TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act was conducted on Gita Group of concerns from Karnataka and Tapadiya family concerns at Pune on 06.06.2012. During the course of search at the office premises of the main concern of the group viz. M/s. Vishal Nirmitee Pvt. Ltd., certain incriminating documents were found and seized, according to which Tapadia family had sold land at Baner, Pune to the assessee firm and the assessee has paid cash amount totaling to Rs. 2,53,76,665/- to Tapadiya family over and above the agreement value of Rs. 97,74,069/- during the financial year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording the following reasons, reopened the assessment and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee: "In this case, information was received from the Office of the Deputy Director of Income Tax(Inv.) Unit-II(2), Pune, vide L.No. PN/Dy.DIT/Inv./Unit-II(2)/GITA/SKBA/2012-13/502 dated 28.03.2013. As per the said information, search u/s 132 was conducted on GITA group on 06.06.012. Seized documents reflected that Tapadya family members/concerns (Part of Gita group) had sold 47,433 sq.ft of land in Baner, Pune, to the assessee. As sale consideration, Tapadiya family members had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....74,069/- over and above the agreement value for purchase of land at Baner should not be added to the total income as unexplained income u/s 69B of the Act. The assessee in its reply denied to have made any cash payment to Tapadiya family for purchase of land. The assessee also requested for cross-examination of Shri Ajay Tapadiya. When the summons were issued to Tapadiya u/s 131 of the Act, his AR submitted that Mr. Tapadiya was out of station and therefore could not attend for cross-examination. The Assessing Officer provided the copies of statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act of Shri Ajay Tapadiya and copies of assessment orders passed in the cases of Shri Yash Tapadiya and Mrs. Deepa Tapadiya wherein they have admitted to have received certain amounts in cash. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 97,74,069/- being the cash given for purchase of Baner land, the source of which could not be explained. He, therefore, made addition of the same u/s 69B of the Act. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC who sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer and on further appeal before the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....age of Bundle no 1 which is dated 7/10/06 mentions that a plot situated at Baner owned by him admeasuring 3320 sq ft was sold by him (YBT) for total consideration at the rate of Rs. 750/sq ft and that for the purpose of agreement, consideration of Rs. 215/ sq ft has been adopted which is stamp duty valuation. Further, it is also true that, the agreement value sale consideration of Rs. 7,13,800/- @ Rs. 215/sq ft has been received by him by cheque and the balance consideration of Rs. 17,76,200/- @ Rs. 535/sq ft has been received by him in cash in installments. In nutshell, YBT sold the said plot situated at Baner admeasuring 3320 sq ft in Mar 2006 for Rs. 24,90,000/- (@ Rs. 750/sq ft) and received the said consideration partly in cash amounting to Rs. 17,76,200/- (@ Rs. 535/sq ft) and partly by cheque amounting to Rs. 7,13,800/- (@ Rs. 215/sq ft.) As regards the tax treatment accorded to this transaction, it may please be noted that YBT has duly disclosed the Long Term Capital Gain arising out of this transaction in his IT Return for A.Y. 2006-07 by considering the Agreement value i.e. cheque component of sale consideration of Rs. 7,13,800/-. However, he has not offered to tax the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ld. DR submitted that Tapadiya is known to the assessee and he could have brought him to the department for his cross-examination before the Assessing Officer. He accordingly submitted that this is a clear case of concealment of particulars of income and therefore, penalty is leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed by both the sides. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 32,89,952/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being the payment of cash of Rs. 97,74,069/- to Mrs. Deepa Tapadiay and Yash Tapadiay on account of purchase of Baner land on the ground that the assessee has not explained the source of such unaccounted cash paid to Tapadiya family members. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC sustained the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the seized paper is dated 07.10.2006 which relates to assessment year 2007-08 and does not belong to the assessment year 2006-07. Further, there is no reference of any amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) or any transaction which has effect of transferring or enabling in enjoyment of transfer property then having regard to the Clauses (v) and (vi) of Section 2(47) of the Act, transfer takes place in the year in which such agreement is entered into. The MOU dated 26.03.1999 between assessee and MTDCL clearly provides for permitting MTDCL to irrecoverably enter and commence and complete development of the land owned by assessee and therefore, there is substantial force in the plea of the assessee that the on date of entering of MOU i.e. 26.03.1999, an event of "transfer" within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act has taken place and therefore the capital gain is liable to be taxed in assessment year 1999-2000. We are conscious that the present proceedings are not in relation to substantive taxation of the impugned amounts but the aforesaid proposition is being considered only to examine whether legally speaking is there justification in the plea of the assessee that the taxability of the impugn....