9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties. No valuation of the property was done by the AO to arrive at the proper findings. Thus, it will be appropriate to remand back these issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification as well as allow the assessee to cross examine the sellers. Thus, we are accepting the submissions of the Ld. AR to remand back these matters to the file of the Assessing Officer. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Appeal allowed for statistical purpose. - I.T.A. No. 1268/DEL/2009, I.T.A. No. 1269/DEL/2009, I.T.A. No. 3747/DEL/2011, I.T.A. No. 3748/DEL/2011 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2019 - Shri G. D. Agrawal, Vice President And Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Ashwani Taneja, CA For the Respondent : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR ORDER PER BENCH These four appeals are filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue against the orders dated 30.01.2009, 13.05.2011, 27.02.2009, and 13.05.2011 passed by CIT(A)- Meerut for A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- I.T.A. No. 1268/DEL/2009 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustified in confirming the addition without proving any actual transfer of money by the assessee and relying on the statement of others even recorded not by the A.O himself. 12.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustified in confirming the addition without considering the fact that the property under consideration was in dispute and the fact of litigation was concerned by the seller. 13.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustified in confirming the addition ignoring the fact that various observations made by the authorities their respective orders are either incorrect or are untenable. 14.Without prejudice to above grounds the additions as made is very excessive. I.T.A. No. 1269/DEL/2009 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in 1. dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 2. Confirming the addition of ₹ 8.50 crores in the absence of valid reason, basis and evidence. 3. Confirming the addition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has ignored the provision of section 292C according to which all statement document and papers found and seized during the course of scorch constitute or, evidence for any proceeding under the Act, Accordingly, the same shall be admissible even for the penalty proceedings. 4. Whether in view of the above position of law CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty by ignoring tire direct evidence of Sale-cum-receipt agreement found and which was executed by the same vendor and vendee for the same property ur.der their respective signatures signifying the value of property under consideration, und also other circumstantial evidence in the form of proportionate share of on-money found in individual lockers, opening and operations of lockers after the date execution of sole deed etc. 5. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be vacated and the assessment order passed by the A.O. be restored. I.T.A. No. 3748/DEL/2011 1. Whether CIT (A) was justified in jaw and on facts in deciding a separate and Independent proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) entirely on the basis that the addition has been deleted but is subject matter of appeal before the Hon ble Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was received on-money for the sale of the property in question, as the deal was for ₹ 16.5 crores. The Jain Brothers specifically stated that out of 16.5 crores, ₹ 8 crores were declared in the sale-deed and remaining amount of ₹ 8.5 crores was received in cash. Similarly, Smt. Veer Bala Agarwal, in her statement stated that total consideration was ₹ 2.25 crores, out of which ₹ 45 lacs were shown in the registered sale-deed and remaining amount of ₹ 1.80 crores was received in cash from Sanjeev Agarwal. On the basis of the statement of the vendors, the Assessing Officer made the addition of ₹ 8.5 crores in the hands of M/s Superior Exims (P) Ltd. where Shri Sanjeev Agarwal is the Director. Similarly, an addition of ₹ 1.80 crores was made in the hands of Shri Sanjeev Agarwal in his individual capacity. Both the additions were confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal vide order dated 22.10.2010 deleted the additions. The Revenue filed appeal before the Hon ble Allahabad High Court wherein the Hon ble High Court while remanding back the matter to Tribunal vide order dated 25.08.2014 held as under: We have heard both the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese submissions of the Ld. AR. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. We have also gone through the order/directions dated 25.08.2014 of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court. After going through the records especially the statement of Shri Sanjeev Agarwal dated 02.03.2005 in the very first answer to a question, Shri Sanjeev Agarwal one of the assessee hereinabove stated that the contents of affidavit/statement given by Smt. Veer Bala Agarwal is not correct. Besides that from the order sheet dated 22.06.2007, it can be seen that the assessee Shri Agarwal wanted to examine/cross examine the seller. From the perusal of the Assessment Record before us it can be seen that on the note sheet of 02.07.2007 there is no mention as to cross examination of the seller. Thus, there is no opportunity given to the assessee for cross examination of the seller. From the summary of the findings of the Assessing Officer it can be seen that the total money paid by buyer in cash which was found in the lockers was on the estimated basis. But no verifications were done by the Assessing Officer as relates to the slips of the PNB bank found in the locker. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
