9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d facts and circumstances, we find merit in the claim of assessee as the Assessing Officer has failed to bring on record any evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 30,55,000/- being half share of ₹ 61,10,000/-. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed. - ITA No.524/PN/2015 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2016 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM For The Appellant : Shri Pramod Shingte For The Respondent : Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is against order of CIT(A)-12, Pune, dated 02.03.2015 relating to assessment year 2008-09 against order passed under section 143(3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich contained notings for purchase of Mumbai flats. Flat numbers mentioned were 201, 202 and 203 in RNA Azure, Mumbai and the total cost mentioned was at ₹ 4,27,35,000/-. In reply to the query raised, Mr. Satish M. Kulkarni, Asst. Manager of M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. had replied that the said flats were in the names of Shri Satish D. Parekh, M/s. Satish D. Parekh (HUF) and Mrs. Asha Katariya respectively. The total cost of three flats were noted at ₹ 4.27 crores as against the agreement value of ₹ 2.56 crores. The difference between the total cost and agreement value was ₹ 1.71 crores (approx.). The Assessing Officer presumed that the same was partly paid in cash and out of books of account. The assessee was thus, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue at length including the prices charged and the market value of the said assets. The CIT(A) was of the view that where the payment of on-money was admitted by the employee though, he retracted his statement later, but the same was held to be without any basis. In view of the fact that the correctness of one part of cheque payment in the seized paper and further the admission of employee and assessee s own admission and also admission before the Settlement Commission, the CIT(A) upheld the addition of ₹ 30,55,000/-. 6. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 7. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the total cash consideration as depicted in the seized paper was ₹ 56,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has also been decided on merits vide para 12 and the addition made in the hands of assessee has been deleted. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee also referred to the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in the case of other co-owner Shri Satish D. Parekh (HUF), wherein reference was made to the same seized document and the petition moved before the Settlement Commission, wherein all the on-money had been considered as outflow of funds from undisclosed income of M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. and no addition was made regarding on-money of ₹ 56,10,000/-. 8. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand placing reliance on the order of CIT(A) pointed out that the factual aspects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the claim of assessee that no addition on account of differential value of the flat could be made in the hands of assessee as the same has been declared to be funded out of amount declared by M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. before the Settlement Commission. In other words, the assessee pointed out that the source of on-money was out of disclosure made by M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. before the Settlement Commission. The said plea of the assessee has not been accepted in the hands of the assessee. However, in the case of joint owner Shri Satish D. Parekh (HUF), the said plea has been accepted in respect of cash transaction of ₹ 56,10,000/-. The perusal of assessment order of Shri Satish D. Parekh (HUF), placed on record by the assessee reflec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee claims not to have made the cash payment. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that the plea of joint co-owner of having paid the on-money out of cash available with M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. out of disclosure made before the Settlement Commission having been accepted to the extent of ₹ 56,10,000/-, no addition is merited in the hands of assessee as the assessee s contribution is to the extent of 50% of ₹ 56,10,000/-. Further, the assessee claims that even the parking fees of ₹ 5 lakhs is funded out of cash available with M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. and in the totality of the above said facts and circumstances, we find merit in the claim of assessee as the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
