2021 (4) TMI 4 - AT - Income Tax

Additions for the on-money paid by the assessee - assessee purchased certain land at Baner, which was jointly owned by Tapadia family and Bansal family - Tapadia family accepted to have received on-money - As submitted by assessee land was sold to the assessee by Tapadia family. As against that, the land was stated to be, in fact, sold by Tapadia and Bansal families - HELD THAT - There is no impact of this submission because the land in question at Baner was sold to the assessee jointly by Tapadia and Bansal families. Mere omission of the name of Bansal family has no bearing. Incriminating document found from the premises of Tapadia family did not indicate any date of cash payment and hence, the Tribunal ought not to have confirmed the additions for the years in question - we are at loss to appreciate as to what is the significance of this submission. The Tapadia family admitted to have received on-money from the assessee in the financial years relevant to assessment years under consideration. Once the factum of receipt of on-money is established, there cannot be any separate years of the seller receiving on-money and the buyer giving it. This contention is also repelled. Three decisions in support of deletion of the additions, which were not dealt with in the order - We find that the substance of the decisions is the same subject matter. Once an issue has been decided on the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no separate need to discuss each and every decision relied by the assessee when the cumulative effect of all such decisions is taken into consideration. No cross examination of Shri Ajay Tapadia from the Tapadia family was allowed by the Assessing Officer, whose statement constituted the basis of additions - We find that the Tribunal in this regard noticed that the AO issued summons to Shri Ajay Tapadia on two occasions but he did not appear. Be that as it may, the statement of Shri Ajay Tapadia was not the sole basis of additions. Apart from the statement, incriminating material in the form of documentary evidence to this effect was also found during the course of search indicating the assessee paying on-money. Not only that, the Tapadia family admitted the genuineness of the document and offered the amounts as its income for the relevant years.Miscellaneous Applications stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Discrepancy in the ownership of land sold to the assessee.
2. Validity of additions made by the Assessing Officer for on-money paid by the assessee.
3. Significance of the date of cash payment in incriminating documents.
4. Consideration of decisions relied upon by the assessee for deletion of additions.
5. Omission of certain decisions in the Tribunal's order.
6. Cross-examination of a key witness.

1. Discrepancy in the ownership of land sold to the assessee:
The Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the ownership of the land sold to the assessee, as it was jointly owned by Tapadia and Bansal families. However, the Tribunal held that the omission of mentioning one of the sellers did not impact the case since the land was jointly sold by both families.

2. Validity of additions for on-money paid by the assessee:
The Assessing Officer made additions for on-money paid by the assessee, based on incriminating documents found during a search at Tapadia family's premises. The Tribunal confirmed these additions, emphasizing that once the fact of on-money receipt was established, the specific years of transaction were irrelevant, thus upholding the additions.

3. Significance of the date of cash payment in incriminating documents:
The assessee argued that the incriminating document did not specify the date of cash payment, challenging the Tribunal's decision to confirm the additions. The Tribunal dismissed this contention, stating that the acknowledgment of on-money receipt by Tapadia family was sufficient to uphold the additions.

4. Consideration of decisions relied upon by the assessee:
The assessee cited three decisions supporting the deletion of additions, which were not individually addressed in the order. The Tribunal clarified that once an issue was decided based on the overall facts, there was no need to discuss each decision separately if they pertained to the same subject matter.

5. Omission of certain decisions in the Tribunal's order:
The assessee raised concerns about certain decisions not being considered in the order. The Tribunal explained that while some decisions were not explicitly mentioned, their essence was factored into the decision-making process, and the absence of repetitive decisions did not warrant a revision of the order.

6. Cross-examination of a key witness:
The assessee contended that cross-examination of a key witness, Shri Ajay Tapadia, was not allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that while summons were issued to the witness, his non-appearance did not solely influence the additions. The Tribunal highlighted the presence of documentary evidence and the admission by Tapadia family regarding the on-money, leading to the dismissal of the applications.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both Miscellaneous Applications, emphasizing the adequacy of evidence and the lack of substantial grounds for challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's rationale for its decisions.