9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he transferred it to Waheguru Enterprise and Sapan Traders, which is clearly a systematic financial maneuver to legitimate illicit moneys and evade taxes. It is appropriate to follow the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment, wherein SLP filed by the assessee is dismissed confirming the Tribunal s decision to come to the conclusion that the entire loan transaction was not genuine, in the case of Pavankumar M. Sanghvi [ 2018 (7) TMI 1155 - SC ORDER] . In the absence of any evidence from the assessee, the grounds raised by the assessee are untenable and therefore the same is rejected. The findings given by the lower authorities does not require any interference and the addition is sustained. Addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) - Difference between value adopted for stamp duty and purchase consideration for the land - HELD THAT:- A.R. could not produce before us the assessee s share of 24.35% namely the proportionate amount being the difference in market value and purchase consideration which is being treated as income of the assessee u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In the absence of any further details, we have no other option of confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Thus this g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties namely Guru Enterprise, Unique Trading, Mahavaisnavi and KKIndersriz. It was also observed that no cash withdrawal for expenses like rent, electricity, water, newspaper, fuel etc. of RSP and is not reflecting in the bank account. There is an Inspector of Income Tax was deputed to visit the premises of RSP at UG-8, Harekrishna Complex, C.T.M Char Rasta, Amraiwadi, Ahmedabad-380026 on 15.11.2018. The Inspector submitted his report that RSP office situated on 2nd Floor of 3 storey building which is a small shop and shutter of which was half closed on that day. Nearby peoples were inquired that RSP Office which is found to be closed in most of the times. Copy of the said RSP Office photographs is reproduced in the assessment order. Further perusal of the records of RSP, it is observed that during the assessment year 2016-17, RSP has received only donation amounting to Rs. 14,73,309/- whereas as per the bank account statement of the RSP in Oriental Bank of Commerce, total amount credited is Rs. 38,15,03,885/-. That apart from RSP is maintaining two other bank account one at Bank of India and another at Central Bank of India. Further enquiry of M/s. Sterlite Inc and Shah And Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent (Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Naroda Branch) of Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) in which the donation of Rs.52,00,000/- was credited and found that there is immediate withdrawal on the same day of Rs.27,00,000/-in the name of M/.s Sterlite Inc and Rs.25,00,000/- in the name of M/s. Shah and Co. The AO on further enquiry found that both the accounts of the above ' persons where opened by Shri Mukesh Mehta whose business was stated to be as a cloth merchant and commission agent. The AO on spot verification found that the premises of Shri Mukesh Mehta at 31 Kirti Society, Sabarmati was occupied by another person Mr. Shah who does job work in Torrent Power Ltd. The AO on further enquiry of the bank account found that Rs.52 lac withdrawn by Shri Mukesh Mehta has further transferred to Waheguru and Sapan Traders. The appellant despite given several opportunities has not availed the opportunity of being heard. 3.3. It is seen that appellant has paid Rs.52,00,000/- as donation to Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular). The Assessing Officer has clearly brought out facts that bank accounts of above political party have been used by the accommodation entry provider where the don ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in Tax Appeal No. 1037 of 2017 has affirmed the above order holding as under:- "3. Perusal of the orders on record and in particular, the above quoted portion of the order of the Tribunal would make it clear that the entire issue is based on appreciation of evidence on record and thus factual in nature. The Tribunal has given elaborate reasons to come to the conclusion that the entire transaction was not genuine. In absence of any perversity, we do not see any reason to interfere. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee however vehemently contended that the assessee had received loans through cheques from lenders who had confirmed the same. Their accounts are audited and filed before the Revenue authorities. Thus, the genuineness of the transactions, the capacity of the lender and the factum of lending all have been established. Addition under section 68 of the Act there could not have been made. However, as noted, the Tribunal has minutely examined the position of the lenders, the circumstances under which, the amounts were allegedly loaned to come to the conclusion that the transactions were not genuine." 3.5. In view of the above, the donation of Rs.52,00,000/- cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that all the conditions laid down under the provisions of Section 80GGC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been satisfied by the appellant. b. It is prayed that the honourable tribunal may be pleased to delete the addition of Rs. 52,00,000/- made u/s. 80GGC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 being bad in law and in facts. 3. Addition of Rs.16,17,478 under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Tax effect - Rs. 5,59,777) a. The CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the addition of Rs.16,17,478 being share of the appellant in difference between value adopted for stamp duty and purchase consideration for the land under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the relevant explanation and documents available on record which provide that the total consideration paid by the acquirers was Rs. 12,06,28,202/- as against the stamp value of the property of Rs. 8,53,06,122. Since, the total consideration discharged by the acquirers (including appellant) was more than the stamp duty value of the property, provisions of the section 56(2)(vii) of the Act would not be applicable. b. it is prayed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
