1999 (10) TMI 742

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed in law in admitting a new plea contrary to the facts on record that the net profit in respect of the supervision charges should be linked to the receipts of booking of flats to the tune of ₹ 2.63 crores contrary to the provisions of r. 29 r/w r. 10 of the Tribunal Rules and to base its finding thereon ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal having held that assessee has received unaccounted receipts was justified in law in holding that the AO has to discharge onus in respect of on money by showing that assessee has invested ₹ 1,58,59,400 out of such receipts whereas claim of assessee for extra expenditure was found to be incorrect ? 2. So far as question No. 1 is concerned the Tribunal i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mr. Naik submitted that statement of architect was recorded. Uttamchand Jain has come out with the version that no premium was paid. Except the paper found from Madhavji nothing is placed on record to draw an inference against the assessee. No statement of other flat owner is recorded. 4. Mr. Soparkar for the respondent assessee has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram. R. Balia A.R. Dave, JJ) rendered in IT Appln. No. 53 of 1999 on 20th April, 1999 in the case of CIT vs. President Industries [reported at (2000) 158 CTR (Guj) 372]. In this case, the Division Bench has observed as under : .....it cannot be matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s partners. Extra work was to be carried out by Madhavji Patel for which amount was charged. Uttamchand Jain denied having paid any premium in respect of the flats purchased. If a document is found from the possession of a person, s. 132(4A) can be invoked. In response to notice assessee declared undisclosed income of ₹ 30 lakhs. In para 6 and concluding para of the judgment of the Tribunal it is pointed out that considering the fact that the assessee was entitled to supervision charges taking into consideration depreciation, salary, etc. profit rate will come to 1.31 per cent. Considering the rate at ₹ 265 per sq. ft. total receipt would be 2.65 crores on which the profit earned was ₹ 3,43,672 (after deducting all expe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X