9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 153A of the Act was initiated in respect of the searched persons - HELD THAT:- To prove the content of seized document, the only other corroborative evidence available with the AO is the statements recorded from the Directors and employees of the Rohan Group. It is relevant to observe, in the statement recorded from Ms. Chaulla Joshi, a specific query was raised regarding the figures appearing against Siddhesh Jyoti E F Wing. In reply, it has been stated that the figures represent the quoted price for per square feet carpet area and the figure of ₹ 5,400/- represent rate per sq.ft. of built up area to arrive at the lump sum registered aggregate value. Except these evidences no other concrete evidence is available with the AO to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. The common dispute arising in all these appeals relates to addition made on account of alleged on money received on sale of flats. 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident company and is stated to be engaged in Real Estate Development. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 26.05.2011 in case of M/s Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd. and other companies and entities promoted by Shri Haresh N Mehta and late Jitendra N. Mehta as well as in the residential premises of the Directors and employees of the entities being part of Rohan Group. In course of search and the seizure operation in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey had allegedly accepted receipt of on-money. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the contention of the assessee. He observed, the contents of the seized document clearly indicate receipt of on money by various entities in the group. He observed, the retraction of statement after considerable time lapse is only an afterthought. Further, he observed, in case of other group entities, such as, M/s Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd., Goodwill Properties Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Silver Arch Builders Promoters Pvt. Ltd. receipt of on-money was also found. Thus, he ultimately concluded that the assessee had received on-money on sale of projects developed by it. Further, while rejecting assessee s contention that the seized document only mentioned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being developed by the assessee. Thus, he observed, addition on account of on money receipt can only be made in respect of these two projects and not on all sales made by the assessee. Thus, modifying the order of the AO, learned Commissioner (Appeals) directed him to add 30% on the gross sales of Shiddhesh Jyoti E and F Wing towards on money receipt. 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted, based on a single seized document found in a search conducted in case of some other entity, additions have been made in case of the assessee on account of on money. She submitted, entries in the seized document relating to assessee s project were properly explained by Ms. Chaulla Joshi, who was employee of the Rohan Group. She submitted, except ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue is concerned, undisputedly, based on search and seizure operation carried out in case of Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd. and other group entities, proceedings under section 153C were initiated against the assessee for assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13. Whereas, based on very same information received during the search and seizure operation, regular assessments were made under section 143(3) of the Act for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. It is evident, the genesis of the additions made on account of on money received is the seized document being, page No. 114 of Annexure 1. In course of search and seizure proceedings carried in case of Rohan Group of entities, statements were recorded under section 132(4) from Directors of the Companie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ument, the only other corroborative evidence available with the AO is the statements recorded from the Directors and employees of the Rohan Group. It is relevant to observe, in the statement recorded from Ms. Chaulla Joshi, a specific query was raised regarding the figures appearing against Siddhesh Jyoti E F Wing. In reply, it has been stated that the figures of ₹ 18,000/- represent the quoted price for per square feet carpet area and the figure of ₹ 5,400/- represent rate per sq.ft. of built up area to arrive at the lump sum registered aggregate value. Except these evidences no other concrete evidence is available with the AO to establish on record that on money was actually received by the assessee. Therefore, proper enquir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
