9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould be levied must be considered on the basis of the judicial determination. It must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that there was actually income and further such income was not disclosed. The mere fact of addition on estimated basis particularly when the undidsclosed income is concluded on the inference flowing from the inability of the assessee to establish the case pleaded by him, will not be sufficient for the purpose of imposition of penalty. An estimation so made may be correct or may not be correct. The degree of proof required for imposition of penalty is quite different from and is on a much higher pedestal, then required for the purpose of making additions on estimated basis and de hors sufficient evidence, penalty cannot be levied. Such view has been expressed in CIT vs. Dr.Giriraj Agarwal Giri [2012 (8) TMI 617 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Becharbhai P.Parmar [2012 (4) TMI 418 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] relied upon on behalf of the assessee. Undisclosed income has been ultimately determined purely on estimated basis shorn of adequate reference to underlying material. The estimation has been made with caveats like to put an end to the litig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It will be apt to reproduce the quantum order for ready reference. 1. With this appeal, the Assessee has challenged the correctness of the order of the ACIT, Anand Circle framed u/s. 158BC r.w.s. 143(3) and 254 of the Act. 2. This is the second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, the assessment was framed u/s. 158BC r.w.s. 143(3)of the Act for the block period from F.Y. 1987-88 to 18.03.1997 vide order dated 23.03.1999. The litigation travelled up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 11.08.2006 in IT(SS)A Nos. 316, 299 58/Ahd/2003 set aside the matter for deciding the matter afresh after verification of the claim of the assessee. 3. The additions made by the A.O. as agitated by the assessee before us can be understood from the following chart:- No. Nature of addition Amount (Rs.) 1 Unaccounted investment in 32 guntha at R.S. No. 813, Anand. 75000 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Unaccounted investment in land of 26,81 guntha at R.S. No. 1182/1 50000 18 Unaccounted investment in 17.86 guntha of land at P.P. No. 125 71000 19 Unaccounted Dalali 5000 20 Unaccounted investment and business profit in 44 guntha of land at R.S. No. 691 New, 873 Old 353000 21 Unaccounted Dalali 10000 22 Unaccounted investment in 54.70 guntha of land at R.S. No. 380, Mogri 50000 23 Unaccounted investment in 66.78 guntha of land at R.S. No. 1182/1, 1182/2 147500 24 Unaccounted investment in 30.47 guntha of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 263340 39 Unaccounted investment in KVP / FD and others as per Annexure K, L, M. 250712 40 Unaccounted investment in household valuables 167636 41 Unaccounted deposits in Bank account of the assessee 75000 42 Unaccounted investment in shares as discussed investment in shares 98187 43 Unaccounted money lending through promissory note of M/s. Swaminarayan Financier 264781 44 Miscellaneous investment in Maruti Car Typewriter others 154923 4. The allegation of the revenue is that the assessee is mainly involved in the business of sale and purchase of land and also earning br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime of search which contain notings in respect of purchase of land from various parties. The entries on the debit side reflected the payment made to the land owner and the entries on the credit side represented the money received from the purchaser. The total of the receipt side was ₹ 1,46,32,959/- whereas the payments aggregated to ₹ 1,00,18,271/-. The A.O. has added the difference of ₹ 46,20,688/- as unaccounted business profits of the assessee in addition to the amounts found paid as per the Banakhats. 8. The entries in the register appears to be pertaining to the Banakhats found at the time of search on the basis of which the Assessing Officer has made the additions as exhibited in the chart elsewhere. The contention of the assessee was dismissed merely because the amounts did tally but the dates did not. 9. In our considered opinion, the claim of the assessee that he was acting only as a broker/conduit cannot be brushed aside lightly. We are of the opinion that additions of such magnitude should be taken to its logical conclusion. What was found from the premises of the assessee can be understood from the fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for further verification for the reason that 20 years have since elapsed and the impugned lands must have changed 3-4 hands in this period. Therefore, it would not be practical for the Assessing Officer to do the necessary verification and it would not only be injustice to the revenue but also to the assessee to bring evidences after a lapse of 20 years. 13. But, then every litigation should come to an end. In our considered opinion, there is no point in keeping this dispute alive, therefore considering the nature of transactions vis- -vis the contentions of the assessee and pointing out that further verification would not result into any purposeful and meaningful result after a gap of 20 years, Therefore, to put an end to the litigation an addition of ₹ 25 lakhs should meet the ends of justice on the given peculiar facts of the case in hand. 14. We accordingly direct the A.O. to restrict the additions to ₹ 25 lakhs which will cover all the related unexplained investments as alleged by the A.O. 15. Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed. 4. From the appellate order of the Co-ordinate Bench in quantum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
