9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion on account of credit card payment is deleted. Addition u/s 68 - unexplained liabilities - Assessee failed discharge his onus to prove - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has collected documents for discharging onus of the assessee and in most of the cases, documents have been filed. In respect of Rakesh Surve, although the assessee had filed loan confirmation, however, notice issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act had been returned unserved. In such circumstances, the Ld. AO should have made effort for verification of the same by way sending inspector from his office for verification of the party. As regards M/s. Mukund Associates from whom loan the Ld Counsel of the assessee has requested to provide one more opportunity for providing the documents in support. Thus we restore this issue of addition of Rs.43,80,000/- back to file of the AO for deciding afresh after examining documents filed by the assessee and conducting due enquires as required. Disallowance as personal expenses of the assessee - assessee has claimed certain expenses on account of motor car expenses, car loan interest, depreciation and telephone expenses - as the assessee failed to justify these expenses, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any adverse finding of investigation wing has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer- Thus addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of cash transactions is hereby deleted. Unexplained investment - evidence collected by the widow of the demised assessee i.e. legal heir - addition made in the assessment on account of the alleged purchase of the said flat, ONLY on the basis of a proposal which never materialized - HELD THAT:- As assessee has filed additional evidence to support that said flat was never allotted to the assessee and it was merely a proposal, which never materialized. In view of the evidence collected by the widow of the demised assessee i.e. legal heir, we feel it appropriate to admit the additional evidence and restore the matter to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for necessary verification from the relevant authorities regarding allotment of concerned flat and then decide the issue in dispute in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee/legal heir of assessee. Cash found during the course of the search - HELD THAT:- Assessee has given undertaking that the legal heir of the assessee has ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his widow, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the AO for deciding a fresh. It is needless to mention that the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. The ground of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 2091/MUM/2022, ITA No. 2092/MUM/2022 - - - Dated:- 2-2-2023 - SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) For the Assessee : Mr. Hitesh Shah, AR For the Revenue : Mr. Manish Ajudiya, DR ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeals by the deceased assessee through legal heir are directed against two separate orders, both dated 28/07/2022, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals)-54 [in short the Ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10, arising from the two separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, both on 29/12/2011. The issues raised in both the appeals are permeating from same set of facts and circumstances, hence both the appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he year under consideration, the assessee had acted as real estate agent engaged in purchase and sale of land and was mainly dealing in plots awarded to villagers/farmers under scheme of CIDCO for allotment of 12.5 % area of land acquired. His business was carried out as a proprietary business in his personal name. A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, the Act ] was conducted in the case of one Shri Madan S. Kolambekar, who was dealing in land. Subsequently, search u/s. 132 of the Act was also carried out in the case of assessee on 18.02.2009. Consequent to the search and seizure action, notice u/s. 153A of the Act dated 12.10.2009 was issued and served on the assessee asking to file the return of income. In response, the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 26.02.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 4,50,960/-. Thereafter, statutory notices under the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In the assessment completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer determined total income at Rs. 12,93,49,967/- after making several additions to the total income declared in the return of income by the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se payments are not properly explained by the appellant. The ld. Counsel submitted that all the payments towards the credit cards are either made by assessee or M/s. Sadguru Arts whose proprietor is Mr. Sunil Gulati HUF and that same are duly reflected in the books of accounts. Further, he argued that no claim of such expenditure is even made in the books as the same is part of withdrawals for the year in the capital account. The assessee further explained that in view of cash withdrawal out of capital account during various years justify the balance amount, which the Ld CIT(A) has upheld due to not explained by way of cheque. 9. The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the order of ld. CIT(A) and requested for confirming the addition as sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 10. We have perused the rival submissions of the parties and material on record. The credit cards referred by the Assessing Officer refers to two columns, one for expenses and another for payments. So, the disallowance could have been made to the extent of payments made to credit card and not expenses incurred or credit amount from credit cards. It is observed that the ld. CIT(A) has carried out due verific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd - Rs.2, 16,00,000/- : The assessee has filed confirmation from the said party. In response to the notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, the party has submitted copy of ROl, bank statement. The party has stated that the advance made were towards purchase of land. M/s. Mahavir Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd - Rs.5,00,000/- : The assessee has filed confirmation from the said party. In response to the notice us. 133(6) of the Act, the party has submitted copy of ROl, bank statement. This amount represents advance for payment to villagers on behalf of M/s. Mahavir Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Madan Associates - Rs.2,71,00,000/- : The assessee has filed confirmation from the said party. In response to the notice us. 133(6) of the Act, the party has submitted copy of ROl, bank statement. The same is found to be in order. M/s. Guru Prerna Enterprises - Rs.1,60,00,000/- : This amount represents outstanding liability payable to M/s. Guru Prerna Enterprises for purchase of the flat from the said party. The assessee has filed sale agreement which may be considered. 12.1 Regarding the liability of Mr. Rakesh Surve and M/s. Mukund Associates, no satisfactory material could be pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ify these expenses, the Assessing Officer disallowed 25% of these expenses which worked out to Rs.61,309/-. During the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee relied on his own ITAT order for A.Y. 2003-04 to 2007-08 for this issue; however, the same could not be applied for the reason that those years are unabated years whereas the year under consideration is abated assessment year. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) did not apply the ratio of those decisions being the year under consideration an unabated year and that the assessee has not proved that these expenses were wholly and exclusively utilized for his business. 18. In this regard, we agree with the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) as the year under consideration is unabated year and has no refrence to any incriminating material found in the course of search. But we find that the details of total of expenses filed before the Ld CIT(A) by the assessee is as under: Nature of Expenses Amount (₹) Depreciation 195654 Interest on loan from Bank 56866 Motor car expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this purpose, the assessee at times borrows money from bank and others which is utilised for purchasing plots. Considering, the nature of business of real estate agent of the assessee, the explanation given by the ld. Counsel is not unreasonable. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by the assessing officer. 23. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 24. Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: GROUND I:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54 , MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs 55,00,000/- as cash received in land deal from Mr. Madan Kolambekar inspite of the appellani already made a declaration of income to that extent and included in the return of income filed in response to notice us. 153A. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of cash received from Mr. Madan Kolambekar to the extent of Rs. 55,00,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 81,573/- treating the same as unexplained investment us. 69. Source of jewellery are fully explained during the assessment proceeding. He further erred in holding the amount of Rs. 16,81,573/- as unexplained investment us.69A of the Act. Even the addition is not in sync with his detailed reasoning. Therefore under the facts and consideration additions are unwarranted. The appellate pray to delete the addition of Rs.16,81,573/-. GROUND VII :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit for Rs. 1,74,01,3671- u/s. 68 of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit us.68 to the extent of Rs 1,74,01,367/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted GROUND VIII:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the estimated disallowance of Rs. 30,577/- made on account of personal element in certain expenses. The appellant being aggrieve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 55 lakh observing as under: 6.3 The facts of the case and findings of the AO recorded in the Assessment Order and the written submissions of the appellant have been considered. The facts of the case are that as per the main part of the status report as on 31.10.2008, the total payments made to Shri Suni Gulati for this plot - Kachha 33, Vadghar (Page No. 226 of Annexure A-1 seized from the office of Shri Madan Kolambekar) are Rs.621 lakh. Further, in the ledger register, Annexue A-1, seized from the office of Shri Madan Kolambekar on 06.02.2009 ( Page No. 175 {6/F No. 174}), shows a total payment made for the aforesaid plot only to the tune of Rs.271 lakh. Further, the development charge sheet ie the third Annexure to the Status Report ( page no. 221 ) shows an amount of Rs.350 lakh against the name of the assessee. The amount of Rs.271 lakhs has been paid through cheques and it was reflected in the bank account in Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd of Shri Sunil Gulati.This payment of Rs.271 lakhs was accounted for in the books of Shri Madan Kolambekar.The appellant had entered into an understanding with Shri. Madan Kolambekar for the supply of land admeasuring App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t material on record. As the assessee has candidly accepted receipt of ₹ 55 lakh and shown to have entered in books of accounts and offered as the undisclosed income of ₹ 68 lakh filed for the search period, thus, no separate addition in the case is required subject to verification of computation of income returned by the Assessing officer. The issue is therefore restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 31. In ground No. 2 of the appeal, the assessee is agitated by the addition of Rs.6,03,000/-sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) against the addition of ₹63,29,500/-which was made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained expenditure in relation to transactions for plot No. 154, sector-44, Dronagiri Node admeasuring 2950 m , which was handed over to Sri Madan Kolambkar. 32. Brief facts qua the issue in dispute are that in the course of search proceedings in the case of Sh Madan Kolmbkar certain incriminating documents were impounded/seized which reflected amount of ₹63,29,500/- paid by the Madan Kolmabkar to the assessee for purchase of plots for p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 35. In ground No. 3 of the appeal, the assessee is agitated by way of amount of ₹1,63,22,000/-sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) out of the addition of ₹7,57,07,000/-which was made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the cash/unaccounted transactions of the assessee. 36. The brief facts qua the issue in dispute are that on the basis of noting on various pages of annexure A-1 impounded/seized from the Arneja office, page No. 43 and 64 of Annexure A-3 is from Arneja office and various pages of annexure A-2 seized from Kaveri Building, made addition of ₹7,57,07,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has summarized all these additions in para 12.1 of the impugned order. For ready reference, said Paras are reproduced as under: 12.1 During the assessment proceedings, the A observed that various seized documents indicated cash/unaccounted transactions. (i) The AO observed that page no.1 of Annexure A-1 impounded from ArnejaOffice, contained details of cash payment of Rs.2,00,000/- were made by the assessee to Mr. Anil Sakpal. Certain cheque payment of Rs.3,00,000/ to Pandhari Balkrishan Gharat and Rs.50,000/- each to Jayshree Kamlakar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Y. 2008-09, cash of Rs.65 lakh were received by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.65 lakh u/s.69C on account of unaccounted cash received. (iv) The AO observed that page no.26 27 of Annexure A-1 impounded from Arneja Office, contained Cheque and cash payments were made to various farmers. Out of the total payments made of Rs.1,20,85,000/- an amount of Rs.2,64,000/- has been paid in cash by the assessee. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment along with supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. The AO observed that during the F.Y. 2008-09, an amount of Rs. 1,20,85,000/- of unaccounted payments (which include unaccounted cash payment of Rs.2,69,000) were made by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 1,20,85,000/- u/s.69C on account of unaccounted payment. Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.2,69,000/(Cash expenditure). (v) The AO observed that page no.30 to 35 of Annexure A-1 impounded from Arneja Office, contained cash of Rs.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r a total amount of Rs.7,49,00,000/- which was payable by the assessee. Out of this payable amount of Rs.7,49,00,000/- total amount of Rs. 1,61,00,000/- is mentioned as paid. As per thesheet, total payment of Rs.1,61,00.000/- has been made, out of which Rs.1,18,00,000/- has been paid by the assessee. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment along with supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. The AO observed that during the F.Y. 2008-09, payments of Rs.1,18,00,000/- were made by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.1,18,00,000/- u/s.69C on account of unaccounted payment. Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,18,00,000/-. (ix) The AO observed that page no.11 of Annexure A-2 seized from Kaveri Bldg, contained cash payment of Rs.87,00,000/- were made by the assessee to Mr. Vinay Gosawi out of which Rs.31.00,000/- were paid in F.Y. 2007-08. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment along with supporting documents and other relevant details. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized from Kaveri Bldg, contained that total amount paid to Shri Rakesh Surve are Rs.1,62,60,000/- while payment received are Rs.10,50,000/-, The payments are in respect of various properties/plots and are in the form of nmoney payments'. Out of these amount, payment of Rs.24,20,000/- pertains to F.Y. 2008-09. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the source of payment along with supporting documents and other relevant details. The assessee failed to furnish any details and explanation about the source of these cash payments. Accordingly, the A made addition of Rs.24,20,000/- u/s.69C on account of unaccounted cash payment Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs.24,20,000/-. 37. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee filed before him deleted the addition to the extent of ₹5,93,85,000/-and sustained the balance addition of ₹1,63,22,000/-observing as under: (a) In point no. (i) above, the amount of Rs.2 lakhs is already been made at Sr. no. (viii) for A.Y. 2008-09 and Rs. 1lakh already made as per serial no. (v) for A.Y. 2008-09. Since the appellant has su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- is deleted. k)In point no. (xi) above, the addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/- has already been considered at serial no. (ji) (vii) for A.Y. 200910 and at serial no. (il) para 9 for A.Y.2008-09. Hence, the same being repetitive, addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/- is deleted. (l) In point no. (xil) above, the AO had made addition of Rs.24,20,000/-(unaccounted cash payment is of Rs.2,25,000/-). The appellant was unable to substantiate claim of Rs.24.20 lakhs. Hence, the addition of Rs.24.20 lakhs is upheld. Addition in respect of cash payment to various parties and other cash transactions has been deleted. Therefore, the alternative disallowance u/s.40A(3) is also deleted. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, out of the total addition ofRs.7,57,07,000/-, the addition of Rs.5,93,85,000/- is deleted Accordingly, the ground no.7 of appeal is partly allowed. 13.Ground No.8 is related to addition of Rs.1,24,18,570/- made on account of Consideration received for plot 22, sector 6, Airoli . 38. Before us the Ld. counsel of the assessee has made submission in his written synopsis, which is reproduced as under: (i)The learned Assessing offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y that the entire addition of Rs. 1,63,22,000/- be deleted. However in view of the facts that the appellant is a deal maker and must be earning brokerage and/or commission from the land deals intermediated through him he has already offered a disclosure of ₹70 lacs to cover up the deficiency. The detailed break up of the disclosure amount is mentioned herein above. We would like to bring to your kind attention to the Honourable Jurisdictional Mumbai ITAT'S Order no; 3496 to 3498 and 4794/4795 dated 19.08.2016 in the appellant's own case for the earlier years of Block period AY. 2003-04 TO 2007-08 at paragraph no: 3, 19, 27 and 39 of the aforesaid order on account of cash/ unaccounted transaction cannot be made and hence be deleted. 39. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the lower authorities. 40. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Tribunal (supra) in assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09 has held the assessee as dealmaker only and the all the cash transactions have been held to be carried out by the assessee on behalf of the prospec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... go Global Logistic Ltd. So, in the proceedings after search in the assessment us. 153A of the Act addition should have nexus with seized material found at the time of search. Without prejudice to above, estimation of turnover and profit thereon in question is also not based on material on record.Agreeing to alternative contention of assessee, we find that assessee had been doing agency work on behalf of other parties. There is nothing on record to suggest that assessee was doing the said transaction at his own. Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to suggest that above land transaction were done by assessee in his name. It could have been corroborated by Assessing Officer with real instances of transaction which has not been done by him. In such situation, assessee cannot be taxed on the basis of on money transaction of its client. So, addition in hand of assessee is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted. 40.1 Respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal(supra), the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of cash transactions is hereby deleted. The ground No. three of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 41. The Ground No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition to the extent of Rs.1.03,83,945/- is deleted. Accordingly, the ground no.8 of appeal is partly allowed. 42. Before us on behalf of the assessee, it has been submitted as under: The Appellant, in the course of his business activity, had struck an understanding for the development of a society plot at Plot No. 22 in sector - 6 Airoli, belonging to Shri. Sai Raj Coop. Hsg. Society, around 20 years ago. Accordingly in the said proposed building flats were booked for others also i.e. for outsiders other than the members of the cooperative housing society. However, the said project did not take off for a long time. Hence, the society members approached another builder namely M/s. Raj Homes Udayvansh Builders Developers, 425, Arenja Corner, Plot No. 71, Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, for the development of the Society plot. That builder agreed to take over the Society plot for development but agreed to allot flats in other projects belonging to his group to persons for whom the Appellant had booked the flats.Since, the Appellant had earlier identified the members of the cooperative housing society and unified them togetherandconvinced them for the redevelopment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts qua the issue in dispute that regarding the source of cash of Rs.16,93,780/- on from the assessee, it was submitted that assessee being engaged in the real estate and property dealer in the Navi Mumbai area, where most of the plots are purchased from villagers, it was normal to keep amount of cash in the range of ₹ 10 to 15 lakh. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee also submitted that during the course of statement recorded on 19/02/2009, the assessee stated that cash found was out of withdrawal from his regular bank account and from his sale parties for payment to landowners. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee failed to substantiate details of withdrawals along with supporting evidence and therefore Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition. Before us the ld Counsel of the assessee submitted that due to demise of the assessee, his legal heir who is his widow is making attempt to collect necessary evidence and therefore matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer afresh. The Ld. DR on the Contra, submitted that already enough opportunity has been provided to the assessee, so addition should be upheld. 47. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the ₹16,81,574/-. 50. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that benefit of the jewelry as per the CBDT instruction No. 1916 dated 11/05/1994, the assessee should be allowed 500 grams of gold jewelry in respect of his wife, 250 grams for his unmarried daughter and 100 grams each for the assessee and a son. He further submitted that balance if any can be explained by way of disclosure of ₹ 70 lakh made by the assessee, which has been offered to tax for assessment year 2008-09 and assessment year 2009-10. 51. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the lower authorities. 52. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant middle of record. We find that the Hon ble Gujrat High Court in the case Cit Vs Ratanlal Vyarilal Jain (2010)(7) TMI 769 (Guj); Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT(Central), Kanpur Vs M/s Ghanshyam Das Johri (2013)(10)TMI 1187 ( Allahabad HC) and Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kailash Chnad Sharma (2004)(7) TMI 647( Rajasthan High Court) have consistently held that the position of the jewelry of the quantities specified in the instruct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity.However, as per the bank statement, the appellant has received an amount of Rs.80,00,000/- during the year from the said party. During the appellate proceedings, the AR has also not submitted confirmation of loan and other supporting evidences.Therefore, addition of Rs.2,16,00,000/- is upheld. iv) In the case of loan of Rs. 11,50,000/- to M/s. Chandra Brothers, the AO had issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act and the appellant has filed confirmation from the said party. Therefore, this loan is held as genuine. v) In respect of amount of Rs.5,92,918/- given to MIs. Guru Prerna Enterprises.The appellant has submitted before the AO that the said sum was payable to the developers towards society formation and other legal charges which was subsequently paid. The assessee has filed sale deed which may be considered. Therefore, no addition can be made in this regard vi) In respect of amount of Rs.90,00,000/- given to MIs. Narayan Trading, the appellant has filed MOU dated 24.07.2008 before the AO, wherein this amount i.e. 18.02.2009. Even during the appellate proceeding, the appellant has not justified that these expenses were incurred exclusively for the business p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the opinion that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the fact that amount in dispute was a trade advance to the assessee and concern of the Assessing Officer was that how that amount has been adjusted subsequently. We are of the opinion that as far as provisions of section 68 are concerned, the assessee has dischargedhis onus by way of filing MOU between the assessee and said party. Once the assessee filed the confirmation, onus sifted to the Assessing Officer and if he did not discharge his onus, the assessee cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the addition in respect of M/s Narayan Niryat India Private Limited is deleted. 53.3 Regarding the amount of ₹27,62,724/- from M/s Basant Reality, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has requested for one more opportunity. In the interest of the substantial justice particularly in view of the fact that assessee has already demised and being represented by his widow, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding a fresh. It is needless to mention that the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. The ground of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
