9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oney received by assessee which was identified on the basis of incriminating papers seized during the action u/s. 132 of I.T. Act, in the case of CPDPL (Developer of the property). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in respect of receipt of on money holding that the AO has not brought any confirmation or material evidence on record for the receipt of the funds. 2. The solitary issue is with regard to deletion of addition made on account of on money received by the assessee. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a coowner of a property at Chakala Road, Andheri (East), which he along with his mother and other siblings inherited from his father. The assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r member has received anything. There is substance in the contention of plaintiff that a fraud has been perpetuated to deprive them of their valuable rights of the suit property". 5. On 21.01.2003, search and seizure operation were carried out u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act on the residential and office premises of M/s Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd., of which CPDPL is one of the group companies. In the search, the JV agreement was found and seized and along with that certain documents were seized wherein there was evidence on money having been received on the sale of some flats. This information was forwarded to the AO having jurisdiction over the assessee who initiated proceedings u/s 158BD on the assessee and made the addition on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and all other cases where a similar addition has been made based on the seized papers. I do understand that there may be certain other issues in the statements and the assessments with which I am not concerned. Hence I request you to kindly give me a certified extract of the relevant portion only. I further request you to kindly give me a copy of all material, statement and evidence in your possession relating to the above addition so that I am in a position to represent my case before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Finally I request you to give me a copy of the reasons recorded by you before the initiation of the proceedings u/s 158BD in my case. Though I am legally entitled to the above material at no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. The CIT(A), after going through the entire facts of the case, came to a conclusion that, "Nothing has been brought on record by the AO on the question of payment of such alleged share to the appellant or for that matter other co-owners. M/s CPDPL was neither confronted with the question whether any payment in respect of on money has been made to the appellant in this case. It is a fact that on money transaction is outside the books of accounts. As already stated M/s CPDPL was not questioned in respect of payment of on money to the appellant at the same percentage as in the Development Agreement as the Development Agreement will never include a clause to refer any transaction like on money sharing which is outside the books of accounts. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AR, therefore, concluded that the AO had committed an error in making an addition on the assessee, which was completely devoid of any material evidence against the assessee, therefore, the addition was bad and, which was rightly delete by the CIT(A). 12. We have heard the arguments of the contesting parties and perused the material on record. From the material placed before us, the following emerge: 01. Bombay High Court has taken note of and has inferred that the assessee was a victim of a fraud committed by his own brother; 02. Bombay High Court has taken note of the fact and has inferred that Mr. Abdulla Sahadat, brother of the assessee, who fraudulently used the POA, received the money from CPDPL all by himself. 03. Bombay High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extracted, "Before the provisions of section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are invoked against a person other than the person whose premises have been searched under section 132 or documents and other assets have been requisitioned under section 132A, the conditions precedent have to be satisfied. Held, accordingly, that where the premises of a director of a company and his wife were searched under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a block assessment had to be done in relation to the company, the Assessing Officer had to (i) record his satisfaction that any undisclosed income belonged to the company, and (ii) hand over the books of account and other documents and assets seized to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
