TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision in the case of S. Khader Khan Son [ 2013 (6) TMI 305 - SC ORDER] the assessee cannot pleaded that for want of sufficiency of evidence about the acceptance of on-money by it, addition cannot be made. There is sufficient evidence which has been agreed by the assessee itself confirming partly in the return of income. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the first fold of contentions. As far second fold of contentions on-money received on booking of the flats/houses would partake character of business receipts and would be treated equivalent to the amount which assessee had charged from ultimate purchasers of the house/flat. Profit embedded in such receipts deserves to be assessed to tax. The assessee has produced comparative ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT: Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-7, Ahmedabad dated 23.03.2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. Assessee has taken five grounds of appeal, but its grievance revolves around a single issue viz. the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of ₹ 45,50,000/-. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 27.9.2010 declaring total income at ₹ 61,57,330/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. According to the AO, a survey under section 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 10.9.2009. During the cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld disclose the amount of ₹ 68,50,000/- towards unaccounted booking amount. Thus, on the strength of Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, reported 210 taxman 248 (SC) which has upheld decision of Hon ble Madras High Court reported in 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) he contended that statement recorded under section 133A is not admissible in evidence because authorized officer was not having jurisdiction to administer on oath to the deposer. It is just a corroborative evidence. There is no other evidence possessed by the Revenue except certain papers which were disclosed by the deponent that they were rough estimates. Department has not carried out further investigation, and thus on the basis of the statement n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble remuneration of ₹ 72,72,275 even in the assessment year 2011- 2012. 6. For buttressing his contentions, with regard to the above, he relied upon the following decisions: i) Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal, 45 SOT 349/141 TTJ 1 (Ahd) ii) DCIT Vs. New Umiya Vijay Saw Mills, ITA No.2447/ahd/2012 7. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A). He contended that the assessee itself has accepted the stand disclosed during the course of survey by partly admitting the income at ₹ 23 lakhs. Therefore, now the assessee is precluded to take benefit of judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Khader Khan Son (supra). 8. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isclosed amount of ₹ 68,50,000/-. Even if this amount of ₹ 68.50 lakhs is accounted for, then the profit element on this amount would come only to ₹ 3,07,565/- if rate of profit disclosed by the assessee in this year is applied to this receipt. The assessee has already offered more than this amount i.e. ₹ 23 lakhs. Therefore, no further addition is required to be made and accordingly addition of ₹ 45,50,000/- is deleted. Since we have accepted one of the alternative contentions, therefore, we need not to examine whether the partners are entitled for remuneration from the business profit, and interest on their capital contribution, because these claims were not made by the assessee in the return, rather pleaded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
