9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statement(s) .given by the employees of another person whose premises were searched without giving an opportunity to the appellant to rebut the same or to cross-examine the person whose statements were recorded thereby violating the principles of natural justice; (iii) by ignoring the fact that there is no shred of evidence to prove that any cash payment was received by Mrs. Ritu Parwal; (iv) on the basis of surmises which are illegal, arbitrary and wholly without any sub-stratum; (v) by ignoring the fact that the property in question on which the impugned short term capital gain had allegedly been earned was not owned by the appellant and was owned by M/s Smriti Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. of which the appellant was only a shareholder: (vi) by ignoring the fact that the appellant on her own and in her individual capacity was not competent to contract or deal with or sell or alienate the said property in any manner in as much as the company owning the property viz. M/s Smriti Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. had an independent and separate legal entity by virtue of being an incorporated body under the provisions of the Companies Act. 1956; (vii) by lifting the corporate veil whereas no such lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on at the head office of HBN Group, certain documents were found and seized as per Annexure A-I, which revealed that commercial property No. B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi was purchased by the HBN Group from Sh. Sanjay Parwal and Smt. Ritu Parwal through transfer of shares of M/s. Smriti Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs. 12.95 crores in the month of March, 2008. The documents also revealed that out of the total consideration of Rs. 12.95 crores, an amount of Rs. 8.70 in cash and the balance Rs. 4.25 crores was paid by cheque by the HBN Group and the cash of Rs. 8.70 crores was received by Sh. Sanjay Parwal and Smt. Ritu Parwal, who were controlling the affairs of M/s. Smriti Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 3.1 The HBN Group, who were searched by the Department u/s. 132 of the Act, disclosed and surrendered the cash amount of Rs. 8.70 crores, paid to Sh. Sanjay Parwal and Smt. Ritu Parwal, for taxation. 4. The Assessing Officer has noted in the assessment order that the shares of M/s. Smriti Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. have already been transferred to the HBN Group and the management of the said company has been taken over by the HBN Group, although, before transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i admeasuring 145.67 sq. mtrs. with building constructed thereon was-agreed to be sold for Rs. 12.95 crores, against which token money of Rs. 25 lacs was agreed to be paid in cash on 14.01.2008 and the balance of Rs. 12.70 crores before 31.03.2008. The receipt dated 14.01.2008 duly acknowledged the payment received by Sh. Virender Nehra was seized as per Annexure A-5/page 58 by the Search Team. 6. The Investigating Wing, New Delhi also granted opportunity to the appellant to cross examine those witnesses and the statements recorded from the witnesses as well as from Sh. Virendra Nehra was confonted to the appellant. During which time, the appellant had merely stated that she had no knowledge of her financial affiars and the deal of sale of shares in the M/s Smirti Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The entire control over her fiancial affiars was with her husband only. 7. Based on this information, the Assessing Officer proceeded to re-compute the capital gains returned on the sale of shares in M/s Smriti Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. held by the appellant. The Assessing Officer had adopted 12.95 crores as total consideration for sale of entire share holding in M/s Smirti Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The total numbe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered into an agreement in his individual capacity and not as a director of HBN Group as is evident from the first page of Agreement to sell. He had drawn our attention to the last para of the agreement, wherein it is mentioned that the second party agreed to sell the same above said property on one side second party has been shown as a purchaser as well as seller also. The agreement to sell is not registered with the sub registrar as required under the Registration Act if the agreement to sell is not registered, the same tantamount to null & void. The cheque issued amounting to Rs. 1.20 crore has been credited to the account of appellant. A Cheque of Rs.l crore was returned back, which was debited in the A/c of Mrs. Ritu Parwal, hence, out of the said amount only Rs. 20 lacs has been received by appellant. It was further submitted that the only basis for making addition is the photocopy agreement to sell which is tripartite agreement among Mr. Sanjay Parwal and three parties, original of which is not found anywhere. The appellant is never party to the agreement to sell are tripartite agreement. The appellant had disowned the knowledge of factum of sale of property held in the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
