9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of statement recorded u/s.131 from Mr. Stephen John by DDIT(Inv) Kochi on 26.3.2015. 3. The next ground is with regard to addition of Rs.2,15,00,000/- as profit from transacting in Velachary property. 4. The next ground is with regard to disallowance of Rs.2,90,00,000/- u/s.40A(3) in respect of payments made in respect of Transaction in Velachery property. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in holding that any payment in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/- would attract disallowance u/s.40A(3), whereas the section prescribes disallowance, only if the payments are made towards an expenditure. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in holding that payments made by the appellant in his capacity as an intermedia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nations to Rs. 77,00,000/- credited to the cash book. If the explanations are not satisfactory, the addition has to be restricted to Rs. 77,00,000/-." 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee declared a total income of Rs.3,08,330/- in the original return of income filed on 30.5.2012 for the AY 2012-13. On the 16th day of March 2012, a deed of sale was executed by Shri Stephen John and four others in favour of ITC Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 17.80 crores. Out of the sale consideration of Rs. 17.80 crores, Shri Stephen John was paid an amount of Rs. 8 crores on 14.3.2012 by Pay Order No.517909. The other four coowners were together paid Rs. 3 crores on the same date by Pay Order No.517911. The assessee was not the co-owner of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while the balance of 18 parties stated to have received Rs. 2,14,95,000/- totaling to Rs. 6,64,95,000/- and the difference of Rs.15,05,000/- was additionally offered to tax in the revised return filed on 31.3.2014. 3.4 The AO, on examination of the accounts and the veracity of the claims did not accept the nexus between the payments and the receipts and therefore, the entire expenditure relating to six parties of Rs. 4,50,00,000/- and in respect of the balance, an amount of Rs. 1,61,21,250/- was found to be ineligible as deduction and the same was added to the taxable income. On a total claim of Rs. 2,14,95,000/- to 18 parties, the AO felt it appropriate to allow an expenditure of Rs. 53,53,750/-, which constitutes 25% of the total quantu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had deposited Rs. 40 lakhs, Rs. 35 lakhs and Rs. 20 lakhs in Axis Bank in mode of cash on 28.12.2011, 31.12.2011 and 02.01.2012, summing up to Rs. 95 lakhs. The explanation provided by the assessee with regard to the sources was found to be unsatisfactory and thus an amount of Rs. 95 lakhs was added separately u/s.68 of the Act. As a result, the taxable income got enhanced to Rs. 7,29,75,896/- and a resultant tax demand Rs. 2,99,57,050/-. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The first issue raised in her appeal is with regard to Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment based on a return of income filed on 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs, now the assessee raised such ground before this Tribunal, which is to be dismissed. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In our considered opinion, there should not be any grievance to the assessee.There being due opportunity of hearing has been given to the assessee. Even if there is any lapse on the part of the AO, it is only procedural ir-regularity, the provision of Sec.292BB of the Act takes care of it. More so, jurisdictional High Court in the case of Areva T&D India Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in (2007) 294 ITR 0233 wherein held that nonconsidering the objections for reopening as well as nonissuance of notice under s. 143(2) are mere procedural irregularities and will not make the reassessment a null ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. In the present case, though the statement from Shri Stephen John was recorded in the presence of the assessee's spouse, an opportunity of cross examination was not at all given to the assessee. If the CIT(Appeals)/AO collects the evidences from the parties during the remand proceedings, the CIT(Appeals)/AO should have given an opportunity of cross examination to the assessee. Hence, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the entire issue to be remitted to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to give an opportunity of cross examination before deciding the issue. 10.1 While remitting the legal issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A), at this stage, we refrain from going into other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
