TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our of assessee by deleting the addition of ₹1.50 crores which was made by AO just on conjunctures and surmises. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 7524/Mum/2012, CO No. 16/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2019 - Sri Mahavir Singh, JM And Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM For the Appellant : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR For the Respondent : Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: These cross appeals are arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai in Appeal Nos. CIT(A)-9/ITO-5(1)(2)/329/2011-12 dated 04.10.2012. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward5(1)(2) Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for AY 2009-10 vide dated 14.12.2011, under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act ). 2. The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made my AO of unexplained investment under section 69B of the Act amounting to ₹1.50 crores. For this, Revenue has raised the following two gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he basis of information received from the Income Tax Dept., Hyderabad, it is seen that the sellers have shown sale value of the property mentioned above at ₹ 15 crores which consists of cheque component of ₹ 10.50 crores and cash component of ₹ 4.50 crores. Please clarify as to the amount of cash component paid for the above property in light of the above information? Ans. The deed has been made for ₹ 10.50 crores. However, the entire dealing in the transaction has been conducted by my father, Shri Damji Lalji Shah and my uncle, Shri Jadavji Lalji Shah. However, on the basis of the cash component of ₹ 4.50 crores shown by the sellers, I on behalf of u/s. Balee Plastics Pvt. Ltd offer Ps.4.50 crores as the additional income of the company for A.Y.2009-10. This income is offered to buy peace of mind and to avoid further litigation in the matter. 34. Subsequently, statement of Shri Jodavji LaIji Shah, director was recorded u/s.131 of the Act on 8/9/2008. The relevant question no.7 8 and answers thereto may be reproduced as under: - Q.7. Please confirm what has been stated by Sanjay Shah in answer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come tax authorities of declaration of ₹ 4.50 crores by the sellers of the property. I was threaten of stringent action and was pressurized to declare the some amount of Ps.4.5 crores as undisclosed income of Balee Plastics Pvt. Ltd Income tax authorities insisted that I declare a sum of ₹ 45 crores only and no thing less Under the circumstances under force threat of stringent action, in my statement dated 08-09-2008, I on firm the statement given on 29-7-2008 by Shri Sanjay D Shah, but subject to the fact that only one party viz. Ms. Nererukonda Dhana Lakshmi had declared a sum of ₹ 3 crores as undisclosed income in this / transaction, and, the other parties have not declared any undisclosed income. I hereby withdraw the said statement given by me under section 131 on 08-092008 to the extent of excess declaration of ₹ 1.5 crores obtained from me by wrong representation by the Income-tax authorities As regards balance declaration of ₹ 3 crores, I stick to my statement and confirm the declaration of ₹ 3 crores to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation. I again state that declaration of ₹ 4.5 crores given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f property by the appellant and consequent cash transaction of ₹ 3 crores between The appellant (purchaser) and the seller. Smt. Dhanalakshmi Family, resident of Hyderabad. Neither any incriminating material nor any other transaction of cash was reported from Hyderabad regarding receipt of cash of ₹ 1.50 crores from the appellant. The ADIT (Inv.) UnitVII (4), Mumbai carried out a survey on 39/7/2008 at the Lower Parel (W), Mumbai premises of the appellant. It is reported that neither any incriminating material nor any unexplained cash was found/ impounded during the course/of survey proceedings. The LAO has relied on the statements given by one Shri Sanjay D Shah who was neither the director nor office bearer of the appellant company. During the course of survey the said Shri Sanjay Shah was told by the ADIT concerned vide Q. No.23 that the ADIT has received information from the Income Tax Department, Hyderabad that the impugned transaction of property consisted of cheque component of ₹ 10.50 crores and cash component of ₹ 4.50 crore. The said Shri Sanjay D Shah admitted that the previously mentioned deal was made for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50 crore was made by the jurisdictional ITO-8(3), Hyderabad vide assessment order doted 26/12/2011. Similarly, no addition of the disputed cash transaction was made in the hands of Shri Prem Kumar Sankla while completing scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act dtd: 29/8/2011 for AN 2009-10 by jurisdictional ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad. During the course of appellate proceedings, the matter was referred to the present LAO for verification of disputed cash transaction of ₹ 1.50 crore between the appellant and the said Shri Narendra Kumar Sankla and Shri Prem Kumar Sankla. The LAO had taken up the matter with the corresponding jurisdictional assessing officers of Shri Narendro Kumar Sankla and Shri Prem Kumar Sankla. Their respective assessing officers have submitted their reports, the relevant part of which may be extracted as under: - 2. With regard to the information passed on in the case of Mr. Narendra Kumar Sankla (PAN-BMUP54469N) in connection with the survey conducted in the case of M/s. Balee Plastics (P) Ltd., Mumbai it is Jinform you that Mr. Narendra Kumar Sank/a has filed his POI for the A Y 200910 on 31/07/2009 before the AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s return of income on 31/7/2009 declaring a total income of ₹ 16,62,857/-. The assessee is deriving income from long term capital /gains. The case was selected for scrutiny with the prior approval of the CCIT-II, Hyderabad. Subsequently, notices were issued under section 143(2) were issued from time to time. In response, the AR of the assessee Sri Suresh Kumar appeared from time and time and submitted the information that was called for. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, it was observed that the assessee sold a resident plot at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad for a consideration of ₹ 1,75,00,000/- and with the same amount the assessee purchased two houses i.e. 1) Gutala Begumpet, Madhapur for a consideration of ₹ 99,25,000/- 2) Anjaiah Nagar, Gachi Bowli for a consideration of ₹ 15,05,000/- for which he has claimed exemption u/s 54 for purchase of these two houses. As per section 54, the assessee is entitle for exemption of only one residential house, therefore, the assessee claim for exemption for investment in the 2' house at Anjaiah Nagar, Gachibowli aggregating to Ps. 15,05,000/- was disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds of Shri Narendra Kumar Sankla and Prem Kumar Sankla, even though the assessments in their cases were framed under section 143(3) of the Act by the ACIT, Hyderabad. Even the CIT(A) has categorically reproduced the remand reports of the respective AO s of Shri Narendra Kumar Sankla and Prem Kumar Sankla. Both, Shri Narendra Kumar Sankla and Prem Kumar Sankla retracted the statement of cash received of ₹1.50 crores on behalf of assessee. We noted that the additional amount received by Smt. Dhanalakshmi and family has been accepted by the assessee and assessee also disclosed the said amount of ₹3 crores in its return of income and paid the taxes accordingly. We noted that the CIT(A) based on submissions and evidences decided the issue in favour of assessee by deleting the addition of ₹1.50 crores which was made by AO just on conjunctures and surmises. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition. We confirm the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of Revenue. 8. Coming to Cross Objection of the assessee in CO No. 16/Mum/2014, the cross objections raised by assessee are supportive of the order of CIT(A) and hence, infra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
