TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri A.Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member And Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member For the Revenue : Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR For the Assessee : Shri Samuel Nagadesi, AR ORDER PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : These Revenue s and assessee s cross-appeals for AY.2008-09 arise against the CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad s order(s) dated 11-11-2014, in case No.0270 / CIT(A)-II, Hyd /2014-15, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, the Act ]; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It transpires at the outset that the Revenue s and assessee s identical sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of the CIT(A) s action restricting additional income of ₹ 2,90,00,000/- to cash component of ₹ 75 lakhs alongwith SRO value of plot and land, amounting to ₹ 68,75,000/-; respectively totalling to ₹ 1,43,75,000/-. Relevant facts involved in the instant lis are indeed very brief. This assessee was admittedly one of the directors in a company M/s.Swadesh Villas Pvt. Ltd. incorporated on 19-04- 2006 along with many other co-directors including one Shri R.Sreenivasulu. Both these persons were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... city-II layout, Nagulapally Village, Farooqnagar Mandai, Mahaboobnagar District. (c) That the addition made of ₹ 2.9 crores is merely based on statement given by Sri R.Sreenivasulu without any corroborative evidence. (d) A civil suit is pending before the Hon'ble City Civil Court, Hyderabad claiming amount of ₹ 66,63,054/-. (e) As per the CBDT Circular in F.No.286/2/2003 the action of the Officers should be focused on collecting the evidence rather than forcing the assessees to confess the income in statements recorded. (f) In statement recorded on 02.07.2008 nowhere the appellant admitted receipt of cash except for an amount of ₹ 11,11,964/ -. (g) post-dated cheques were issued for an amount of ₹ 75,00,000/- which were taken back by the mediators. (h) Filing of civil suit against the other directors is clear evidence that the amount was not received. (i) The land of 1 acre 6 guntas at Farooqnagar Mandal and 8500 square yards of land at Paris Gold Venture, Gudur Village was registered in the name of the appellant and his family members or his nominees. (j) That in the following cases the Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) Plot of 8,500 square yards at Paris Gold Venture, Kottur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. (c) 1 Acre 6 Guntas of land at Cosmo City - II Layout, Nagulapally Village, Farooqnagar Maridal, Mahaboobnagar District. 5.2 The Paris Gold Venture was declared illegal by the Government of Andhra Pradesh as the venture was located in catchment of Osmansagar Lake. Plots of 8,500 square yards was registered in favour of appellant or his nominees on 14.02.2007 for an amount of ₹ 68,00,0001-. Land of 1 acre and 6 guntas was registered in favor of the appellant on 15.12.2007 for an amount of ₹ 75,000/- 5.3 Having considered the facts of the case, issues for consideration are: (i) Whether there is any transfer of shares by the appellant to M/s.Swadesh Villas Pvt. Ltd.? (ii) If there is a transfer of shares, what is the sale consideration to be adopted for computing the capital gains? 5.4 The provisions of section 2 (47) defined the term 'transfer' read as under : transfer , in relation to a capital asset, includes,- (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or (ii) the extinguishment of any rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 11,11,946/- was admitted as received by the appellant. The appellant claims that balance amount of ₹ 66,63,054/- is yet to be received, after having gone through the statement of the appellant recorded on 02.07.2008 wherein he was allowed to cross-examine Sri R. Sreenivasulu, I am of the opinion that the appellant did not have much defence except merely denying the contents of impounded document AI SP 103. It appears that as and when the cash was paid by Sri R. Sreenivasulu, the appellant was returning the cheques. Therefore, the entire amount of ₹ 75,00,000/- is to be considered for the purpose of computing the capital gains. With reference to reliance by the assessee in the case of Khader Khan Son (cited supra) it is pertinent to mention that substantial opportunity was granted to the appellant to cross-examine Sri R. Sreenivasulu and from the perusal of the cross examination n it is evident that the appellant failed in his attempt to prove that he did not receive cash over and above ₹ 11,11,946 1though much of the details are not brought out in assessment order by the Assessing Officer, there is substantial evidence in the form of impounded materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulu (supra) for their mutual cross-examination (supra). It is evident therefrom that this taxpayers had surrendered cheques in lieu of cash payment. And also that the corresponding cash receipt(s) and the twin settlement acknowledgment(s) dt.14th March and 11th April, 2008 (pages 32 33) duly contained his signatures. Coupled with this, the assessee had duly admitted during cross-examination that had had indeed issued the said receipts as well as corresponding acknowledgment; as the case may be. We conclude in these facts and circumstances that the impugned addition of ₹ 75 lakhs made in assessee s hands is liable to be affirmed. Ordered accordingly. The assessee s cross appeal ITA No.181/Hyd/2015 is also rejected therefore. 6. We lastly acknowledge that although the instant lis is being decided after a period of 90 days from the date of hearing as per Rule 34(5) of the IT(AT) Rules 1963, the same however, does not apply in the covid lockdown situation as per hon'ble apex court s recent directions dated 27-04-2021 in M.A.No.665/2021 in SM(W)C No.3/2020 In Re Cognizance for extension of limitation making it clear that in such cases where the limitation period (in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
