TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rector had never retracted the statement made before the revenue authority. AR was unable to show any such documents about the retraction of the managing director before the bench. On other hand, the assessee company is continuing the balance of advance in the balance sheet as liability. Assessee was able to submit these documents as evidence before the bench. In factual matrix, the advance amount was never be forfeited or adjusted in the capital account of the assessee. There is clear contradiction in recorded statement and books of accounts of assessee related adjustment advance amount. But only point is being unanswered by the rival parties whether these two amounts are reflected in the books of accounts of respective parties. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1), Bangalore, order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153D of the Act, by order dated 27.12.2019. 2. The assessee filed a condonation petition for 4 days delay. The delay is negligible. So, with the consent of the AR, the delay is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: 1. The Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(1) Bangalore, as upheld by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Bangalore, [`CIT(A)] to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant is bad in law and on facts; against the provisions of the Income-tax, Act, 1961 ['the Act'] and weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; 2. The order lacks jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed in its entirety; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est under the section 234A / B / C of the Act. (Total tax effect common for the above grounds: Rs. 1,51,78,800/-) On the basis of above grounds and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing with the consent of the Honourable Tribunal, it is prayed that the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 153D, to the extent it is against the Appellant, be quashed and relief sought be granted. 4. Tersely we advert fact of the case. The assessee is a developer and real estate agent. The assessment was completed with the addition amount of Rs.3,62,00,000/- in the total income of the assessee u/s. 56(2)(ix) of the Act. The assessee has taken advance against the procurement of land from party, M/s. Sobha Developers Ltd., the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The reliance of the appellant on CBDT Instruction No. 286/2/2003 dt. 10/03/2003 does not help as there is nothing to show that the MD was forced to confess undisclosed income. The disclosure was voluntary and on the basis of documents confronted to him. The decisions relied upon by the appellant are also found to be inapplicable as the same were rendered on different facts and ratio of the decision does not apply to the facts of the case under consideration. The decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and High Courts always need to be read keeping in mind the question of law which was sought to be answered and a line here and a line there cannot be picked up and applied to other situations. 4.14 The fact of forfeiture of amount as rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es in page nos. 17 and 31 of APB where the parties had confirmed about their payment and balances against the advance paid to the assessee. Also the agreement with M/s. Sobha Developers was placed in APB pages 32 to 37 . 7. The Counsel argued that the AO implemented section 56(2)(ix) which is wrong one and not correctly implemented for the assessee. But in factual matrix the huge amount of the credit balance is reflected in the assessee s books which was received more than 8 years. The AR relied on the order of Coordinate Bench in case of Shri Ravi Shankar Shetty vs. ACIT in ITA No. 28/Bang/2020 by order dated 08/09/2020. By observing the order of the coordinate bench, the advance amount was received for the procurement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e two amounts are reflected in the books of accounts of respective parties. The parties, M/s. Sobha Developers Ltd. and M/s. Elyon Developers Pvt. Ltd. are the company. There was no examination of these parties who has paid this amount to the assessee and also there is no verification of the books of accounts of those parties with reference to this amount. In our opinion, it is appropriate to remit the issue in dispute to the file of CIT(A) to carry out necessary enquiry and putting the admission made by assessee Director to the concerned parties to this effect and to reconsider the issue accordingly. The assessee relied on various case laws which are kept on record and those case laws are not applicable to the facts of the present case as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
