TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment years. These appeals are connected because additions were made by the A.O. on protective basis in the case of individual Shri Ramesh Narsinhbhai Patel and on substantive basis in the case of the firm, M/s. Maruti Developers of which the individual is one of the partners. Such additions were deleted by Ld. CIT(A) in the case of the individual for both these years and, therefore, revenue is in appeal and the same was confirmed in the case of the firm and therefore, the assessee is in appeal. 2. In the case of the firm, in both these years, ground No.1 raised by the assessee is regarding validity of reopening proceedings. 3. On this issue, it was submitted by the Ld. A.R. before us that no notice was issued u/s 142(1) and straightaway,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eopening of the assessment u/s 147 and hence, ground No.1 of the assessee's appeal is rejected in both the years in the case of the firm M/s. Maruti Developers. 6. The issue in dispute on merit is regarding addition of Rs.70.45 lacs and 13.25 lacs made by the A.O. and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) in respect of plot booking advances and capital introduced by the partners respectively in assessment years 2001-02 and of Rs.1,11,500/- in assessment year 2002-03 in respect of plot booking advance treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 7. It was agreed by both the side that the issue in dispute is identical in both the years and the facts of the assessment year 2001-02 can be considered and on the basis of this, the matter in both the years can ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved as advance towards plot booking was received form 41 persons out of which the assessee produced only 3 persons before the A.O. The A.O. also stated that mere filing of identity and copies of land record i.e. 7/12 do not prove the creditworthiness of depositors and genuineness of transaction. Regarding these three persons produced before the A.O., it was observed by the A.O. that none of them could prove that they have booked a plot in the project of the assessee because they did not have any record in the form of booking receipt of the plot, purchasing agreement or any other document relating to the alleged booking of the plot in the project of the assessee. The A.O. also noted that all these three person produced before him are diamond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. (supra), we find that this judgment is not applicable in the present case because the facts are different. In that case, the issue in dispute was regarding assessment of Rs.30,000/- from out of mere 60,000/- for income tax and excess profit tax business profit tax purpose representing the value of high denomination notes which was encashed on 18th day of Jan 1946. In the present case, the dispute is regarding addition made by the A.O. u/s 68 in respect of amount said to have been received by the assessee from 41 depositors on account of plot booking advances for which the assessee could not establish the creditworthiness of the depositors and genuineness of transaction. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue can be decided in assessment year 2001-02 and on the same basis, the issue may be decided in assessment year 2002-03. 13. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a combined order in the case of Shri R N Patel for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 and the last para of his order is the relevant para which is reproduced below: "I have carefully considered the arguments given by assessing officer & the submissions of Id. AR. As stated by Id. AR the addition on substantive basis is already made in case of the firm M/s Maruti Developers. As such addition made on protective basis in assessee's case is required to be deleted as genuineness of investment is required to be verified in case of assessee's who claims to have made investment &....