9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share as co-owner in two flats of Mumbai even when no incriminating material was found in the search for purchasing of such shares in the flats and were duly disclosed in the regular books of account and bank account of the assessee. Similarly, the assessee has also challenged enhancement in the income alleging an unexplained investment of Rs. 12,24,600/- being 1/5th share of the assessee in L-11, APMC Navi Mumbai property which was also disclosed in the audited balance sheet of proprietorship concern. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee has filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 15.10.2010 u/s 139(1). A search and seizure action was carried out u/s. 132(1) at the residential/business premises of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- 90,00,000/- Stamp duty 51,000/- 51,000/- Misc. Expenses 13,991/- 13,991/- Legal Charges 91,530/- 91,530/- Sub Registrar Fee 30,000/- 30,00/- Total 91,86,521/- 91,86,521/- The cost of each flat comes Rs. 91,86,521/- after including the above mentioned expenses. Hence, the total registered value of both the flats is Rs. 1,83,73,042/- (Rs. 91,86,521 * 2). 5.4 Further, the statement of assessee Sh. Hitesh Mittal, also co-owner of both flats recorded on 17.01.2014 during search conducted at Flat No. 1001 & 1002, Sabari Basera Building, Opp. Diamond Garden., Chembur, Mumbai is also considered in which he himself admitted that the entire investment of Rs. 2.50 Cr. (Rs. 2.00Cr. purchase amount + Rs. 0.50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear under consideration as the sale deed of both the flats was made in the F.Y. 2009-10 relevant to the year under consideration and balance amount of Rs. 0.50 cr. is proportionately divided and added to the subsequent year as the sale deed was made on 17.03.2010 and construction might had been made thereafter i.e. during F.Y. 2010-11. Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is being initiated on this issue for concealment of income & furnishing of inaccurate particulars of his income. (Addition of Rs. 33,33,333/-) 3. Ld. CIT(A) has given part relief on this addition and thereafter has made the enhancement of Rs. 12,24,600/- after observing and holding as under: I have given careful consideration to the submission of the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/10th in case of Neeraj Mittal and Hitesh Mittal. However, a perusal of the balance sheet of M/s Satellite Exports, proprietorship appellant shows Rs. 21,45,060/- (not Rs. 18,00,000/-) as investment in new s.33,33,333/- as concluded by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 21,45,060/- is confirmed in the hands of the appellant Sh. Hitcsh Mittal as his unexplained investment in 1/10th share of the flat 1001-1002, Shabri Basera Building, Opp. Diamond Garden Chembur, Mumbai. The appellant gets a relief of Rs. 11,88,273/-. The ground is appeal, is therefore partly allowed. 2. Further, the balance Sheet of Satellite Exports shows under fixed assets,' an addition of Rs. 12,24,600/- on account of l/5th share L-II God ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant findings given in the impugned order as well as material referred to before us. As noted above the first addition of Rs. 21,45,060/- under challenge is for the value of 1/10th share of the assessee in the two joint residential flat nos. 1001 and 1002 at Shabri Basera, Diamond Garden, Chembur, Mumbai though the said investment of Rs. 21,45,060/- in the said flats by the assessee is duly disclosed in the regular books of account of the assessee and audited balance sheet submitted in the original return of income. During the course of search, though no incriminating material at all was found about the same but in the statement of the assessee recorded by the revenue, he stated the cost of the two flats at Rs. 2,00,00,000/- besides anothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heet of the assessee as on 31/03/2010 filed as above. Qua this addition again, no incriminating material in respect of the same was found at the time of search. In fact, the CIT(A) made this addition, though not made by the Assessing Officer, by picking up the above figure only from the audited balance sheet of the assessee as above and from nowhere else. Thus, since the above investment is duly disclosed in the regular books of account, no adverse cognizance is permitted. 9. Accordingly, the additions which has been made by the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) are beyond the scope of Section 153A as per law and principle laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court cited supra wherein it has been held that in the case where assessment has at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
