9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the delay. 03. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay in filing the appeal was for sufficient and bonafide reasons and accordingly, the same is condoned by admitting the appeal for adjudication. 04. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed only the ground no.5 which is extracted as under:- "5. For that the ld. CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.2,39,130/- made by the ld. AO on account of unexplained money." 05. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shree Shiromani Project Pvt. ltd. vs ITO in ITA No. 106/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2013- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a consideration of Rs.2,94,13,031/-, against the stamp duty valuation of Rs.15,16,64,069/-. It was also informed the assessee had made a payment of Rs.2,39,130/- in cash. Finally, the ld. AO treated the payment made by the assessee of Rs.2,39,130/- as unaccounted money of the assessee and accordingly, same was treated as unexplained money and added to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act dated 30.09.2021. We note that the ld. AO has not appreciated the case correctly. In this case the land was not purchased by 41 persons from M/s Shree Shiromani Projects Private Limited for a consideration of Rs.2,94,13,031/-, whereas the same was purchased by 41 persons including assessee from Smt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988 in case of the assessee. A perusal of the aforesaid order, copy of which has been placed at page 12 of the paper-book, would reveal that the proceedings under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988 were initiated against the assessee in relation to the very same transactions of sale/purchase of the property. A perusal of the said order would reveal that firstly, the observation of the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded that the assessee had sold the property in question was factually wrong. In fact, the said property in question was sold by the vendors, Smt. Sandhya Sadhukahn, Sri Ranjan Sadhukhan and Smt. Ritu Sadhukhan to the 41 persons mentioned as Shri Bin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988 were dropped against the assessee. The observation of the Assessing Officer not only in the reasons recorded but also in the assessment order that the assessee has sold the property in question by way of sham transaction and further the assessee has introduced his own money through the 41 persons and has sold its own property and thereafter itself became the Benami beneficial owner of the property, is factually wrong and false. There is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, not only the reopening of the assessment is bad in law but also the addition on merits is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In view of this, the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
