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

2016 (1) TMI 308 - ITAT PUNE

2016 (1) TMI 308 - ITAT PUNE - TMI - Addition on receipt of on-money - Notice issued under section 158BD - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- No merit in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard, in the absence of any evidence found of cash payment made to the assessee and in view of the other evidence i.e. Affidavit of Shri Y.P. Trivedi and Shri J.M. Jhala and the narration of alleged cash having been paid after the date of execution of sale deed, no reliance could be pl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onstrated that the delay in furnishing of the block period return occurred for valid reason. Admittedly, in absence of PAN, it was impossible for the assessee to submit block period return in the capacity of legal heir. In fact the delay has occurred due to delay on the part of A.O. to allot the assessee a PAN. Thus, there was a reasonable cause and the assessee cannot be expected to do impossibility. Hence, under the facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on the ITAT decisions repor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or The Respondent : Shri Nikhil Pathak ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of CIT(A)-I, Nashik, dated 24.12.2012 relating to Block period 01.04.1996 to 25.03.2003 against order passed under section 158BD r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in admitting additional grounds whi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

158BD of the I.T. Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 14,50,550/- in the hands of the assessee. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in accepting fresh evidence in violation of rules 46A. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing in deleting the levy of interest of ₹ 219323 u/s 158BF(1) made by the AO. 3. The Revenue ha .....

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 case, the present appeal is filed by legal heir of Shri Pravin Paraji Karanjkar. Search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted at the business premises of Rushiraj Builders & Developers and residential premises of Shri Y.P. Tr ivedi and Shri J.M. Jhala, the partners of the said firm. Certain books of account and documents were seized from the said premises. The document marked as Annexure A-2 seized from the residence of Shri Y.P. Trivedi showed c ertain cash .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o.33 of final plot No.434 of Survey No.705/2/1/3. In view of the said incriminating document found from the possession of Rushiraj Builders & Developers, intimation was sent to ACIT, Central Circle -1, Nashik, after recording satisfaction notice under section 158BD of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 158BD of the Act was issued to the assessee and the assessee was asked to file return of income within 15 days from the service of notice. The assessee failed to furnish any return of i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. legal heir of Shri Paraji Abaji Karanjkar pointed out that he had no knowledge about all these transactions till he got copy of seized papers and even after getting the copy of orders, he was not aware of the significance of seized documents. He further explained that these documents had no relevance to the addition proposed in the hands of assessee. The assessee also submitted that the seized papers itself would reveal that the sale was effected prior to commencement of block period on 01.04. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bmitted that the allegations were totally false and contrary to the evidence on record. The assessee explained that in the seized papers at Annexure A-2 at no place the name of his father was appearing. Further, in both the Affidavits submitted by Shri Y.P. Trivedi and Shri J.M. Jhala, it was stated that the alleged cash in excess over the documented price, was paid to Shri Narendra Thakker or his representatives and not to his father. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to support the allegati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

held that sum of ₹ 26,09,350/- passed from Rushiraj Builders & Developers to the assessee as balance consideration in cash over and above the documented deed of development over plot No.33 of final plot No.434 of survey No.705/2/1/3, since the assessee was co-owner of the property, thus only his share of ₹ 14,49,000/- was assessed in his hands. 6. The CIT(A) observed that in the seized papers at no place the name of assessee was appearing for payment of any on-money. In the Affid .....

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, there was no merit in any addition in the hands of assessee. Consequently, the impugned addition of ₹ 14,50,550/- was held to be unwarranted and deleted. 7. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that as per the seized document Annexure A-2, there was cash payment of ₹ 26,09,350/- and the assessee being co-owner in the said property, half share was assessable in the hands of assessee. 9. 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

of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee stressed that in the Affidavit, Shri Y.P. Trivedi had stressed that the payments were made to Shri Narendra Thakker for purchase of plots, but there is no evidence of any cash payments being made to the assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in this regard, placed reliance on the ratio laid down by Pune Bench of Tribunal in ACIT Vs. M/s. Manoj Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.965/PN/ 2008 and in M/s. Manoj .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hands of legal heir i.e. his son on the premise that during the course of search operations at the business premises of M/s. Rushiraj Builders & Developers and residential premises of its partners Shri Y.P. Trivedi and Shri J.M.Jhala, certain documents were seized, which reflected cash payments to the assessee. The documents seized were two i.e. agreement for purchase of plot No.42, wherein the total sale consideration was ₹ 3,75,978/- for plot No.42 of S.No.705/2/1/3/45. Though, duri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ments to the assessee was false and contrary to the evidence. It was pointed out that in the seized paper Annexure - 2 i.e. the entries in the diary at no place the name of his father Shri Paraji Abaji Karanjkar was appearing. Further, reliance was placed on Affidavits submitted by Shri Y.P. Trivedi and Shri J.M. Jhala, in which it was stated that the cash in excess of sale consideration was paid to Shri Narendra Thakker or his representatives and not to father of assessee. Another contention ra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

addition in the absence of any evidence regarding receipt of on-money by the assessee. We find no merit in the ground of appeal No.4 raised by the Revenue in this regard, in the absence of any evidence found of cash payment made to the assessee and in view of the other evidence i.e. Affidavit of Shri Y.P. Trivedi and Shri J.M. Jhala and the narration of alleged cash having been paid after the date of execution of sale deed, no reliance could be placed on the aforesaid addition to hold that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a M. Thakker, wherein no addition was made in the absence of any corroborative evidence. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances and following the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in ACIT Vs. M/s. Manoj Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in the absence of corroborative evidence found evidencing the payment of onmoney to the assessee, we find no merit in the stand of Revenue in this regard. The ground of appeal No.4 raised by the Revenue thus, is dismissed. In view of our upholding .....

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