TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal is of the considered opinion that when the High Court passed an order directing Shri Kamalesh Kumar Sheth and Shri S. Venkataramanan to pay ₹ 14.5 Crores, the CIT(Appeals) or any other officer of the Department cannot go beyond the judgment of Madras High Court. In lieu of payment of ₹ 14.5 Crores, Shri Kamalesh Kumar Sheth executed a sale deed for ₹ 12.5 Crores and the balance has to be paid by Shri Kamalesh Kumar Sheth and Shri S. Venkataramanan. The judgment of Madras High Court clearly says that Shri Kamalesh Kumar Sheth and Shri S. Venkataramanan are jointly or severally liable to pay the money. In compliance with the direction of the High Court, Shri Kamalesh Kumar Sheth executed the documents for discharg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tially, according to the Ld. representative, an advance of ₹ 1.33 Crores was paid by the assessee on behalf of M/s Varun Manian Realty Construction Private Limited. Subsequently, a sum of ₹ 18,55,10,000/- was paid by M/s Varun Manian Realty Construction Private Limited. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee has advanced ₹ 19,22,30,100/- to M/s Varun Manian Realty Construction Private Limited to facilitate the subsidiary company to complete the transaction. According to the Ld. representative, this payment of ₹ 19,22,30,100/- reflected in the balance sheet of M/s Varun Manian Realty Construction Private Limited as on 31.03.2012. 4. Shri Y. Sridhar, the Ld. representative for the assessee, furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at page 227 of the paper-book. In fact, according to the Ld. representative, Shri KamaleshKumar Sheth executed a sale deed in favour of the assessee on 30th September, 2013 transferring 90726 sq.ft. of land in Survey No.12/1, 12/2 17/2A now R.S. No.3, Block No.5 of Vadagaram Village, No.108, EgmoreNungambakkam Taluk and also a property at Lalah Towers at Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, worth ₹ 12.50 Crores. 5. Shri Y. Sridhar, the Ld. representative for the assessee, further submitted that ignoring the order of the High Court directing Shri Kamalesh Kumar Sheth and Shri S. Venkataramanan to pay ₹ 14.5 Crores, the CIT(Appeals) found that Shri Kamalesh Kumar Sheth received an advance of ₹ 1 Crore and the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered by the Assessing Officer at all. Referring to the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Chaganlal Kailas Co (1984) 19 Taxman 536, the Ld. representative submitted that the power of the CIT(Appeals) to enhancean assessment is only to an item of income which was considered by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of bringing to tax or for granting relief to the assessee. In the instant case, according to the Ld. representative, the Assessing Officer has not considered the so-called income of ₹ 11.5 Crores in respect of the sale deed executed by Shri Kamalesh Kumar Sheth. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, it is obvious that the so-called amount of ₹ 11.5 Crores was not the subject matter of assessment made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee-company nominated Shri Kamalesh Kumar Sheth and Shri S. Venkataramanan as land aggregators for acquiring 50 acres of land. Shri Kamalesh Kumar Sheth and Shri S. Venkataramanan received advance from the assessee and also the assessee s subsidiary company M/s Varun Manian Realty and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Since the land aggregators could not procure the entire land and there appears to be a dispute between the parties, ultimately the matter reached the High Court. The assessee-company filed a civil suit before the Madras High Court. During the pendency suit before the High Court, there was a compromise between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t justified in enhancing the assessment by holding that the assessee has paid only ₹ 1 Crore and it received property to the extent of ₹ 12.5 Crores, therefore, the balance of ₹ 11.5 Crores as income of the assessee. This observation of the CIT(Appeals) is contrary to the judgment of Madras High Court. Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the order of the lower authority. 9. Moreover, as held by Madras High Court in Sri Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory Ltd. (supra) and Chaganlal Kailas Co. (supra) and Apex Court in Rai Bahadur HardutroyMotilalChamaria (supra), when the Assessing Officer admittedly has not considered the source of income, i.e. ₹ 11.5 Crores, the CIT(Appeals) cannot go into that. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
