TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 2000 for the Block Period from 1992-93 to 1997-98 and thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present appeal. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal may be summed up thus: a) The appellant is a private limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and is assessed to tax under the Income-tax Act. The present appeal arises out of the appellant's assessment for the block period from 1992-93 to 1997-98. b) The appellant was incorporated with the object of, inter alia, doing real estate business. According to the appellant, the first project undertaken by the appellant was at 'L' Road, Jamshedpur and from time to time, it inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant, the said firm had also shown the said sum of Rs.4 lac together with interest of Rs.18,000/- as payable to the appellant during the financial year ending on March 31, 1997. The appellant further claimed that in the financial year ending on March 31, 1998, on April 9, 1997, the said firm allotted additional constructed area to the appellant in the project and adjusted the said sum of Rs.4 lac against the same. f) On February 18, 1997 a search was conducted against the appellant in course of which the said promissory note in original was seized from the residence of the appellant's director, viz. one Mr. Parikh. The Assessing Officer initiated block assessment proceeding pursuant to the said search against the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Assessing Officer preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. k) The Tribunal by an order dated June 13, 2003 allowed the Revenue's appeal on the ground that the appellant could not produce the agreement entered into with the said firm and that the said promissory note did not indicate that no money was paid against the same to the appellant. Against such order of the Tribunal, the appellant has come up with the present appeal. A Division Bench of this Court on May 16, 2005 formulated the following substantial question of law for decisions in this appeal: "i) Whether the Tribunal was justifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lding that the said amount was payable to Status Home & Enclaves (P) Ltd., the assessee in this appeal." Mr. Khaitan, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has, strenuously contended before us that the Tribunal below erred in law in not taking into consideration the development agreement which was produced before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the ground that the same was not produced before the Assessing Officer. Mr. Khaitan submits that there was no justification of setting aside order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who passed the order after being satisfied with the explanations given by his client. Mr. Shome, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue, ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eading of the said promissory note, it appears that on demand M/s. Thakkar Construction promised to pay to Sri Dinesh B. Parikh who was described as a Director of the appellant, a sum of Rs.4 lac being the premium amount for development agreement dated 4th April, 1996 and that the amount should be payable latest by 2nd December, 1996 along with an interest 18% per annum till the date of payment. Thus, even if we do not take into consideration the explanations given by the appellant by production of the development agreement dated 4th April, 1996, on the basis of such promissory note, the amount was not payable to the appellant but was payable to Shri Parikh who happens to be one of the Directors of the appellant. Any promissory note....