TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in admitting additional grounds which had not been filed earlier before CIT(A), Nagpur during the original appellate proceedings. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in quashing the notice u/s 158 BD and annulling the order passed u/s 158BD of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that there is no provisions for an assessment u/s 158BD and that no notice can be issued u/s 158BD and no block assessment order can be passed u/s 158BD of the I.T. Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect of lands / plots purchased / taken for development from the assessee. There was an agreement for purchase of plot No.42 of S.No.705/2/1/3/45, admeasuring 626.62 sq. mtrs. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 3,75,978/-. It was seen from the seized document Annexure A-2 that cash of Rs. 9,45,000/- was made on various dates. There was another development agreement dated 17.06.1997 in respect of plot No.33 of final plot No.434 of Survey No.705/2/1/3. In view of the said incriminating document found from the possession of Rushiraj Builders & Developers, intimation was sent to ACIT, Central Circle -1, Nashik, after recording satisfaction notice under section 158BD of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 158BD of the Act was iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isclosed income in the hands of father of the assessee. The second allegation of cash payment in respect of two transactions of sale of property, the assessee submitted that the allegations were totally false and contrary to the evidence on record. The assessee explained that in the seized papers at Annexure A-2 at no place the name of his father was appearing. Further, in both the Affidavits submitted by Shri Y.P. Trivedi and Shri J.M. Jhala, it was stated that the alleged cash in excess over the documented price, was paid to Shri Narendra Thakker or his representatives and not to his father. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to support the allegation that the deceased father had been paid any cash, in excess over the documented price, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 14,50,550/- was held to be unwarranted and deleted. 7. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that as per the seized document Annexure A-2, there was cash payment of Rs. 26,09,350/- and the assessee being co-owner in the said property, half share was assessable in the hands of assessee. 9. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee on the other hand, referred to the seized document and pointed out that it showed payment on various dates. However, the Assessing Officer while completi ng assessment in the hands of Rushiraj Builders & Developers had given a finding in the order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt for purchase of plot No.42, wherein the total sale consideration was Rs. 3,75,978/- for plot No.42 of S.No.705/2/1/3/45. Though, during the course of assessment proceedings, various allegations were made in respect of the said plot, but in the final assessment order being passed, no addition was made on account of said transaction. Another document seized from M/s. Rushiraj Builders & Developers was the agreement for development dated 17.06.1997 in respect of plot No.33 of final plot No.434 of survey No.705/2/1/3. The contention of legal heir of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that the allegation of cash payments to the assessee was false and contrary to the evidence. It was pointed out that in the seized paper Annexure - 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n M/s. Rushiraj Builders & Developers and the statement of its partners, arose before Pune Bench of Tribunal in ACIT Vs. M/s. Manoj Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the Tribunal deleted the addition in the absence of any corroborative evidence found during the course of search, in turn relying on the decision of Tribunal itself in the case of one of the partners i.e. Shri Jitendra M. Thakker, wherein no addition was made in the absence of any corroborative evidence. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances and following the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in ACIT Vs. M/s. Manoj Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in the absence of corroborative evidence found evidencing the payment of onmoney to the assessee, we find no merit in....