2025 (9) TMI 561

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 21,26,000/- despite assessee has shown before the AO/Ld CIT(A) below that assessee was only holding 40% of shareholding in the property in question. 3. The brief facts regarding this issue are that the assessee had filed return of income (RoI) on 22.03.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 1,14,79,170/-. Later, notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act") was issued to the assessee on 25.02.2015. Pursuant to which, the assessee filed RoI on 24.06.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 1,14,79,167/-. 4. The AO notes about a search conducted on 06.01.2012 & 07.01.2012 in the case of M/s. Shivasahai Sons (l) Ltd., and Shri Vithaldas Aga....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee has paid Rs. 1,33,76,000/- as on money for purchase of the said land. The AO thereafter reproduced the relevant portion of the statement recorded by the DDIT (Investigation), Unit-II (2), Chennai, from assessee, reproduced as under: Q.22. I am showing you the page No. 181 to 184 of ANN/NP/JV/LS/S-2 which is an agreement between you and Sitaraman, Kindly explain. Ans. This agreement is between me, my father Mr. J. Vithaldas and my wife Mrs. Lakshmi Agarwal on one part and Mr. Sitaraman in the other part. This agreement is towards the purchase of land by us from Mr. Sitraman. The property is situated at kaverepettai, Near Guimmudipoondy and the total extent of agriculture land is Rs. 38 cents (around 6 1/2 grounds) the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nit-II (2), Chennai, and income admitted in the revised RoI filed]. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and reiterated that he is the co-owner and purchased the property at Kavaripettai along with two others, which fact is also discernable from the reply given during search reproduced (supra); and asserted that he had only 40% stake/shareholding in the property in question; and therefore, the on-money given to vendor must be taxed proportionately in the hands of the other purchasers i.e. his father, Shri J. Vithaldas and his wife Smt. Lakshmi Agrawal. Further, according to assessee, even though he had stake/shareholding of only 40% in the property, he has offered to tax 80% of the share in on-money, i.e. R....