TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the assessee and as the offer of ₹ 1 crore made covers all the discrepancies, the Tribunal held that no further additions made by the AO/CIT(A) is sustainable. Also in respect of the additional ground filed by the assessee to the effect that notice u/s 143(2) was not issued to the assessee within a period of 12 months from the date of filing of return for the impugned assessment year, the Tribunal restored the ground to the file of the AO for deciding afresh as per law after verifying the records. Addition on account of on-money - CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 17% and deleted the balance 83% of estimate basis - HELD THAT:- Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition made on account of extrapolation in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) erred in reducing the penalty of ₹ 83,82,904/- to ₹ 2,99,574/- in respect of cash component for only 3 units for which evidence was found during the search whereas, penalty was levied in respect of cash component for all units following the modus operandi of the assessee on the strength of representative evidence. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business as builder and developer. Haresh N. Patel is one of the directors of the assessee-company. A search action was carried out by the revenue in the residence of Shri Patel and connected persons on 10.01.2007 at Vashi. A simultaneous survey action u/s 133A was carried out at the office premises of the assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. Relying on decision in VIP Industries (2009) 30 SOT 254 (Mum), Narendra Kumar v. ITO (2005) 94 TTJ 156 and Shivlal Tak v. CIT 251 ITR 373 (Raj), the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the additions were made on estimated basis by extrapolating the percentage of on-money offered on more than 100 parties, whereas there were evidence of cash receipts only respect of 3 units, it would be incorrect to hold that penalty could be levied for the entire amount of unaccounted income assessed on the basis of estimation. As the 3 units in respect of which cash receipt was specifically found, as per table given below, the Ld. CIT(A) reduced the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) correspondingly to the said cash receipts and for the balance cancelled the penalty: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the offer of ₹ 1 crore made covers all the discrepancies, the Tribunal held that no further additions made by the AO/CIT(A) is sustainable. Also in respect of the additional ground filed by the assessee to the effect that notice u/s 143(2) was not issued to the assessee within a period of 12 months from the date of filing of return for the impugned assessment year, the Tribunal restored the ground to the file of the AO for deciding afresh as per law after verifying the records. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ITA No. 954/MUM/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 8. During the course of survey u/s 133A on 10.01.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total 18,42,00,000 14,25,33,960 The AO further noted that during the impugned assessment year the assessee was continuing the same project i.e. Global Mall at Kharghar, Navi Mumbai and received advances for shops amounting to ₹ 9,36,72,949/-. In response to a query raised by the AO, the assessee filed party-wise details, from whom the advances were received. In response to a show cause notice dated 16.12.2010 issued by the AO to explain as to why the same percentage should not be adopted for the year under consideration, the assessee filed a reply dated 18.12.2010. However, the AO was not convinced with the said reply for the reason that even in earlier assessment year, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08) vide order dated 14.06.2017 have observed that in AY 2007-08, similar addition was made by the AO on account of on-money. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 17% and deleted the balance 83% of estimate basis. The Tribunal observed at para 24 as under: 24. With regard to the allegation of department that the Assessee-Company has received on-money, it is important to note that the director of the assessee company had been searched and the assessee s premises surveyed. However, no undisclosed cash, investments, expenditure, etc. had been found either in the course of search and survey proceedings in relation to the assessee. It may be appreciated that if in fact there was such a huge receipt of on-money as alleged by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
