9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mencement of the project from the State Government/local authorities. There is not even a single evidence which could show that the local authorities have granted/sanctioned permission to the assessee. The entire assessment has been made only on the basis of this MOU which firstly is a invalid document and secondly it does not give any clue in respect of the commencement of the SRA project. There is no other cogent material evidence brought on record to show that the assessee has actually received the consideration nor any such document was found during the course of the search proceedings. The entire addition is made on the basis of assumptions/presumptions, such addition cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y: Shri S.C. Tiwari Ms. Natasha Mangat For the Respondent by : Shri Kishan Vyas ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-41, Mumbai dt. 26.11.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 and Ld. CIT(A)-39 Mumbai dt. 26.2.2014 pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09. As both these appeals were heard together, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The sole grievance of the assessee relates to the addition of Rs. 20 crores on account of sale consideration. ITA No. 843/M/2014 A.Y. 2007-08 3. The assessee firm was constituted on 19.3.2006 with 5 partners. A search and seizure operation was conducted at the residential premises of one of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was pointed out that the MOU is dt. 8.3.2007 whereas M/s. Salasar Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., came into existence on 29.3.2007. It was also stated that the society who has given the rights to the assessee has itself terminated the development rights and a suit is pending. After considering the facts and the submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and confirmed the addition of Rs. 18,56,44,345/-. 5. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is before us. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been submitted before the lower authorities. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative supported the findings of the Revenue authorities. 7. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the relevant material evidence brought on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 18,56,44,345/-. ITA No. 3726/M/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 8. The sole grievance of the assessee relates to the addition of Rs. 6,73,45,900/-. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO once again relied upon the MOU found and seized during the course of the search proceedings in the residential premises of Gangadhar Shetty. This MOU has elaborately been discussed by us in ITA No. 843/M/2014. Continuing the findings given in the assessment year 2007-08, the AO observed that the Agreement for Sale was executed on 16.4.2007 for Rs. 8.50 crores. After deducting the cost, the AO arrived at the profit of Rs. 6,73,45,900/- an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led any condition/obligation to put the land in a marketable condition free from all encumbrances therefore no part of the income should be considered during the year under consideration. The Ld. Counsel further stated that the assessee firm was dissolved on 14.5.2007 therefore in a span of less than 20 days the assessee could not have carried out any work to earn the income of Rs. 8.50 crores as alleged by the AO. 12. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the findings of the lower authorities. 13. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the relevant documentary evidences brought on record before us. The impugned agreement for development is dt. 26.4.2007. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee firm was dissolved on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the partners. Considering all these facts in totality, we fail to understand how the entire consideration has been taxed in the hands of the assessee when the business has been taken over by one of the partners. Only Rs. 50 lakhs has been received on 5.4.2007 i.e. before the date of dissolution, only to this extent, the assessee can be made liable to pay the tax and that too when this amount has not been shown as income subsequently by the partner who has taken over the business of the dissolved firm. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore this issue to the files of the AO for the limited purpose of verification of Rs. 50 lakhs, whether this income has been shown by the partner who has taken over the business of the assessee f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
