TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .50 Lakhs. The remaining amount of ₹ 34,37,500/- is already offered to tax by the assessee in the present year. Therefore, to this extent, no further addition can be made and hence, this much addition is being deleted out of the total addition made by the AO of ₹ 77.50 Lakhs and partly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). We would also like to observe that if the assessee has disclosed income in the assessment year 2006-07 of ₹ 34,37,500/- which is being taxed in the present year and if the assessee can establish that both are same, then such income should not be taxed in the assessment year 2006-07 and if the tax has been paid by the assessee in that year, credit for the same be allowed in the present year against the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led. 4. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs . 3. The grounds raised by the revenue in its appeal are as under; 1. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is clearly opposed to law as far as the findings are perverse, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and hence not sustainable. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not considering the cash payments of ₹ 34,37,500/- and ₹ 77,50,000/-a and ₹ 4.00 Lakhs received by the assessee as per the agreeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 124 Lakhs had been brought to tax in his hands and in the hands of M/s Bangalore Sites and Estates inasmuch as he had offered a sum of ₹ 68,75,000/- at ₹ 34,37,500/- each for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and M/s Bangalore Sites and Estates had offered a sum of ₹ 56,00,000/-for tax. As, in the opinion, the amount of ₹ 7,50,000/- figuring in the seized material was not addressed by the appellant, the AO sought further clarification from the appellant. The appellant vide his reply dated 4/8/2011 that the AO had made notings at pages 89 and 92 of the said seized material that the gross amount involved in the transaction was ₹ 1.24 Lakhs out of which an amount of ₹ 90.00 Lakhs was mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A). 6.1 It was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that on pages 24 25 of the paper book are the seized papers on the basis of which the present addition was made and partly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). At the outset, he has drawn our attention to page no.24 of the paper book, wherein against the name of the assessee, the total amount mentioned is ₹ 124.00 Lakhs comprising of ₹ 30.00 Lakhs being paid to the Bangalore Sites and Estates ₹ 90.00 Lakhs being paid to PES Office and ₹ 4.00 Lakhs paid by Secretary Office. Thereafter, he has drawn our attention to page no.25 of the paper book and pointed out that on this page two amounts are mentioned against the name of the assessee being ₹ 77.50 Lakhs in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be taxed in correct year and therefore, when the registry was affected in the present year, how it can be accepted that part amount was received by the assessee in the later year and it may be that it should be omitted from the taxable income of that year and tax paid in that year against that income may be adjusted against the income which is being added in the present year. In reply, learned AR of the assessee agreed to this proposition. 7. Regarding the part addition of ₹ 8.75 lakhs confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) he submitted that it is noted by the AO at page 2 of the remand report that as per page no.92 of the seized material available at page no.24 of the paper book, total payment ₹ 124.00 Lakhs was received by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) on this aspect. The balance amount of ₹ 68.75 Lakhs has been offered to tax by the assessee to the extent of 50% in the present year and the balance 50% for the assessment year 2006-07. In our considered opinion, when the sale deed was executed in the present year, it is not acceptable that the balance amount was received by the assessee in the assessment year 2006-07, particularly when no cogent evidence in respect of his claim was produced before us or before any of the authorities below. Therefore, we hold that the amount of ₹ 34,37,500/- should also be taxed in the present year in addition to the addition upheld by the ld.CIT(A) of ₹ 8.75 Lakhs. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
