9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Petitioner : Shri Arun C. Bharat, CIT For the Respondent : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ORDER Per Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member: The cross-appeals have been filed by the assessee and the Revenue impugning the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Salem dated 02-12-2008 passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. In ITA No. 258/2009, the assessee has assailed the order of the CIT(Appeals) confirming the addition of Rs. 5,63,263/- towards investment made in SIDCO land. On the other hand, the Revenue has assailed the order of CIT(Appeals) for deleting Rs. 32,51,872/- as un-disclosed investment in land at Ariyanoor. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that during the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had purchased a land measuring 92 cents at Ariyanoor Village at Seeragapady. The assessee had purchased the land in question on 17-03-2004 vide registered document No. 913/2004 for alleged sale consideration of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs only. During the course of search, an agreement for sale of the same land was seized. According to the seized agreement dated 07-02-2001, the sale consideration for 15000 sq. ft. land was fixed at Rs. 106 per sq. ft. As per the endorsement made on the back of the agreement, Shri C. Balan (Vendor) had received Rs. 2,60,100/- on 09-01-2001and another sum of Rs. 9.00 Lakhs from Smt. K. Vanaja (Vendee) on 10-08-2004. As per agreement, Rs. 4.00 Lakhs was pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the conclusion that the advance paid is the total consideration. The ld. DR further contended that the assessee was not able to produce Books of Account despite repeated notices during assessment proceedings. The fact that the assessee is not maintaining proper Books has been admitted by the assessee during search proceedings. 4. On the other hand, Shri G. Baskar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the assessee strongly supporting the order of the CIT(Appeals) on this issue submitted that the additions have been made by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of presumptions. The ld. Counsel submitted that Shri C. Balan is a land broker and hand entered into an agreement with Mr. Pachiappan and others with respect to 92 cents of agricultura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of CIT(Appeals), the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made with regard to investment made in SIDCO land. The ld. Counsel further contended that there is no dispute that borrowings were made by the assessee by cheques from two firms and the assessee was able to explain the entire source of funds for investment in SIDCO. The ld. DR controverting the submissions made by the Counsel for the assessee submitted that a perusal of para No.15 of the order of the CIT(Appeals) would show that the assessee had admitted the fact that the investment in SIDCO land is un-explained. 5. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of both the sides and have perused the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Subsequently, the assessee changed its stance and after fabrication of accounts, claimed that the amounts were credits for investment. The CIT(Appeals) in his order has categorically stated that the assessee had not produced any additional evidence to show that the assessee had borrowed any funds from M/s. New Ashok Finance, Ellampillai, or Ellampillai Ashok Corporation for utilizing the same for investment in SIDCO. 8. We do not find any force in the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. No reliability can be placed on the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has been taking different stand before the authorities below and before us to cover up the investments made in SIDCO land. There is no merit in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) deleted the balance addition of Rs. 32,51,872/-. 10. We are of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(Appeals) has failed to take into consideration the fact that no plausible explanation was furnished by the assessee to show that there was fall in the real estate prices during the past years. On the contrary, value of another piece of land which was purchased by the assessee from 'Devabala Group' around same time had appreciated. This fact has not been disputed by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) has only taken into consideration the amount of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs advanced by the assessee to Shri C. Balan. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has admitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
