Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri Suresh J. Patel Versus DCIT, Cir. 3 Surat

2017 (6) TMI 132 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Unexplained investment - search under section 132 - joint holder of property - Held that:- We find that the addition was made on the basis of documents found during the course of search, which is purchase deed. The purchase deed was in the name of two persons who have purchased this land in equal shares. Therefore, addition of total investment cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. We direct the AO to treat unexplained investment to the extent of 50% of ₹ 4,85,000/-. Addition to this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iate to set aside this issue to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. While dealing with this issue, the ld.CIT(A) shall keep in mind the order of the ITAT in the case of Kanishka Prints P.Ltd. (2013 (7) TMI 14 - ITAT AHMEDABAD ) . This ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in all the assessment years. - ITA.No.1931/Ahd/2014 - Dated:- 1-6-2017 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Mehul Shah For The Reve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, we heard all appeals together and deem it appropriate to dispose of them by this common order. 3. First we take independent ground raised in the Asstt.Year 2006-07, which is not common in all other years. This is ground no.1. The assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of ₹ 4,85,000/-. 4. Brief facts of the case are that search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 8.6.2010 in the cases of different builders at Surat. The assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

this purchase deed indicated that the assessee had purchased the above land along with Shri Farookbhai Valibhai vide purchase deed dated 17.9.2005. The land was purchased for a consideration of ₹ 4,85,000/-. The AO further observed that though the purchase consideration was shown at ₹ 4,85,000/- in the purchase deed, but for the purpose of stamp duty valuation, its value was adopted at ₹ 95,85,200/-. After debiting the purchase cost of ₹ 4,85,000/-, the ld.AO worked out 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

eeming fiction can be made in the hands of the purchaser. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the AO on the basis of deeming purchase consideration paid by the assessee. However, the ld.CIT(A) has observed that the sale consideration of ₹ 4,85,000/- shown in the purchase deed was not shown as investment in the books of accounts, therefore, the ld.CIT(A) has treated this amount as unexplained investment. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the land was purch .....

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 name of two persons who have purchased this land in equal shares. Therefore, addition of total investment cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. We direct the AO to treat unexplained investment to the extent of 50% of ₹ 4,85,000/-. Addition to this extent is confirmed and this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 7. Ground nos.3 and 4 in assessment year 2006-07 are common with ground nos.2 and 3 in all other years. These grounds are general in nature and do not call for recording .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act, 1961. 9. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that in the Asstt.Year 2006-07 the assessee has raised a specific ground to this effect before the ld.CIT(A). He took us ground no.2 raised before the ld.CIT(A). It reads as under: 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld.AO has made a mistake in charging of interest u/s.234B of the IT Act, 1961. 10. Similar ground was raised in other years. The ld.CIT(A) has not recorded any fin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h, ₹ 50.00 lakhs were found in cash which were seized. The assessee had moved an application on 14.9.2010 requesting the AO to adjust the cash seized towards advance tax required to be paid by the assessee. The assessee has specifically requested that a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs ought to be adjusted for the Asstt.Year 2007-08 and 2010-11 and ₹ 30 lakhs should be adjusted for the Asstt.Year 2011-12. In support of his contentions, the ld.counsel for the assessee produced inventory of cas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version