TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this case return of income for A.Y. 201112 has been filed on 25.3.2013 declaring total income at Rs. NIL/. The assessee is a builder and developer. 2. A detailed investigation report has been forwarded by Directorate of Investigation, Unit-1(2), Ahmedabad regarding survey action conducted on M/s. Mudra Finvest (Guj) Ltd. On 8.12.2016. The entity is involved in the jewellery business. 3. Four hard disk which contain digital data were impounded from the premises, 6 ground floor, revdi bazaar, Ahmedabad during survey. On examination of these disks it is seen that M/s. MUDRA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LTD is a group entity who has constructed and developed project "4D SQUARE" in Ahemdabad - Gandhi Nagar road. 3.1 The tally data from the disk,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Square'. The cash book of M/s. Mudra Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad which is enclosed also reflects the amount paid to M/s. Akshar Builder and Developer. 6. The analysis of the return of income filed does not reflect these transactions in the accounts or income. The return of income for AY 2011-12 does not reflect any of the above transaction. The statement by the director of M/s. Mudra Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. the cash book,ledger account reveal that the assessee is having cash income of Rs. 3,54,82,000/for FY 2010-11 for FY 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12 which is not accounted for or disclosed for taxation. 7. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment to the tune o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udra" for short) which recorded certain cash payments to one M/s. Akshar Developers ("AD" for short). Counsel submitted that the petitioner AB&D, a partnership firm, has distinct identity and different partners from AB, another partnership firm having different set of partners. She pointed out that both the partnership firms have different PAN numbers. The Assessing Officer, therefore, acted on a material prima facie showing payments by Mudra to AD and reopened the assessment in case of the present petitioner. Counsel further submitted that the reassessment in case of Mudra has now been done by the Assessing Officer, passing order on 31st December, 2018 in which also there is no addition in relation to the said alleged payments by Mudra to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng cash payment by Mudra to AB&D. However, the document supplied by the Assessing Officer which is a copy of the ledger account of AD in the books of Mudra, at best suggests that such cash payment was made to AD and not to the AB&D, whereas notice of reopening of assessment is issued against AB&D i.e. the present petitioner. To cover this mismatch, it is now sought to be suggested by the Assessing Officer that Investigation Wing informed him that the two entities are one and the same and AB&D is popularly referred to as AD. However, this being the question of two entities being separate, having different partners and having distinct PAN numbers. These aspects are not disputed by the Revenue either while disposing of the objections raised by....