ltd. reported in 323 ITR 632 10. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in 332 ITR 1679 11. CIT Vs. Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) 12. Jai Kumar Kankaria Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 707 10. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld.CIT . 11. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

agreements and deeds of conveyance that the assessee has entered into transactions with different parties along with Shri Sunil Tukaram Patil either as a purchase or as a seller or as a consenting party. The name of the assessee as well as Shri Sunil Tukaram Patil appear in all the documents relating to land deals mentioned by the Ld.CIT. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the entire profit should have been shown by the assessee instead of showing 50%. We find all these documents were filed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version