9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s assessed in the hands of the M/s. B.U. Bhandari Real Estate Corporation. In such scenario, terming the assessee as ultimate beneficiary is not appropriate as evident through the facts on record. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Ch. Atchaiah (1995 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT) has clearly held that assessment has to be done in the right hands. Therefore, in the present case, when sale of land transaction has been done by the partnership firm, addition cannot be made in the hands of the individual assessee even though he is a partner of the firm. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1028/PUN/2017 And ITA No.1029/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2019 - SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein it was observed that Shri Sunil Kothari of M/s. Pooja Exports who was a Director in the M/s. Cornerstene Estates Pvt. Ltd. has paid cash of ₹ 7,88,63,213/- for the purchase of land situated at village Wakad Plot 143 R ( 153868 Sq. ft.) over and above the agreement value of ₹ 5,94,00,000/- to M/s. B.U. Bhandari Real Estate Development Corporation which was the seller of above mentioned land. Mr. Sunil Kothari, in his statement recorded on oath during the course of search/survey proceedings accepted to have paid ₹ 7,88,63,213/- to M/s. B.U. Bhandari Real Estate Development Corporation. He disclosed this set of fact on the basis of seized documents. 4. After perusing the facts, the Assessing Officer took a view that & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee s share is 10% i.e. ₹ 78,86,321/- which he has not shown in his return of income and therefore, same was added to the total income of the assessee u/s.68 of the Act. 5. During First Appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) also has upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer. According to the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the entire land transaction done by the partnership firm, there were 10 beneficiaries and accordingly, their share of income should have been reflected in their individual return of income which they have not done. It was explained before the Ld. CIT(A) that as per books of accounts, the land that was sold belongs to the partnership firm and that the entire consideration received was received in the books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 3 others reported as 68 taxmann.com 359 (Kar.) wherein the proposition of law laid down by these judgments is that assessment has to be done in the right hands. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has placed reliance on the orders of the Sub-ordinate Authorities. 9. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We have also analyzed the judicial pronouncements placed before us and gone through the books of account of the assessee as well as partnership firm. It is demonstrated that cash payment was made by the M/s. Pooja Export and credited to the firm M/s. B.U. Bhandari Real Estate Corporation. Transaction of the amount was assessed in the hands of the M/s. B.U. Bhandari Real Estate Corporation. In such scenario, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
