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 1367 - ITAT DELHI

2016 (11) TMI 1367 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Unaccounted income from sale of property - CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that the seized document does not belong to the assessee - validity of assessment u/s 153C - Held that:- There is no absolute or limited ownership of the assessee over the seized documents apart from the fact that the transactions recorded therein pertain to properties owned by the assessee. Now the requirement under the law is not regarding the ownership of the properties menti .....

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 case of the assessee. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the addition made based on the papers seized from the computer at the residential premises of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda and Smt. Samta Khinda are not in accordance with law and was therefore rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). - Also reference to the name of person in the seized document cannot be the basis to come to the conclusion that the document belonged to the said person. Proceedings initiated on the basis of the suc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

No attempt is made to make reference to DVO by AO or CIT-A. There is no examination of any concerned witness/party to transaction. Only suspicion has weighed to make the colossal addition. There is no hidden bank a/c so as to transact the given money. There is no bayana agreement or any other adversarial document found during extensive search operation specific to charge made. The charge made against the assessee only resolves around a single piece of Paper which is not handwritten from any of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion of jurisdiction u/s 153C is concerned to make a document to be belonging to the assessee, presumption u/s 292C can't be resorted i.e belonging to criteria can't be satisfied on the basis of presumption & assumption. As per record Mrs. Sudhiksha Singh another assessee had disclosed this transaction voluntarily in normal course by paying due capital gain u/s 50C read with section 48 i.e there is no sanction & under the present law to tax a seller over & above the given transaction rate 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

d by the assessee. However, there is no iota of evidence with the Department to suggest that loose sheet disclose receipts resulting in an undisclosed income on the part of the assessee. Therefore there is no question of assessing any income in the hands of the assessee .- Decided against revenue - Protective addition of income - Held that:- CIT(A) has rightly observed that since the source of the investment in cash for ₹ 74 lacs is forming part of the cash of ₹ 3.50 crores which .....

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 years 2007- 08 and 2008-09, we have already deleted the addition of ₹ 3.50 crores and ₹ 17.50 crores respectively, therefore, the question of deletion of addition of ₹ 74 lacs does not arise as the investment in cash for ₹ 74 lacs was forming part of the cash of ₹ 3.50 crores - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. Nos. 617 & 618/DEL/2012, I.T.A. Nos. 334 & 335/DEL/2012, I.T.A. Nos. 619 & 620/DEL/2012 - Dated:- 29-11-2016 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI .....

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 by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 617/Del/2012 (AY 2007-08) in Revenues Appeals and ITA nos. 335/Del/2012 (AY 2007-08) in Assessee Appeals- Sandeep Singh Khinda) and ITA No. 619/Del/2012 (AY 2007-08) (M/S Habitat Royale Projects P Ltd.) 2. The grounds raised in Revenue s ITA No. 617/Del/2012 (AY 2007-08) read as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,50 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the requirement for initiating proceedings u/s 153C of the Income tax Act, 1961 has not fulfilled in this case. 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has not correctly interpreted the provisions of section 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that there is .....

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, without appreciating the settled position of law that the seized document should be read in totality and when cheque payments mentioned in the document have been reflected in the books of the assessee, she cannot deny the cash portion mentioned therein. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, without prejudice to the ground no.1, the CIT(A) himself has confirmed the above mentioned addition of ₹ 3.50 Crores made on protective basis in the hands of Sh. Sandeep Khinda thu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 17,50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on substantive basis on account of unaccounted income from sale of property by holding that the seized document does not belong to the assessee" 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. ₹ 5,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on protective basis on account of unexplained investment in property by holdin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that there is no intimate connection between the seized document and the assessee without appreciating the fact that the property mentioned in the seized document has been sold by the assessee and the payments received through cheques thereto have been reflected in the books of the assessee. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that there is no evidence to the effect that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

res made on protective basis in the hands of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda thus validating the transaction recorded in the seized document and the stand taken by the Assessing Officer. 8. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal ore or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. REVENUE APPEAL (ITA NO. 617/DEL/2012- AY 2007-08) 4. The brief facts of the case are that the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

und and seized. In view of the same notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued on 25.1.2010 and in response thereto the assessee filed return on 26.11.2010 at the income of ₹ 4,42,920/- as declared in the original return. /- and accordingly, the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and 142(1) of the Act alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued on 26.11.2010 and served on the assessee. In response to these notices assessee s AR attended the proceedings and filed the submissions from time to time. T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed 28.11.2011 has deleted the additions in dispute by allowing the appeal of the Assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. 7.1 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interfere .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the Department of invoking the Rule 27 was accepted. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the Orders of the revenue authorities. We find that ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issues in dispute raised in ground no. 1 & 2 and adjudicated at page no. 24 & 25 respectively. The relevant paragraphs of the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under:- I have given considerable thought to the facts of the case and the arguments made by the appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hand writing of the assessee namely Smt. Sudhiksha Singh. It is no doubt true that the property at D- 17, Pushpanjali which has been sold by the assessee to Sh. R.S. Shokeen of Vijeta Properties P. Ltd. and the property at G WG which has been purchased by the assessee from MIs Nimitaya Properties Ltd., a company which is under control of Sh. Sanjeev Mahajan, are legally belonging to the appellant. The fact however remains the there is no absolute or limited ownership of the assessee over the 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

ortion recorded in the seized document therefore the requirement under the law of the fact that the seized document should belong to the assessee for initiation of proceeding uls 153C of the IT Act are not fulfilled in the case of the appellant. Accordingly, I am constrained to hold that the addition made for ₹ 3.50 Crores as well as ₹ 1 Crore based on the papers seized from the computer at the residential premises of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda and Smt. Samta Khinda are not in accordan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iksha Singh. As per documents filed by the assessee in the shape of Paper Book the property at D-17, Pushpanjali which has been sold by the assessee to Sh. R.S. Shokeen of Vijeta Properties P. Ltd. and the property at GWG which has been purchased by the assessee from M/s Nimitaya Properties Ltd., a company which is under control of Sh. Sanjeev Mahajan, are legally belonging to the assessee. The fact however remains that the there is no absolute or limited ownership of the assessee over the seize .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on recorded in the seized document therefore the requirement under the law that the seized document should belongs to the assessee for initiation of proceeding u/s 153C of the IT Act are not fulfilled in the case of the assessee. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the addition made for ₹ 3.50 Crores as well as ₹ 1 Crore based on the papers seized from the computer at the residential premises of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda and Smt. Samta Khinda are not in accordance with law 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

tisfaction by particular AO of particular raided party. For the sake of clarity we are reproducing the Satisfaction Note for initiation proceedings u/s. 153C of the I.T. Act as well as the contents of the Petition filed u/r 27 of the ITAT Rules as under:- Satisfaction note for initiating proceedings u/s 153C of the I.T. Act 1 During the course of search proceedings page no. 1 to 6 of annexure A-1 party G-3 which is a computer printout page was found from residential premises of Shri Sandeep Sing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n page no. 1 of Annexure A-1 party G-3 it is noted that the above mentioned farm house i.e. Grand Westend Greens has been sold by M/s Nimitaya Properties Ltd. to Sudhiksha Singh at ₹ 1000 lacs and out of which ₹ 400 lacs (300 + 100 lacs) has been paid in cheques and remaining amount of ₹ 600 lacs i.e. (100+500) paid in cash 2. Further during the course of search proceedings page no. 1 to 6 of annexure A-1 party G-3 which is a computer printout page was found from residential pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Area for ₹ 1.5'0 Crores. it was sold by Nimitaya Properties Ltd. to M/s Sudiksha Singh for ₹ 2 Crores. Further, the said property was sold by Ms. Sudiksha Singh to Shri R K Shokeen of Vijeta Properties Pvt Ltd. vide Sale Deed dated 27.02.08 for registered value of ₹ 4,00,00,000/-. But the chart made on page no. 1 of Annexure A-1 party G-3, reveals that, the actual sale consideration was ₹ 25 crores and not ₹ 4 crore. The amount of commission paid is ₹ 25 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

course of search u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act at the residential premises of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda and Smt. Samta Khinda belongs to the assessee. As this is a case of a person other than the person referred to in Sec. 153A covered u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act, proceedings u/s. 153C read with section 153A of the I.T. Act is being initiated in the case of the assessee. Sd/- (B.R. MISHRA) 25.11.2010 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-22, New Delhi PETITION UNDER RULE 27 ITAT RULES TO SUPP .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion u/s 153C which is jettisoned by him in impugned order. In the interregnum, assessee has already filed two separate no raising the issue of recording of valid satisfaction u/s 153C which are re-enclosed herewith for sake of completeness. The copy of purported satisfaction is also re-enclosed . To support the aforesaid plea of non recording of valid and requisite satisfaction u/s 153C, this petition is filed as a matter of abundant caution, under rule 27 of ITAT rules, which as per below menti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssee, without having filed any cross appeal or cross objection can support the impugned order on any of the grounds decided against him. Two essential elements of the Rule 27 come to the fore on its bare reading. First is the condition precedent for invoking this Rule and the second is scope of interference. Insofar as the first element is concerned, we find that this Rule has been enshrined with a view to dispense justice to a assessee who is otherwise entitled to assail the correctness of 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

ts in the respondent, then it cannot be inferred indirectly by taking recourse to Rule 27. We have found out supra that, in the given facts, the Assessee has a right to file cross appeal or cross objection against the adverse direction given by the Ld. CIT(A) as contained in his appellate order. Thus, the first element, namely, the condition precedent for invoking rule 27, stands satisfied. 9.4 The next element is the scope of interference by the respondent. This is contained in the later part o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Crux of the matter is that the order appealed against can be challenged by the Assessee only qua the aspects of the issue decided against him in deciding such overall issue against the appellant, which has been assailed in the appeal. It means that there is an inherent limitation on the power of the Assessee in not challenging the order appealed against under rule 27 de hors the ground decided against the appellant. This shows that if a particular independent issue has been decided against 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

oresaid. 9.5 In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessee can invoke Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules which permits the respondent to support the order appealed against on the ground decided against it. We have noticed above that both the essential elements of rule 27, namely, the condition precedent for invoking this rule and the scope of interference stand fulfilled in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Our aforesaid view is fully supported by the ITAT, I-2, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d 25.11.2010 being date of issue of notice u/s. 153C, and therefore, the same is invalid on account of following reasons:- i.) That extant satisfaction note is not recorded in capacity of AO of raided party as manifest from facial reading of the same, which is must as held by the Coordinate Bench Delhi ITAT in DSL Properties Ltd. vs. DCIT 60 SOT 89 vide order dated 31.5.2012 (even if AO of both the raided party and other person are same); ii) That on basis of jurisdictional Delhi High Court orde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/8/2014) para 16; During search, in statements recorded none of the raided party disclaimed the subject documents; iv) That by making protective additions in hands of raided party (Sandeep Khinda) which is turned into substantive addition by Ld CIT-A it is clear that AO from beginning was not clear as to whom the document belongs on which ground itself 153C proceedings needs to be quashed being vitiated. 9.7 We find that the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd. vide ord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gs to in Section 153C of the Act. The hard disk was recovered from the computer belonging to M/s BK Dhingra & Co. which contained soft copies of working papers and balance sheet pertaining to the assessee for its income tax filing. It has been contended that BK Dhingra is a Chartered Accountant and had the data pertaining to the assessee in his professional capacity. Merely because such data pertained to the assessee (who claims to be a client of M/s BK Dhingra and Co.) the hard disk could n .....

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 held that the fact of a reference to the name of person in the seized document cannot be the basis to come to the conclusion that the document belonged to the said person. Proceedings initiated on the basis of the such assumption u/s. 153C were held to be without jurisdiction and quashed by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court. 10. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents as aforesaid, both the Revenue Appeals stand dismissed. ASSESSEE APPEALS (SANDEEP .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case in appreciating the factual matrix of the case while confirming the impugned addition of ₹ 3.50 crores (Three crores fifty lacs) as unaccounted income or receipt on sale of property D-17 Pushpanjali in the hands of the assessee even when the appellant is not the owner of the subject sold property. 3) The Learned CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the case in applying Sec 292C of the Income Tax Act merely because some papers were found from the premises of 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

( Seventeene crores fifty lacs) in the hands of the assessee as unaccounted income or receipt during the year under consideration on sale of Property D-17 Pushpanjali. 2) The Learned CIT ( Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the case in appreciating the factual matrix of the case while confirming the impugned addition of ₹ 17.50 crores (Seventeen crores fifty lacs) as unaccounted income or receipt on sale of property D-17 Pushpanjali in the hands of the assessee even when .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed that the appellant appeal be allowed. 13. The brief facts of the case are that the Search and Seizure U/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business and residential premises of Nimitaya and Khinda group during which the residential premises of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda and his wife Ms. Samta Khinda were also searched on 6.11.2008 wherein certain documents were found and seized. In view of the same notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued on 08.7.2009. In response thereto the assessee fi .....

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 addition vide his order dated 31.12.2010 passed u/s. 153A/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Aggrieved with the AO s order, the assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated 28.11.2011 has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 14. Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) was erred in confirming the addition in dispute in the hands of the assessee as unaccounted income or receipt during the year under consideration on sale of property D-17, Pushpanjali even wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ue Zone Buildwell and the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Babu Mohan Lal order dated 7.11.2013. In view of the above, he stated that the Appeals of the assessee may be allowed. 15. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that the orders passed by them are the well reasoned orders which do not require any interference on our part, hence, the same may be upheld and appeals of the Assessee may be dismissed. 16. We have heard both the parties .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f limited presumptions, for making protective / substantive addition vis-à-vis on money where revenue has accepted capital gains on same property in the hands of other assessee i.e. Smt. Sudhiksha Singh. 16.1 There is thorough lack of corroborative and confirming evidence and thorough lack of enquiry on the part of AO where all cases were with him only. No attempt is made to make reference to DVO by AO or CIT-A. There is no examination of any concerned witness/party to transaction. Only 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

er} nor the buyer is taken on board at the time when this subject paper was found. This paper is out of syllabus for Mr. Sandeep Khinda not being the owner of the property. Section 292C being rebuttable presumption cannot made assessee's burden to be infallable as the same can't be elevated to be proven to the hilt i.e as far as Sudhiksha is concerned, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C is concerned to make a document to be belonging to the assessee, presumption u/s 292c can't be re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

i.e. 292 can't be infused a incorporated in section 50c. In our view, suspicion how grave & strong can't substitute the place of reliable cogent evidence to fasten a tax liability. 16.2 We have also perused the Sale deed dated 27.2.2008 of the property bearing No. D-17, Pushpanjali, New Delhi which was executed by Mrs. Sudiksha Singh in favour of M/s Vijeta Properties (P) Ltd. which establish that no such property bearing no D-17 Pushpanjali ever belonged to the assessee (Sandeep Si .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aper has been seized from the premises of the assessee. As per the provisions of Sec 292C of the Income Tax Act, where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession orcontrol of any person in the course of Search u/s 132 of the Income tax, it may in any proceedings under this act, be presumed- 1) That such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong o .....

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 envisaged in section 292C is limited to the correctness of the documents found at the time of search or survey, but that presumption has not been extended by the statute to be presumed to be the income of the assessee. Taxing statues have to be interpreted strictly. In deeming provision what is prescribed is to be deemed and deeming provision cannot be extended beyond the legislative scope. The presumption under see 292C is a rebuttable presumption and all the facts are to be considered before .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ney" has been received against the sale of property was never owned by the assessee. However, there is no iota of evidence with the Department to suggest that loose sheet disclose receipts resulting in an undisclosed income on the part of the assessee. Therefore there is no question of assessing any income in the hands of the assessee . To support this view, we are placing reliance on the following judgements/decisions:- ITA No. 936/2009 CIT vs. VP Bansal Order dated 2.8.2010 - The Hon ble .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) Ltd. vs. DCIT 123 TTJ 180 - it was observed that the presumption under section 292C is rebuttal presumption and the document has to be considered considering the totality of the facts of the case. The deeming provision cannot be applied mechanically ignoring the facts of the case and the surrounding circumstances. 17. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents as aforesaid, we delete the additions in dispute and allow both the Assessee Appeals. Rev .....

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 addition of ₹ 3.50 Crores made in the hands of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda in the asstt. year 2007-08, which has been confirmed by him without appreciating the fact that neither Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda nor the assessee has accepted such position. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the settled position of law that the seized document should be read in totality and when the payments by cheque mentioned in the do .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dispute vide his order dated 29.11.2011 (AY 2007-08)- M/s Habitat Royale Projects P Ltd. by observing as under:- A detailed finding regarding the belongingness, correctness as also the contents of the above stated seized documents has been given in the appellate order of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda for A Y 2007-08 passed on 28.11.201 in A. No. 242/10-11. Following the reasoning given in the said appellate order, it is noted that it is the unaccounted cash received for ₹ 3.50 Crores by Sh. San .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cation of income already brought to tax on substantive bas is in case of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda. Accordingly, the protective addition made by the AO for ₹ 74 lacs in case of the appellant i.e. M/s Habitat Royale Projects P ltd. is directed to be deleted. 20. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A) passed in his impugned order, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that since the source of the investment in cash for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r, as aforesaid, in the case of Sandeep Singh Khinda vide para no. 11 to 17 for the assessment years 2007- 08 and 2008-09, we have already deleted the addition of ₹ 3.50 crores and ₹ 17.50 crores respectively, therefore, the question of deletion of addition of ₹ 74 lacs does not arise as the investment in cash for ₹ 74 lacs was forming part of the cash of ₹ 3.50 crores, hence, the present appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Revenue appeal No. 620/Del/2012 (AY 20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ores made in the hands of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda in the asstt. year 2007-08, which has been confirmed by him without appreciating the fact that neither Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda nor the assessee has accepted such position. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the settled position of law that the seized document should be read in totality and when the payments by cheque mentioned in the document have been reflected in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

9.11.2011 (AY 2008-09)- M/s Habitat Royale Projects P Ltd. by observing as under:- A detailed finding regarding the belongingness, correctness as also the contents of the above stated seized documents has been given in the appellate order of Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda for A Y 2008-09 passed on 28.11.201 in A. No. 240/10-11. Following the reasoning given in the said appellate order, it is noted that it is the unaccounted cash received for ₹ 17.50 Crores by Sh. Sandeep Singh Khinda in FY 2007- .....

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