9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e request of Shri Elangovan for a commission ₹ 3 lakhs is not substantiated. The material available on record suggests that the assessee has received the gold bullion to the extent of ₹ 9,97,00,000/-. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority treating the entire amount of ₹ 10 Crores as income of the assessee The assessee filed a return of income on 13.11.2007 declaring a total income of ₹ 16,27,456/-. Initially, the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Consequent to a survey under Section 133A of the Act, the assessment was reopened by issuing a notice on 12.02.2010 and the same was completed on 31.12.2010. Consequently, the case was again reopened by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee on 09.02.2007. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that one Shri K.R. Elangovan, an old friend of him, contacted two days before 9.2.2007 over phone and clarified whether the assessee would be interested in accommodating transaction of ₹ 10 Crores. The said Shri Elangovan has also clarified that the amount should be transferred immediately to another account for which the assessee would be paid a commission of ₹ 3 lakhs. The assessee agreed accordingly and an amount of ₹ 10 Crores was transferred to the assessee s account in State Bank of India by M/s Commercial Builders Pvt. Ltd. The Ld.counsel clarified that the assessee has no relationship or any business connection with M/s Commercial Builde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nership concern in the name of Babu Associates , and what was referred as Babu and Associates is a partnership firm represented by Shri C. Karthikeyan. Therefore, the assessee, according to the Ld. counsel, is nothing to do with this transaction. On a query from the Bench, whether the Account No. mentioned in the sale deed, held with State Bank of India, CIT Nagar Branch, belongs to the assessee or anybody else, the Ld.counsel had fairly submitted that the bank account belongs to the assessee. The Ld.counsel has also clarified that the amount of 10 Crores by RTGS were credited to the account of the assessee. However, the Ld.counsel clarified that the assessee does not know who is Shri Karthikeyan. The Ld.counsel has also clarified that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of ₹ 3 lakhs, the entire addition cannot be sustained. The Ld.counsel has also clarified that it cannot be subjected to capital gains also since the land in question does not belong to the assessee. The Ld.counsel clarified that the assessee may not have any objection to bring the amount for capital gain tax in respect of the owners of the land. However, the amount of ₹ 10 Crores cannot be subjected to tax in the hands of the present assessee. 6. On the contrary, Shri S. Balasubramanian, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that admittedly a sum of ₹ 10 Crores was credited to the bank account of the assessee. Though a reference was made in the sale deed that Babu and Associates was represented by Shri C. Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact, a sum of ₹ 10 Crores was credited in the account of the assessee. The assessee claims that it was transferred to Mohan Lal Jewellers on the instruction of Shri Elangovan and he retained only a sum of ₹ 3 lakhs. On examination, Shri Elangovan disowned the entire transaction and he went to the extent of saying that he does not know anything at all. The said amount was transferred to Mohan Lal Jewellers and owner of the Mohan Lal Jewellers, on examination, clarified that he delivered gold bullion on receipt of ₹ 9,97,00,000/-. Shri Mohanlal Khatri, the owner of Mohan Lal Jewellers clarified that the gold bullion was delivered to Babu and Associates. Now the assessee contends that there is no partnership firm by name Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee filed a return of income on 13.11.2007 declaring a total income of ₹ 16,27,456/-. Initially, the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Consequent to a survey under Section 133A of the Act, the assessment was reopened by issuing a notice on 12.02.2010 and the same was completed on 31.12.2010. Consequently, the case was again reopened by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 22.07.2011. Since the Assessing Officer has not considered the credit of ₹ 10 Crores in the bank account and it is also not the case of the assessee that there was change of opinion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has rightly reopened the assessment. We do not find any reason to interf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
