2021 (4) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ily did not indicate any date of cash payment and hence, the Tribunal ought not to have confirmed the additions for the years in question - we are at loss to appreciate as to what is the significance of this submission. The Tapadia family admitted to have received on-money from the assessee in the financial years relevant to assessment years under consideration. Once the factum of receipt of on-money is established, there cannot be any separate years of the seller receiving on-money and the buyer giving it. This contention is also repelled. Three decisions in support of deletion of the additions, which were not dealt with in the order - We find that the substance of the decisions is the same subject matter. Once an issue has been deci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 06-07 and 2010-11. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee purchased certain land at Baner, which was jointly owned by Tapadia family and Bansal family. During the course of search u/s.132 at the business premises of Tapadia family, certain incriminating documents were found indicating that the assessee paid on-money in the purchase transaction. Statement of Tapadia family was recorded in which the receipt of on-money from the assessee was accepted and the amounts were also offered for taxation in the two years under consideration. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for the on-money paid by the assessee in the assessment years 2006-07 2010- 11, being the same period for which Tapadia family accepted to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... letion of the additions, which were not dealt with in the order. We find that the substance of the decisions is the same subject matter. Once an issue has been decided on the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no separate need to discuss each and every decision relied by the assessee when the cumulative effect of all such decisions is taken into consideration. 8. The next point raised by the assessee is that the Tribunal in para 4.1 of its order referred to certain decisions but omitted to consider four other decisions as mentioned in the Miscellaneous Applications. 9. Here again, we do not find any infirmity in the order because the other decisions were expressly noted in the order and their ratio was dul .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X