9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act by the Assessing Officer and similarly the Assessing Officer is also at liberty to cause such enquiry to be made as is required to arrive at the proper determination of income on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Assessing Officer shall, thereafter, pass the order of assessment afresh being uninfluenced by any of the earlier orders and shall conclude the proceedings in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly. - Decided both in favour of assesse and revenue for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No.1458/Bang/2012, C.O. No.64/Bang/2013, S.P. No.177/Bang/2014 - - - Dated:- 24-4-2015 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan And Shri Jason P. Boaz JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Farhat Hussain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, wherein pages 21 to 26, 38 to 43 and 44 to 48 thereof was a MOU between Sri Denzil D Souza and the assessee regarding the transaction of 2.81 acres of land at Kodialbail village (Bejai Automatrix Land) mentioned above. Based on the aforesaid incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee, notice under Section 153A rws 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee on 21.10.2010. In response thereto, the assessee filed a return of income on 29.6.2010 declaring total income of ₹ 2,13,41,040. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised return of income declaring total income of ₹ 2,33,74,876. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) rws 153A of the Act vide order dt.24.12.2010, adopting the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he head business . The learned CIT(A) also held that, out of the expenses of ₹ 3,22,03,485, disallowance of ₹ 1,84,50,000 requires to be made under Section 40A(3) of the Act, since the said amount was claimed as payments to tenants in cash and therefore it amounted to violation of the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (Appeals) - VI, Bangalore for Assessment Year 2008-09 dt.23.8.2012, revenue has preferred this appeal, raising the following grounds :- Ground No.1. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law and in fact in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 1,84,50,000 under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act ignoring the fact that the expenses are not allowable under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder :- 1. The order of assessment passed under Section 153C rws 143(3) of the Act is bad in law and void-ab-initio in as much there was no material was found during the course of person searched inducing a belief that the same belonged to the cross-objector and therefore, there was no justification to issue the notice under Section 153C of the Act and the order of assessment passed is opposed to law consequently the impugned assessment order deserves to be cancelled. 3. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the cross-objection, your respondent / cross-objector humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered. 4.2.2 The learned Authorised Representative submitted that these a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,55,65,000 2. Total Payments : A Payments to Tenants 1,84,50,000 B Land Development Expenses (AY 2006-07) 78,43,455 C Payments to Tenants (2003-04) 30,10,000 D Payments to Tenants (2005-06) 11,00,000 E Payment to Rohan 18,00,000 Total 3,22,03,455 Profit from above - as per books of accounts 35,61,545 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee's business is that of purchase and sale of land and therefore the income is assessable under the head business only. 5.4 In respect of the original return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 filed on 14.11.2009 declaring income of ₹ 28,91,040 and the return filed on 29.6.2010 in response to notice under Section 153A rws 153C of the Act wherein the income declared is ₹ 2,13,41,040, we find that the difference between the income declared in both these returns precisely relates to the sum of ₹ 1,84,50,000, the findings in respect of which are contested by both Revenue as well as the Assessee. While Revenue s case is that the aforesaid payments are hit by the Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act, the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
