TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 30.03.2014 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) in restricting the addition made by the AO to the extent of Rs. 16,13,857/- as against the addition made by AO of Rs. 32,27,715/- in regard to on money receipts. For this assessee has raised Ground Nos.1 to 4, which need not to reproduce. 3. Brief facts are that a search and seizure action was carried out in the group cases of assessee on 21.06.2011 in the office premises. During the course of search in the office premises of the assessee books and documents were seized vide ANN/PM/B&D/S-2 (sheets 1 to 215). During the course of search, assessee's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri S. Asokan. The AO noted that a sum of Rs. 40,70,000/- was cash seized from the residence of Shri S. Asokan. The assessee in its return of income admitted sale of 23909 sq.ft., of land i.e., Plot No.28 to 38 and 74 to one Shri K.P. Palani & his brothers vide Doc.No.8355 to 8358 of 2009 dated 25.09.2009 for a total consideration of Rs. 9,56,360/-. According to assessee, this land was sold at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq.ft., only. But as per seized documents the sale rate is Rs. 175/- per sq.ft. The AO noted that sum of Rs. 27,49,535/- at the rate of Rs. 115 per sq.ft. of 23909 sq.ft., offered vide letter dated 05.07.2011 was not admitted by the assessee in its return of income. Therefore, the AO issued show cause notice that as to wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clear that the amounts were shared equally between two partners Shri K. Niranjaniah and Shri S. Ashokan being 50% partners each. To this extent, the assessee is not correct in claiming that the entire amount of Rs. 32,27,715 is contained in the amount offered for taxation in the hands of Shri S. Ashokan. However, assessee should be given the benefit of having received 50% of the profit and having offered the same in the returns of income. To this extent, the addition deserves to the reduced by an amount of Rs. 16,13,857 as already offered to taxation in the hands of one of the partners. The balance amount of Rs. 16,13,857/- is held as continued to be assessed in the hands of the firm. Assessee gets part relief. Aggrieved, now assessee is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition of rate difference of sale value between the developer and the land owners amounting to Rs. 38,55,200/-. For this, assessee has raised Ground Nos.5 to 10, which need not be reproduced. 7. Brief facts relating to this issue are, the AO noted that as regards to land sold of 29744 sq.ft., to Shri M.N. Palani @ Rs. 175/- per sq.ft. (plot Nos.1 to 13 and shop No.1), as per the seized documents the assessee claimed that this stretch of land was sold to Shri M.N. Palani in assessment year 2008-09 for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/-. The AO noted that during this assessment year these plots were directly sold by Shri M.N. Palani to M/s. VGN Developers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter the 'VGN') and the encumbrance certificate were furnished to substantiate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the AO is just making inference that the land to the extent of 29744 sq.ft. sold to Shri M.N. Palani at the rate of Rs. 175/- i.e., plot Nos. 1 to 13 and shop No.1 has per the seized documents are repurchased from Shri M.N. Palani. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that there is no seized material qua with and he requested the Bench to ask the ld.DR to produce any evidence that this land was repurchased. Further, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee has already offered a sum of Rs. 40.70 lakhs and this is noted by the AO in his order at para 4.4. The AO referred to assessee's letter dated 05.07.2011 and the ld.counsel for the assessee referred are as under:- "The land measuring 206664 sq.ft. was sold to....