9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ata Jain and Sh. Roshan Agarwal, is that as per their calculations the premium amount came to ₹ 13.3 crores but since the applicants had declared more than that, the disclosure needed no disturbance. Rs 6.5 crores had been disclosed in the initial statement given by Sh. Gopal Gupta at the time of the search and seizure operation and the figure was subsequently enhanced to ₹ 7.61 crores at the time the application for settlement was made before the Settlement Commission - The Settlement Commission in its order dated 31.12.2010 did not fix any figure as to the amount of undisclosed amount - the amount declared by the applicants was much more than what had been surrendered by Sh. Gopal Gupta and what had been computed by the Department, the disclosure made by them needed no disturbance - The Revenue cannot attempt to add anything more to this value in the absence of any concrete evidence - If the stand taken by the Revenue were to be accepted, then the value of the property would come to ₹ 158.19 crores - there is not an iota of evidence to indicate that the value of the property was anything but ₹ 130 crores – there is no perversity in the order dated 21.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (P) Ltd. was shown to be Rs 90 crores. 4. It is the case of the Revenue that when Sh. Gopal Gupta entered as a director through the modicum of purchase of shares by his group company Gopal Infrastructures (P) Ltd., the value of the property at Motia Khan was estimated at Rs 130 crores including a premium computed at Rs 40 crores. It is also the case of the Revenue that since 1/3rd of the shares in D.J. Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. were acquired by Gopal Infrastructures (P) Ltd., the share of the premium would be Rs 13.3 crores which was supposed to be paid by Sh. Gopal Gupta and his wife (the respondent No.1 herein) to the other Group from whom the said shares were acquired. It is further the case of the Revenue that in their statement of facts before the Settlement Commission, Smt. Lata Jain had declared a sum of Rs 8 crores in the Assessment Year 2008-09 as income derived from the sale of 1/3rd shares to Gopal Infrastructures (P) Ltd. A similar declaration was made by Sh. Roshan Agarwal to the extent of Rs 8 crores in respect of the very same Assessment Year 2008-09. Thus, according to Mr Sahni, the sellers (Smt. Lata Jain and Sh. Roshan Agarwal) had declared that they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, there was a gap between the value of Rs 44.34 crores as computed above on the basis of the admitted position and the sum of Rs 36.73 crores which had been disclosed. This gap was to the extent of Rs 7.61 crores and, this is exactly what has been declared before the Settlement Commission in the application submitted by the respondent No.1 and her husband Sh. Gopal Gupta. 9. Mr Tripathi also pointed out that at the time when the search and seizure operation was being conducted at the premises of Sh. Gopal Gupta he had made a statement. In that statement he had declared that a sum of Rs 6.5 crores had been paid in cash which had not been disclosed earlier. That figure was, however, enhanced to Rs 7.61 crores at the time the application was made before the Settlement Commission. Therefore, it was contended by Mr Tripathi that there was full and true disclosure on the part of the respondent No.1 and the impugned order of the Settlement Commission did not suffer from any perversity and ought not to be disturbed. 10. Mr Tripathi also pointed out that if the figure of Rs 16 crores, as suggested by the Revenue, is taken as the undisclosed amount of investment then there woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n going by the calculation of premium, the amount comes to Rs.13.3 crores (1/3rd of Rs.40 crores). The applicants have declared more. So the amount of disclosure need not be disturbed. 12. After having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and having examined the relevant papers on record as also a copy of the Settlement Commissioner s order dated 31.12.2010, which had been handed over to us be Mr Sahni across the bar, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 21.05.2012 does not call for any interference. The fact that Smt. Lata Jain and Sh. Roshan Agarwal had together declared a sum of Rs 16 crores as undisclosed income in respect of the said transaction cannot, in our view, bind the respondent No.1 and her husband Sh. Gopal Gupta. The respondent No.1 and Sh. Gopal Gupta were not privy to the settlement application filed on behalf of Smt. Lata Jain and Sh. Roshan Agarwal. In any event, what the Settlement Commission has said in the order in respect of Smt. Lata Jain and Sh. Roshan Agarwal, is that as per their calculations the premium amount came to Rs 13.3 crores but since the applicants therein (Smt. Lata Jain and Sh. Roshan Agarwal) had declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
