9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat any such payment was made even to a single shareholder. In our considered opinion, the onus was on assessee to establish that the impugned payment did not constitute the income of the assessee and this amount was disbursed to the shareholders. Assessee has miserably failed to prove the same and there is nothing on record to support this submission. Nothing has been shown to us that the assessee has otherwise admitted any income against the facilitation work stated to be carried on behalf of SGCFCL. Therefore, the arguments of Ld. AR are not acceptable. Ground Nos. 1 to 5 stands dismissed. Assessment was not based on any incriminating material that was ever found during the course of search - This argument is to be summarily rejected since the only basis to make the assessment in the case of the assessee is the incriminating material coupled with the statement made by Shri M. Suresh Babu indicating that the same shall have bearing on determination of total income of the assessee. The assessee himself has admitted the receipt of payment in cash. Therefore, the reasons to make the impugned assessments are well founded and we do not find any infirmity in the jurisdiction of Ld. AO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, which mandates presence incriminating materials to make an addition in the hands of the appellant. As is evident, the sole issue that arises for our consideration is additions arising out of search proceedings. 2. The Registry has noted delay of 18 days in the appeals, the condonation of which has been sought by the Ld. AR on the strength of affidavit of the assessee. Considering the period of delay, the delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and drew our attention to various documents placed on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the impugned amounts do not represent the income of the assessee but it was paid to shareholders. The Ld. CIT-DR controverted the arguments of Ld. AR and submitted that no plausible evidences could be furnished by the assessee to support the same. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. Assessment Proceedings 4.1 The assessee being resident individual is stated to be engaged as real estate commission agent. An assessment was framed against the assessee u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earch enquiries, summons were issued to the assessee by DDIT(Inv), Unit-3(3), Chennai and a statement was recorded from him with regard to the amounts received from SGCFCL. The assessee confirmed the receipt of cash of Rs. 125 Lacs from SGCFCL but stated that the amount was utilized for making the payment to 2500 small shareholders of the company M/s South India Ropes and Wires Pvt. Ltd. 4.6 The relevant extract of the statement made by the assessee were as under: - Q3. What was your role in acquiring process of the company M/s. South India Wires Ropes Limited by Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.? How much money have you received from M/s. Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. for your role? Please explain in details, Whether those all amounts received are accounted? Ans: I had provided legal and facilitation work myself and through my partnership firm M/s. South India Developers (PAN: ACSFS6498)) to M/s. Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. for the taking over of the South India Wire and Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Initially I had received Rs. 2.25 Crores from M/s, Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. through cheque and it got credited in my perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee and an addition of Rs. 25 Lacs was made for AY 2015-16 and another similar addition of Rs. 100 Lacs was made for AY 2016-17. Appellate Proceedings 5. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the statement made by Shri M. Suresh Babu that the assessee demanded 50% of payment as commission and paid an amount of Rs. 125 Lacs in cash which was not reflected in the books of accounts. The assessee admitted the receipt of the payment but stated that the amount was received for settlement of shareholders. However, the assessee could not produce any evidence to support the same either during assessment proceedings or during appellate proceedings. Therefore, the additions were upheld against which the assessee is in further appeal before us for both the years. Appellate Proceedings 6. We have carefully gone through the case records and duly considered the documents placed before us. It is admitted position that the amount of Rs. 125 Lacs in cash has exchanged hands between SGCFCL and the assessee. The same has not been recorded n the books of any of the parties. It may be true that the assessee was carrying out legal and facilitation work for SGCFCL for taking over of another entity i.e., t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
