TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e involved in these appeals is common, therefore, we are adjudicating them by passing a single common order. ITA/1361/Mum/2014,AY.2009-10 Brief Facts: 2.The assessee belongs to Jai Corp Group of cases which was a partner in two major Special Economic Zones (SEZ), being developed in the vicinity of Mumbai, viz. Navi Mumbai Special Economic Zone(NMSEZ) and Mumbai Special Economic Zone(MSEZ).The Group has purchas -ed vast tracts of land in the vicinity of these SEZs with an objective to develop the lands into satellite townships in these areas with necessary amenities and infrastructure anticipating potential price rise and good return for their investment in future.These lands have been purchased in the names of about 100 companies inclu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.In the meanwhile,the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act.After considering the explanation of the assessee,the AO held that cash payments had been made in land transactions which were not reflected in the books of account maintained by the assessee, that it had paid unexplained cash to the land owners as part of the purchase consideration of the land and that such cash payments were not recorded in the regular books of accounts of the appellant and thereby the action of the appellant attracted the provision of Section 69C of the Act,that the source of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 46,49,000/- in cash could only be unaccoun -ted and undisclosed income of the appellant outside the regular book of accounts. The AO levied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal had deleted the additions made in quantum proceedings,the FAA deleted the penalty imposed by the AO. 5.Before us,representatives of both the sides agreed that the Tribunal had deleted the additions, that Tribunal had considered the issue on merits also. We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal and same reads as under : ".......... In the present case, the impugned documents were not found from the possession of the assessee but was formed from the possession of a third-party i.e. Dilip Dherai. Mere mention of the names of the villages where the companies may have purchased lengths would not give any basis to assume/resume/surmise that the name of the companies are mentioned in the impugned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... than the payment of consideration has changed hands. No confession from the sellers have been brought on record........... 25. In our considerate view (sic) there being no evidence to support the revenue's case that I use figure, whatever be its quantum, over and above the figure in the records and accounts changed hands between the parties, no addition could therefore be made under section 69C of the Act to the income of the assessee considering the entire facts brought on record, we have no hesitation to hold that even on merits no addition could be sustained. 26. Since we have allowed the issue in case of the present assessee on both counts i.e.P.on legal issue and on merit and the issue involved in all other appeals of other asse....