9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese appeals filed by the Revenue arise out of Cross Appeals before the Tribunal. We have noticed questions from Tax Appeal No.723 of 2018. 2. Tax Appeals are ADMITTED for consideration of following substantial questions of law: [ I] Undisclosed investment on account of Umiya Land. ( i) Whether on facts the case and in law, Appellate Tribunal is correct in allowing credit of undisclosed income already detected in search u/s 132 of Act and subsequently declared by Bachubhai and his son Shri Ajit B Chauhan ₹ 33.16 lacs in respect of Umiya Land. ( ii) Whether on facts the case and in law, Appellate Tribunal is correct in allowing credit of undisclosed income declared by the Shyam Group before Settlement Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undisclosed investment in Vastral Land: ( i) Whether on facts the case and in law, Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that after search is conducted and undisclosed income is detected, an assessee can make a valid declaration of such undisclosed income under VDIS 97? ( ii) Whether on facts the case and in law, Appellate Tribunal is correct in allowing credit of undisclosed income already detected in search u/s 132 of Act and subsequently declared under VDIS 97 by Shri Asvinbhai B. Patel ₹ 26,85,075/and Shri Bachhubhai ₹ 21,68,171/in respect of Vastral land, to the assessee? ( iii) Whether on facts the case and in law, Appellate Tribunal is correct in allowing credit of undisclosed income detected in se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition when no deduction for the impugned amount ₹ 4,00,000/is claimed or allowed during the assessment? ( d) Addition of 2,50,000/on account of Unexplained cash (A.Y. 199798) Whether on facts the case and in law, Appellate Tribunal is correct in deleting addition of ₹ 2,50,000/on account of unexplained cash seized during search action and subsequently declared by the assessee before Settlement Commission although the application of the assessee was abated by the Settlement Commission u/s 245HA of the Act? ( e) Unexplained expenditure/Payments Whether on facts the case and in law, Appellate Tribunal is correct in granting the relief in the case of assessee based on block assessment of Shri Kantibhai P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing effective relief of ₹ 1,94,19,190/out of total unexplained cash received of ₹ 2,07,20,084/on the ground that this amount has already been added as unexplained investment in lands? ( ii) Whether on facts the case and in law, effective relief of ₹ 1,94,19,190/allowed by the Appellate Tribunal amounts to double relief of the same amount when the addition of this amount in fact made on account of undisclosed income invested in lands has already been deleted ? ( j) Addition on account of cash payment of ₹ 45,03,516/in A Y 199798 and also of ₹ 75,34,840/in A Y 199798. ( i) Whether on facts the case and in law, Appellate Tribunal is correct in allowing credit of addition made on account of u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s other person who was also involved in the land deal. Though there may be some arguable question of Tribunal accepting persons other than Bhagwanbhai as copurchaser from whose sources the sale consideration might have come, insofar as the assessee is concerned, his stand is that he can be asked to only explain 50%, remains unshakable. This question is therefore not considered. 5. The Question( b) pertains to purchase of Kathwada land. Here also, the Tribunal believed that assessee can be asked to explain 50% of the total investment of ₹ 59,64,993/and not the full amount. This question is therefore not considered. 6. Question( c) pertains to a very small sum of ₹ 4 lakhs. Only on this ground, we do not entertain the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
