9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 29-12-2019 for AY 2015-16 and on 27-12-2019 for AY 2015-16. It is admitted position that facts as well as issues are quite identical in both the appeals and adjudication in any one appeal shall apply to the other year also. For the purpose of adjudication, facts from case records of AY 2015-16 have been culled out in this order. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- 1. For that the Order of the Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. AO are bad in l aw and circumstances and is opposed to the principles of natural justice, equity, and fair play. 2. For that the Order of the Ld. AO failed to bring on records any material evidences to prove that the cash payment was made by the Gokulam Group ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he determination of the total Income of the assessee, a notice u/s. 153A r.w.s. 153C was issued by Ld. AO to the assessee on 10-07-2019. However, the assessee did not file any return of income. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued on 25-11- 2019 explaining the details of information in the possession of the Department and asking the assessee to file the return of Income. The assessee admitted same income as offered in the original return of income which was found not acceptable by Ld. AO. 4.4 The assessee denied having received impugned sum of Rs. 25 Lacs in individual capacity but submitted that the amount of Rs. 125 Lacs was received from SGCFCL towards settlement of shareholders of M/s South India Wire and Ropes Pvt. Ltd and he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l account on 26.04.2014 & 03.05.2016. It is reflected in my bank account statement (A/c number - Dhanlaxmi Bank- 000200900003972). This amount was received by me as an advance to give to share holders of M/s. South India Wires and Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Out of Rs. 2.25 Crores received, approximately Rs. 1.44 Crores was paid to three of the share holders namely Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd., Full Tech Investment Ltd. and Solver Wires Pvt. Ltd. towards the purchase of shares of M/s. South India Wires and Ropes Pvt. Ltd. Further, Rs. 55 lakhs was used to pay the bank to get the property document pledged in the bank by me. Balance of Rs. 26 lakhs was spent towards day to day expenses incurred in respect of process of acquiring of M/s. South India Wires and Ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch payment of cash to shareholders. In the absence of supporting evidences, the aforesaid amount was treated as unaccounted business income in the hands 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 ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee 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. 7. In ground No.6, Ld. AR has raised a legal ground that the 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
