9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to as 'AO') for the assessment year 2018- 19. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent-assessee is the Director of M/s. Span Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (M/s. SEPL). One Mr. Suresh Amarnath Pal, proprietor of M/s. Suresh Fabricators, was allotted leasehold rights of Plot No. B-48, TTC Industrial Area, Rabale, Navi Mumbai by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ('MIDC' for short). 3. It appears that under an unregistered agreement dated 29.05.2014 the leasehold rights in favour of Mr. Suresh Amarnath Pal, were acquired purportedly by M/s. SEPL for a consideration of Rs.1,09,19,100/-. 4. The respondent-assessee had filed Income Tax Return ('ITR' for short) for assessment year 2018-19 on 31.10.2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent-assessee to M/s. SEPL. 9. The learned AO refused to accept the explanation furnished by respondent and made an addition of Rs.1,63,97,000/- purportedly under Section 69 of the Act in the hands of respondent-assessee. 10. Feeling aggrieved, appellant challenged the same before the learned CIT (A). 11. It was, inter alia, contended before the learned CIT (A) that after noticing the facts, the learned AO has proceeded to make the addition on an altogether new ground. It was contended that there is sufficient documentary evidence on record to indicate that the leasehold rights were purchased by M/s. SEPL and not individually by respondent-assessee. 12. The learned CIT (A) by order dated 31.03.2023 has allowed the appeal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp;SEPL, which is duly accounted for in the books of account of M/s. SEPL and the same property has also been capitalised in the books of M/s. SEPL. It is submitted that the apparent inadvertent mistake came to be corrected by execution of Deed dated 08.06.2021. It is submitted that only because the said document was executed subsequent to receipt of show cause notice would not be sufficient to hold that mentioning of name of assessee was not on account of any bona fide mistake as urged on behalf of the appellant. 16. We have carefully considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made and we do not find that any case for interference is made out. 17. Notwithstanding the extensive narration of facts and submissions, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period, the registered Deed dated 29.06.2017 came to be executed, in which instead of M/s. SEPL, the name of its Director, namely the assessee, figured in his individual capacity. This appears to be the sole basis of the impugned action. The fact remains that subsequently there is yet another Deed executed on 08.06.2021, which according to the assessee was executed in order to correct the bona fide mistake/error which had crept in the agreement dated 29.06.2017. It is further a matter of record that the respondent had applied for rectification/change of name before the MIDC (albeit after issuance of show cause notice dated 10.04.2021) and the MIDC has approved the assignment from the respondent, in his personal capacity as 'Assignor' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bona fide mistake, which has also been corrected subsequently. 22. The learned CIT (A) has then adverted to the additions which could be made under Section 69 of the Act. The said section envisages a situation where the assessee has (i) made an investment (ii) which is not recorded in the books of account or (iii) the assessee offers no explanation about the nature/source of the investment or (iv) the explanation offered is not found to be satisfactory. In our view, none of these requirements can be said to be satisfied in this case as the explanation offered is plausible and is clearly borne out of material on record. We, therefore, find that no case for interference is made out. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed. 23. In this case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
