9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow 5/6th of the onmoney paid by the assessee for purchase of the immovable property out of the total on-money of Rs. 76 Lakhs. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessment was based on the report of the DVAC submitted after due verification of the material found during the search conducted in the case of Ms.J.Jayalalitha and her associates. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee had failed to substantiate her claim that only 1/6th share was hers, that the payment of onmoney had been confirmed and that the receiving party had already paid taxes on the on-money. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow the assessee's claim of agricultural income though no evidence had been furnished at the scrutiny stage. 3.1 The assessee did not furnish any evidence to substantiate her claim of agricultural income though the onus of proof lies with the assessee. 3.2 The ld.CIT(A) did not consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. .R.Venkataswamy Naidu (29 ITR 529) wherein it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the adjudication as done in the impugned order. Having heard rival submissions and after perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. The assessee is a resident individual. The assessee did not file the return of income for this year. A notice u/s 148 was issued and the assessee filed 'Nil' return on 31.12.1997. The assessee filed certain income to the extent of Rs. 58.06 Lacs which was stated to be admitted by her under VDIS, 1997. The directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption (DVAC), Chennai conducted search in the case of Ms. J. Jayalalithaa, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and registered a case. In the charge sheet, the lists of assets found in the name of Ms. J. Jayalalithaa and her associates were also enclosed and the copy of the same was given to accused persons. The assessee figured in this list and accordingly, the case was reopened wherein impugned additions were made. The Ld. CIT(A) provided certain relief to the assessee against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. The impugned issues are adjudicated as under. 3. Payment of on-money 3.1 The assessee, along with other co-owners, sold certain property situated at 1, Luz Avenue whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the money sent to one Smt. Sushila Ramasamy belonged to the assessee. The same stem from the assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Bharani Beach Resorts Private Ltd. (BBRPL) wherein it was noted that Smt. Sushila Ramasamy (a resident of Malaysia) made substantial deposits in the form of NRNR deposits / FCNR with Indian Bank as well as with State Bank of India. Out of these, certain deposits were given as security for loan of Rs. 3 Crores as availed by BBRPL from Indian Bank, Rs. 50 Lacs availed by Smt. L.Masilamani and Rs. 25 Lacs availed by Smt. V.Gunabhushani. Both these persons availed the loan and made investment in BBRPL. Ms. T.Chitra was MD of that concern. The amount of Rs. 3.75 Crores so received by BBRPL was utilized to make advances to various concerns in which the assessee and two others were partners. Subsequently, the loans with the banks were discharged against deposits. The corporate entity BBRPL became partner in the concerns. The enforcement directorate (ED) recorded statement of Smt. Sucharitha (the then Manager of Indian Bank) as well as from Sri Jaiaprakash (Manager of State Bank of India). From the statement of Smt. Sucharitha, it was seen that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 Lacs and Rs. 23.25 Lacs in the concern namely M/s Metal King and M/s Vinodh Video Visions. The assessee offered income under VDIS for Rs. 58.06 Lacs whereas accretion to the asset was for Rs. 103.29 Lacs. Accordingly, the differential of the two i.e., Rs. 45.23 Lacs, was added in assessee's hand as unexplained investment. 6.2 During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that Ld. AO did not take into consideration the loans obtained by the two concerns. M/s Metal King obtained loans of Rs. 31.73 Lacs from M/s Namadhu MGR and another loan of Rs. 11.72 Lacs from M/s Vinod Video Visions. Similarly M/s Vinod Vide Vision obtained loan of Rs. 17.50 Lacs from M/s Jaya Publication. Considering these loans, sources were available to the extent of Rs. 60.95 Lacs as against impugned addition of Rs. 45.23 Lacs as made by Ld. AO. Accepting the same, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 6.3 We find that the stated facts could not be controverted by revenue before us. The assessee is able to demonstrate that it has extra sources to the extent of Rs. 60.95 Lacs as against impugned addition of Rs. 45.23 Lacs. Therefore, we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
