9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation received in kind – Held that:- Neither the AO nor the CIT (A) has brought any material on record to show that the actual market value of the plots in question is either at Rs.1000/- per sq. yard or at Rs.800 per sq. yard - No comparable instances of sale of plots in the same locality or nearby locality has been brought on record - purely on guess work and presumptions, the value of the plots cannot be fixed either at Rs.1000 or Rs.800/- per sq. yard - At least the value adopted by the assessee at Rs.350/- per sq. yard is on the basis of SRO’s rate - the value of Rs.800 per sq. yard adopted by the CIT (A) cannot be accepted – thus, the AO is directed to accept the value disclosed by the assessee of Rs.12,54,050/- at the rate of Rs.350 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that in course of search and seizure operations, jewellery worth of Rs.32,58,765/- was found. In the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 19-2- 2008 the assessee stated that the gold available in the residence is around 200 grams However, the jewellery found in the residence and locker was valued at Rs.32,58,765/-. The assessee when confronted with the acquisition of the jewellery found as above stated that part of jewellery belongs to his mother and balance jewellery was accumulated over a period of time. It was stated that most of the jewellery was brought by his wife at the time of marriage and part of it was received as gift from relatives on various occasions. However, though no bills towards purchase of jewellery was found d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of the same unexplained investment in jewellery and in the first appeal, the CIT (A) has sustained addition to the extent of Rs.16,03,295/-. When the assessee carried the matter in further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal sustained an addition of Rs.4,52,000/- and remitted the issue relating to balance addition of Rs.10,51,295/- to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification. It was submitted that during the reassessment proceedings, in pursuance to Income-tax Appellate Tribunal s direction the assessee agreed for addition of amount of Rs.10,51,295/- and assessment was accordingly completed for assessment year 2008-09 by accepting the disclosure made by the assessee. It was thus submitted by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds to be reduced from the income for that year and taxed in his year. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly and this ground is decided partly in favour of the appellant. 7. We have heard the contentions of the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities as well as the other materials on record. There is no dispute that the amount of Rs.4,94,900 forms part of the amount of Rs.10,51,295/- declared by the assessee towards unexplained investment in jewellery for assessment year 2008-09. However, fact remains that out of the aforesaid amount offered in assessment year 2008-09, jewellery worth Rs.4,94,900/- was acquired during the financial year 2006-07 relevant to the assessment year under dispute. This factual position ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued a show cause notice to the assessee proposing to adopt the value of the plots at Rs.1000/- per sq. yard for determining the cost of consideration of sale. The assessee in his objection stated that the plots were valued by him at the market value of Rs.346 per sq. yard as per the SRO rate. The Assessing Officer however did not accept the contention of the assessee by opining that the SRO rate is for open land and not for developed plots and accordingly proceeded to compute the consideration received in kind being the value of 16 plots by adopting the rate of Rs.1000 per sq. yard and determined the same at Rs.35,83,000/-. The assessee having disclosed the market value of 16 plots at Rs.12,54,040/- the differential amount of Rs.23,28,950/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd at Rs.5 lakh and expenditure incurred on agreement of sale cum GPA at Rs.92,300 offered the balance amount of Rs.17,01,750/- as additional income for the impugned assessment year. Though the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has mentioned that the assessee has received the aforesaid 16 plots from M/s. Jai Mata Di Villas Pvt. Limited in exchange of one acre of land given for development but no material has been brought on record either by the Assessing Officer or by the assessee to show under what terms and conditions the assessee got 16 plots in exchange of one acre of land. Furthermore, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer admits that the assessee has not received any sale consideration in terms of money but he has received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
