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 →

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle I Coimbatore Versus Shri R. Elangovan

2016 (10) TMI 1141 - ITAT CHENNAI

Addition u/s 69B - unexplained purchase of land - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that the assessee has purchased M/s PSP Steels(P) Ltd for a sum of ₹ 22 crores and ₹ 19 crores was paid through banking channel which was not disputed by the Department. The details of the payments made were furnished by the assessee before the CIT(A) as well as before us in the statement of affairs. - This fact was not disputed by the Department. The remaining amount of ₹ 3 crores was paid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t by : Shri M. Narayanan, Retd.ACIT O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, dated 16.11.2015 for assessment year 2012-13. 2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the deletion of addition of ₹ 7.02 crores made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. A search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the assessee s case on 14.12.2012 and during .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Steels(P) Ltd and land measuring 2.42 acres, belonging to Smt P.Dhanalakshmi located adjacent to the steel unit. The registered value of the land and building of M/s M/s PSP Steels(P) Ltd was .2.5 crores and the value of land purchased from Smt P.Dhanalakshmi was 98.00 lacs which according to him was accounted for in the books of accounts of M/s Sastha steels (P) Ltd for ₹ 14.98 crores. Shri Elangovan in his statement recorded on 14/12/2014 admitted that ₹ 7.02 crores was unaccounte .....

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 issue is mere repetition of the answer given in the statement before the investigation team. It is relevant that the assessee has after the initial declaration of ₹ 3 crores, reconciled the accounts, appreciated the facts, and revised the declaration in respect of the excess money paid for the purchase of PSP Ltd as ₹ 7.02 crores (22 crores - 14.98 crores). The assessee s retraction of his statement is without corroborative evidence and given after considerable lapse of time. Hence .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, there was no unaccounted payment for which the source could not be explained by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. During the appeal, the ld. DR argued that the assessee has made payment of ₹ 22 crores for purchase of M/s PSP Steels(P) Ltd and admitted that ₹ 14.98 crores was accounted in the books of accounts and the remaining amount was unaccounted. Further, the ld. DR argued that the amount of ₹ 3 crores was paid in 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

 

 

 

 

 

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