TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 13,53,500/- out of ₹ 2,16,56,000/- is required to be confirmed by way of substantive order? (B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that balance of ₹ 2,16,56,000/- i.e. difference between ₹ 2,16,56,000/- and ₹ 13,53,500/- the addition made on substantive basis in the case of the assessee is required to be deleted? (B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in not taking final decision with regard to the rest of the profit i.e. 93.75% share of profit being the difference between the original addition made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 2,16,56,000/- and S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share of profit calculated on the basis of ₹ 13,53,000/- profit share of 6.25%. In fresh assessment, this entire 100% amount has been added in the hands of M.N.Patel on substantive basis. The Assessing Officer made this addition in the hands of M.N.Patel on substantive basis . It appears that the Assessing Officer added this amount in compliance to the direction of C.I.T. Rajkot and Addl. C.I.T. by stating that these directions are statutory and binding nature. The total profit ₹ 2,16,56,000/- was taxed on substantive basis at the relevant page no.8 and 10 were found and seized from the premises of the assessee M.N. Patel. It is admitted facts that and as discussed in various Para of this order that in spite of availability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he investigation and examination to find out the true facts what Mr. M.N. Patel has said. Except the contention of M.N. Patel, there is no material on record basis on which it can be said that the balance amount of profit belongs to Ambica Realities Pvt. Ltd,. In absence of verification and in absence of the complete facts regarding owner of the balance amount of ₹ 2,16,56,000/- the addition cannot be made in the hands of a company. Therefore, same is deleted. 3. From the record, we notice that all along case of the respondent assessee had been that during the relevant period the assessee was taking only 6.25% share holding in Ambica Realities Pvt. Ltd. (here-in-after to be referred to as the company ) and that therefore, entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
