9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ast the same cannot be perpetuated in the subsequent assessment years. Since no evidence whatsoever was furnished either before the AO or before the CIT(A) that Shri Vinay Bhasin was a tenant in the erstwhile Mariam Villa , therefore, in our opinion, the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made by the AO. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the AO. Disallowance of deduction - municipality taxes, maintenance charges etc - business expenditure - HELD THAT:- It is the settled proposition of law that for claiming any expenditure as business expenditure the onus is always on the assessee to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the AO that such expenditure is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. In the instant case the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast on it. The learned CIT(A) without any proper evidence was simply carried away by the mere statement of the counsel which, in our opinion, is not proper. We, therefore, set aside order of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore that of the AO. The ground raised by the Revenue is accordingly allowed. In the result, the appeal filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two flat Nos. 101 and 102 admeasuring 700 sq. ft. each in the new building have been sold by the assessee to Rajkiran Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd. (RPIPL) @ ₹ 3,143 whereas the rate of sale to another party Concord Shipping Ltd. (CSL) is ₹ 4,429 and ₹ 4,890 per sq. ft. (2 flats) and to yet another party Rochem India Pvt. Ltd. (RIPL) at ₹ 4,890 per sq. ft. The Assessing Officer did not find the explanation offered by the assessee as satisfactory and has held that the assessee must have obtained on money from RPIPL for selling two flats at rates lower than to others. Not being satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 24,46,000 on account of suppression of sale value to RPIPL. 6. In appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition by holdings as under: I have perused the assessment order and the argument of the appellant. It is a fact that the sale rate to Rajkiran Properties Investments Pvt. Ltd. is lower than the rate of sale to other parties. However, mere suspicion on this account is not enough. Something more in the form of evidence is required. The AO has not unearthed any evidence to sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the form of evidence is required and that the Assessing Officer has not unearthed any evidence to show that any on-money has passed hands between the parties. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer has given concrete evidence in the body of the assessment order that flats in the same building have been sold to other parties at much higher price whereas flats to the related parties have been sold at a much lower price. 9. As far as the observation of the learned CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer has not proved that payment of any on-money has passed between the parties, in our opinion, transfer of any on-money from one hand to the other is best known to the parties concerned and it is within their exclusive knowledge. The Assessing Officer can draw inference only from the surrounding circumstances under the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Since in the instant case the Assessing Officer has brought on record that flats in the same building have been sold at a higher price than the sale price to RPIL and since the company has not paid the advance of ₹ 62 lakhs but only the directors of the company have paid such advance, we, therefore, are of the opinion that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee firm in the name of the alleged tenant Shri Vinay Bhasin. The Assessing Officer noted that as per the copy of the bill Shri Vinay Bhasin is the tenant on the second floor and the bill for the period October, 1990 and November, 1990 is ₹ 282. The Assessing Officer observed that the genuineness of this bill is not ascertainable since the same has been issued by the assessee firm to the alleged tenant who is also the son of the partner. No legal documents of any kind or any other supporting evidence was filed to prove the genuineness of the tenancy. From the various details available on record and in absence of furnishing of evidence by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the tenancy rights, the Assessing Officer noted that the flats on first and second floor of Mariam Villa were occupied by the Makhija family who had been compensated by an amount of ₹ 80 lakhs. Therefore, the tenancy so claimed by Shri Vinay Bhasin is bogus. The Assessing Officer calculated the market value of flats allotted to Shri Vinay Bhasin at ₹ 1,02,49,074 and added the same to the total income of the assessee as his unaccounted profit. He further noted that the modus operandi follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n perusal of the orders of authorities below, we find the Assessing Officer had conclusively proved that the tenancy right in case of Shri Vinay Bhasin is a bogus one. We find the CIT(A) in a very brief and cryptic order deleted the addition without any sound reasoning. In our opinion, if any wrong has been done in the past the same cannot be perpetuated in the subsequent assessment years. Since no evidence whatsoever was furnished either before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(A) that Shri Vinay Bhasin was a tenant in the erstwhile Mariam Villa , therefore, in our opinion, the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing Officer. 15. Grounds of appeal No. 4 by the Revenue reads as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of deduction of ₹ 76,519/- made in respect of amounts paid to M/s. Arjun Centre without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to furnish any corroborative evidence to establish that the expenditure was indeed incurred in relation to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
