9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs was 60:20:20 respectively was there as Shri Baldevbhai Patel and Sailseshbhai Patel and Shri Manish Ramanbhai Patel i.e. assessee. The additional amount paid in cash on money was admittedly paid by the other two-owners and not by the assessee as per the reply filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. In fact, the assessee s portion of share only 20% i.e. of 1,77,000/- and CIT(A) has categorically observed that both co-owners has challenged the ratio of land holdings amongst co-owners who challenged addition of on money on the ground that money received earned on sale of land were utilized by said co-owners for making money payment of land. This explanation was not taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer as wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in making the addition of Rs. 13,07,000/- in the hands of the assessee. Furthermore an addition of INR 1,77,000/- was also made in the hands of appellant , presuming share paid towards stamp-duty, even though Baldevbhai Patel (one of the co-owner(s))had on-record admitted that he had solely paid the amount towards the stamp-duty and the assessee had no role to play therein. 4. Further in the case of PCIT v Bhagwanbhai K. Patel (2019) it was held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, that an assessee is liable only to explain the sources for his share in the purchase transaction. Applying the rationale of the above case-law, the assessee in this case reasonably justified the discharge of the payment for the purchase transaction and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. 3. The return of income was filed on 25-03-2010 declaring total income of Rs. 3,10,110. The case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 28-03-2014. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee along with other two co-owners had purchased land for Rs. 1,50,00,000/- as per registered sale deed. The assessee made payment of Rs. 30,00,000/- by cheque out of total amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-, other two co-owners had made payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- by cheque and remaining payment of Rs. 70,00,000/- was made in cash. The Assessing Officer enquired as to who made payment in cash of Rs. 70,00,000/- as there was no share specified in investment sale/purchase land. The assessee submitted before the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration. After taking cognizance of the reasons and the documents, we are condoning the delay but this should not be taken as precedent in any other matters. 7. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the addition to the 20% out of the total addition of Rs. 41,78,333/- and therefore the appeal needs to be dismissed. 8. Heard ld. Departmental Representative and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the search action against Mr. Baldevbhai Patel was not based for reopening of assessee s case and assessee as well as co-owners i.e. Shri Baldevbhai Patel and Saileshbhai Patel had admitted that the share of three purchasers was 60:20:20 respectively was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
