9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n absence of PAN, it was impossible for the assessee to submit block period return in the capacity of legal heir. In fact the delay has occurred due to delay on the part of A.O. to allot the assessee a PAN. Thus, there was a reasonable cause and the assessee cannot be expected to do impossibility. Hence, under the facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on the ITAT decisions reported at Manoj Aggarwal and others Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-tax, Central Circle - 3, New Delhi [2008 (7) TMI 446 - ITAT DELHI-A ] and Bachubhai S. Antrolia. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle - 1, Junagadh.[2006 (3) TMI 288 - ITAT RAJKOT ] it is held that the assessee is not liable to interest u/s 158BFA(1).- Decided against revenue. - ITA No.591/PN/2013 - - - Dated:- 10-11-2015 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM For The Appellant : Shri B.C. Malakar For The Respondent : Shri Nikhil Pathak ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of CIT(A)-I, Nashik, dated 24.12.2012 relating to Block period 01.04.1996 to 25.03.2003 against order passed under section 158BD r.w.s. 143(3) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the assessee. There was an agreement for purchase of plot No.42 of S.No.705/2/1/3/45, admeasuring 626.62 sq. mtrs. The total sale consideration was fixed at ₹ 3,75,978/-. It was seen from the seized document Annexure A-2 that cash of ₹ 9,45,000/- was made on various dates. There was another development agreement dated 17.06.1997 in respect of plot No.33 of final plot No.434 of Survey No.705/2/1/3. In view of the said incriminating document found from the possession of Rushiraj Builders Developers, intimation was sent to ACIT, Central Circle 1, Nashik, after recording satisfaction notice under section 158BD of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 158BD of the Act was issued to the assessee and the assessee was asked to file return of income within 15 days from the service of notice. The assessee failed to furnish any return of income and notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued. The assessee in response, requested for supply of documents, which in turn were supplied to the assessee. However, the assessee did not furnish any return of income. The assessee did not produce any bank statement or any other books of account. However, an explanation was fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the assessee was co-owner of the property, thus only his share of ₹ 14,49,000/- was assessed in his hands. 6. The CIT(A) observed that in the seized papers at no place the name of assessee was appearing for payment of any on-money. In the Affidavits of partners of M/s. Rushiraj Builders Developers, it was not their claim that they had payment of any on-money to the assessee or to anyone on behalf of the assessee. In fact, in the statements recorded, in the course of assessee s block period assessment, of Shri Y.P. Trivedi and Shri Narendra Thakker, they have stated that they do not know the assessee. The CIT(A) thus, observed that in the absence of any evidence in possession of the assessee regarding receipt of on-money by the assessee, there was no merit in any addition in the hands of assessee. Consequently, the impugned addition of ₹ 14,50,550/- was held to be unwarranted and deleted. 7. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that as per the seized document Annexure A-2, there was cash payment of ₹ 26,09,350/- and the assessee being co-owner in the said proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of final plot No.434 of survey No.705/2/1/3. The contention of legal heir of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that the allegation of cash payments to the assessee was false and contrary to the evidence. It was pointed out that in the seized paper Annexure 2 i.e. the entries in the diary at no place the name of his father Shri Paraji Abaji Karanjkar was appearing. Further, reliance was placed on Affidavits submitted by Shri Y.P. Trivedi and Shri J.M. Jhala, in which it was stated that the cash in excess of sale consideration was paid to Shri Narendra Thakker or his representatives and not to father of assessee. Another contention raised by the legal heir of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that sale in respect of plot No.434 of survey No.705/2/1 of Nashik had taken place on 17.06.1997 and cash in excess over the document price was claimed to be paid thereafter. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the issue arising before us is whether there is any merit in the order passed by the Assessing Officer in treating on-money as additional income in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted the said addition in the absence of any evidence rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
