2015 (8) TMI 120

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs. 47,02,750/- made by the AO on account of unexplained expenses in respect of Motia Khan Property. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the issue unexplained expenses in respect of Motia Khan Property has been adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. 3. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out in the Gopal Zarda group of cases on 15.1.2009 and during th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ls. AO noted that the onus is on the assessee to prove which remains unexplained. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, AO made an addition of Rs. 47,02,750/- on account of unexplained source of expenses u/s. 69C r.w.s. 37 of the Act and completed the assessment vide order dated 29.12.2010 passed u/s. 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Against the aforesaid assessment order of the Assessing Officer, Asseessee appealed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who vide impugned order 15.12.2011 has allowed the appeal of the assesee and deleted the addition in dispute. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 15.12.2011, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing Ld. D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oth the companies, therefore, these expenses were related to both these companies and thus made addition of Rs. 47,02,750/- (50% of total expenditure of Rs. 94,05,500/-) each in the hands of the assessee company and M/s Penguine Farms Pvt. Ltd. 8. We further find that the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the crux of the submission of the assessee dated 13.12.2011 were around the preposition that the additions made in case of the assessee with regard to unexplained and undisclosed expenses related to property at Motia Khan by the AO are covered by the order U/S 2450(4) passed by the Settlement Commission dated 31.12.2010 therefore in terms of the Section 245-I of the IT Act the matters which are covered by the Order of Settlement Commission c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to 31 in the Order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission u/s. 245D(4) of the Act dated 31st December, 2010. The relevant para 24 of the Order reiterating the judgment of Hon'ble Settlement Commission is presented hereunder for your kind perusal: "We have considered the rival submissions. The issues were discussed in detail during the hearing. There is one item which is figuring in the statement of Shri Gopal Gupta where he has surrendered Rs. 6.5 crores. Even going by the calculation a/premium, the amount comes to Rs. 13.3 crores (1/3rd of Rs. 40 crores). The applicants have declared more. So the amount of disclosure need not be disturbed. Regarding the hand in which this amount should be taxed, - Shri Dinesh Jain or Smt. Lata Jain - i....