9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firming the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the addition on account of 50% of profit on sale of land of Rs. 97,12,500/-? (C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the addition on account of 50% of unexplained investment in land of a sum of Rs. 1,64,18,750/-? (D) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in reducing the sales consideration of land from Rs. 1,94,250,000/- to Rs. 77,70,000/-? (E) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts giving the credit of income of Rs. 38.50 lakhs disclosed under VDIS 1997?" 3. The assessment is for the block period 01.04.1986 to 21.01.1987. The facts stated briefly are that a search came to be conducted under section 132 of the Act at the premises of Shyam Builders Group on 21.01.1997, during the course of which, a banakhat dated 30.06.1996 was found and seized. The banakhat was for sale of land admeasuring 92,500 square yards, located at Vastral, Taluka Dascroi, District Ahmedabad. As per the banakhat, the land was purchased by Shri Bhagwandas K. Patel and his associates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vestment in land of Rs. 1,64,18,750/-, it was submitted that the assessee has failed to prove the nexus between the receipt of sale consideration from the purchase party and the payment thereof to the seller of the land and hence, the Assessing Officer had rightly added the amount of Rs. 1,64,18,750/- as undisclosed investment in the hands of the assessee. 4.2 It was further submitted that the Tribunal had erred in giving credit of income of Rs. 38,50,000/- disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "VDIS 1997"), inasmuch as in terms of the provisions of section 64(2)(ii) of the VDIS 1997, the benefit of the said Scheme is not available to the "income" in respect of previous year in which search under section 132 of the Act was initiated. It was submitted that in this case, search under section 132 of the Act was initiated on 21.01.1997 and the incriminating documents were found and seized during the course of search, which led to the additions in question and, therefore, the benefit of the scheme was not available to the assessee in respect of the income detected during the course of search under section 132 of the Act. It was sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther stated that the assessee had made disclosure of income of Rs. 42,50,000/- on 31.12.1997 under VDIS 1997 and had paid tax of Rs. 12,75,000/- thereon. The certificate under section 68(2) of the VDIS 1997 had also been issued to him by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat III Ahmedabad. Thus, the income of Rs. 38,50,000/- in the above mentioned deal of land had been disclosed under VDIS 1997, prior to issue of notice under section 158BA of the Act. 7. It appears that due to a litigation instituted in the City Civil Court being Civil Suit No.767 of 1997, the deal for the entire land admeasuring 92,500 square yards could not be executed and hence, while the original agreement was for sale of 92,500 square yards of land, subsequently by a memorandum of understanding dated 07.03.1997, the deal was finalised for 37,000 square yards of land out of total 92,500 square yards. 8. The Commissioner (Appeals), after appreciating the material on record, found that in the present case, the notice under section 158BC of the Act had been issued on 26.05.1999, while the disclosure under VDIS Scheme was made on 28.12.1997. He, accordingly, found that there was no infirmity in the action of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, both, the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the land was sold to the extent of 37,000 square yards and not 92,500 square yards as held by the Assessing Officer. Both, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, have recorded that the total amount of consideration received by the assessee together with Shri Udaybhai Bhatt was Rs. 2,09,00,000/- out of which Rs. 1,31,00,000/- paid to Shri Babubhai Pothani, and that the assessee and Shri Udaybhai Bhatt had together received Rs. 77,00,000/-, and that the assessee's share at 50% came to Rs. 38,50,000/-, which had been duly disclosed by him by filing a declaration under the VDIS 1997 in respect of which, a certificate dated 09.06.1998 had been issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1997 under the VDIS Scheme. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the assessee's share out of the amount received from the land deal came to Rs. 38,50,000/-, which was duly disclosed under the VDIS 1997 and therefore, he was entitled to the credit thereof. The learned counsel for the appellant is not in a pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
