9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emaining all are general and technical in nature and requires no adjudication : "The ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the AR's contention that the plot owners have paid cash of Rs. 10,00,000/- directly to Sri P. Damodar as part of sale consideration appears to be an after thought." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, income from business and income from other sources. The assessee filed its return of income u/s 139(1) on 24.9.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 40,46,550/-. A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted on the assessee as part of the searches conducted on M/s. Skill Promoters Pvt. Ltd Group and others on 22.10.2019. The case was subseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee argued that the plot owners had paid a cash amount of Rs. 10 lakhs directly to Shri P. Damodar as part of sale consideration, and paid only the net of sale consideration to the assessee. The assessee claimed to be merely a mediator in the transaction and stated that no amount was routed through him. The learned counsel for the assessee also submitted that the assessee had been an income tax assessee for the past three years and had filed income tax returns declaring more than Rs. 10 lakhs, for the relevant assessment years prior to A.Y. 2016-17. Ld.AR for the assessee further submitted that the said contention was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has contended that he acted as a mediator in the transaction and that the plot owners directly paid Rs. 10 lakhs in cash to Shri P. Damodar as part of the sale consideration. The assessee further argued that he did not receive or route any funds in this transaction. Further, the MOU dated 22.02.2016, found in the seized material, indicates that the assessee had paid Rs. 9,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- to Shri P. Damodar. However, considering the submissions and explanations provided by the assessee, it is plausible that these payments were made as part of the settlement of a dispute regarding land in Sy. No. 10 of Guttala Begumpet, and not as income belonging to the assessee. It is worth noting that the assessee has been a regular filer of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
