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

2016 (11) TMI 1162 - ITAT PUNE

2016 (11) TMI 1162 - ITAT PUNE - TMI - Unexplained investment in Flat - joint ownership - Held that:- In view of the fact that the plea of joint co-owner of having paid the on-money out of cash available with M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. out of disclosure made before the Settlement Commission having been accepted to the extent of ₹ 56,10,000/-, no addition is merited in the hands of assessee as the assessee’s contribution is to the extent of 50% of ₹ 56,10,000/-. Further, the assessee c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

TA No.524/PN/2015 - Dated:- 30-9-2016 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM For The Appellant : Shri Pramod Shingte For The Respondent : Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is against order of CIT(A)-12, Pune, dated 02.03.2015 relating to assessment year 2008-09 against order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal :- 1) The l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

00/-. 3. The issue arising in the present appeal is against the addition made of ₹ 30,55,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in Flat No.203 in RNA Azure at Bandra, Mumbai. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act were conducted in the Ashoka Group of cases on 20.04.2010. The assessee had originally filed the return of income on 28.09.2008 declaring total income of ₹ 17,24,510/- and agricultural income of ₹ 4 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was at ₹ 4,27,35,000/-. In reply to the query raised, Mr. Satish M. Kulkarni, Asst. Manager of M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. had replied that the said flats were in the names of Shri Satish D. Parekh, M/s. Satish D. Parekh (HUF) and Mrs. Asha Katariya respectively. The total cost of three flats were noted at ₹ 4.27 crores as against the agreement value of ₹ 2.56 crores. The difference between the total cost and agreement value was ₹ 1.71 crores (approx.). The Assessing Office .....

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 assessee further pointed out that with a view to settle its case and in order to buy peace of mind, M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. had considered the allotted on-money against the purchase of flats in its application before the Settlement Commission. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of assessee. He further noted that the assessee had not denied purchasing the said flat in his own name and had also included on-money in the application made before the Settlement Commission, which 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

from undisclosed sources. 5. The CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer after considering the issue at length including the prices charged and the market value of the said assets. The CIT(A) was of the view that where the payment of on-money was admitted by the employee though, he retracted his statement later, but the same was held to be without any basis. In view of the fact that the correctness of one part of cheque payment in the seized paper and further the admission of employee and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/s. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. in their settlement petition. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that identical issue of addition on the basis of said document arose before Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in M/s. A.A. Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.2438/Mum/2013, relating to assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal vide order dated 05.02.2014 took note of the Annexure -AB1, in which the details in respect of flat numbers 201, 202 and 203 were mentioned i.e. the same d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent proceedings, who in turn, had completely denied the fact of having paid on-money. The Tribunal thus, held that the document which was in-complete i.e. in respect of flat No.203, the name was mentioned as not finalized and hence, it was not to be relied upon. Further, as per the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee, the issue has also been decided on merits vide para 12 and the addition made in the hands of assessee has been deleted. The learned Authorized Representative for 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

he other hand placing reliance on the order of CIT(A) pointed out that the factual aspects of the issue are clear from the documents seized during the course of search and addition is warranted in the hands of assessee. He further stressed that telescoping of the amounts surrendered by M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. cannot be allowed to the assessee. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Pursuant to search and seizure operations on M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd., certain documents .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ment reflects the total cost of individual flats, the agreement value and the amount for parking. The assessee before us had jointly purchased flat No.203 with Shri Satish D. Parekh (HUF). The agreement value was ₹ 84,15,000/- as against total cost of ₹ 1,40,25,000/-. The difference between the total cost and the agreement value was ₹ 56,10,000/- and the cost of parking was ₹ 5 lakhs. The case of Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) was that the said amount was paid by the as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The said plea of the assessee has not been accepted in the hands of the assessee. However, in the case of joint owner Shri Satish D. Parekh (HUF), the said plea has been accepted in respect of cash transaction of ₹ 56,10,000/-. The perusal of assessment order of Shri Satish D. Parekh (HUF), placed on record by the assessee reflects that the Assessing Officer of the said person had taken note of cash transaction of ₹ 56,10,000/- on account of purchase of flat being jointly between Shr .....

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