TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by the learned AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is against the principles of natural justice and ab initio void 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- illegally made by the learned AQ under section 56(2)(ix) of the income tax Act 1961. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO that the assessee accepted Rs. 75,00,000/- as an advance from M/s Jagdish health care P Limited in relation to transfer of a capital asset which was not returned. 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that assessee accepted Rs. 75,00,000/- as an advance in relation of transfer of capital assets. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the learned AO in disallowing the right full claim of the assessee of Rs. 34,647/- under section 57 of the income Tax out of income disclosed under the head income from other sources. 8. That in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... onus lies on the appellant to support any claim by bringing in cogent documentary evidence. In absence of any substantial written submission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal, I have no basis to take a contrary view in the appellate proceedings as I have no reason to interfere with the assessment order. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the order of Assessing Officer. Therefore, Addition of Rs. 83,453/- Rs. 34,647/- and Rs. 75,00,000/- is hereby sustained on merits. 6. In the result, the appeal is Dismissed. 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the submitted that lower authorities were not justified in confirming the above additions for which the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the following written submission. "Brief Facts of the case The assessee in an Individual and has filed his return of income under section 139 for the A Y 2015-2016 on 31.03.2016 declaring total income at Rs 13,37,400/-. During the year under consideration the assessee derives income, from income from house property, income from capital Gain and income from other sources. A copy of the return of income filed by the assessee is available....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... add that as on this date of agreement on 10.12.2014 M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited was also not owning the aforesaid plot No. F 28, Malviya RIICO Industrial area, Jaipur, as the same stood cancelled/de-alloted on 10.03.2006 by RIICO and the issue of appeal was pending before the RIICO. 5. Keeping in tandem the aforesaid affairs. a Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of Dr. Anil Tambi by M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited through Shri Saroj Dhawan so that he (Dr. Anil Tambi) could pursue the matter with concerned authorities of RICCO for removing the hurdles and getting the plot allotted again to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited so that it could be purchased for Dr Anil Tambi . 6. However the fortunes did not favour, as mentioned in the agreement executed by the assessee with M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited on 10.12.2014 the time limit for getting clearance and removing the hurdles was only of three months failing which the advance of Rs. 75,00,000/- was to be forfeited and ultimately the same stood forfeited. 7. Meanwhile the assessee also received payment from Dr Anil Tambi as under i. Rs. 22,00,000/- vide cheque ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. cited supra and copy of Power of attorney in favour of Dr. Anil Tambi is available on paper book page No.17 to 19. 10. The facts indicate that in the case assessee was not a beneficiary even for a single rupee. The beneficiary in this case is M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited who did not return the amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- to the assessee and assessee had to forfeit the same. If any action at all is required w r to section 56(2)(ix) the same is required to be considered in the case of M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited. The learned AO was wrong in training the guns against the assessee instead of at M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited. In the facts and circumstances of the case there was no case with the learned AO for proposing action under section 148. Similarly the learned JCIT also erred in granting approval for issuing notice under section 148 which was issued on 23.04.2019. In view of this the very basis and origin of assessment proceedings is not in accordance with law. 11. The learned AO completed assessment under section 147/144B on 14.09.2021 determining total income at Rs. 88,72,047/-, Inter-alia making major addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sis of report of DDIT investigation wing. In point No. 4 of the reasons recorded, the learned AO has admitted that since enquiry been made by the investigation wing no further enquiry were made. Thus the action of the learned AO is based on borrowed satisfaction which is unlawful. It is submitted that from this note in the reasons recorded by the learned AO it is crystal clear that the proceedings under section 148 was initiated without framing reasons to believe. The provisions of section 147 as on the date of issue of notice under section 148 are as under - [Income escaping assessment. ^88147. If the ^89[Assessing] Officer 90[has reason to believe^91] that any income chargeable to has escaped assessment^91 for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassessee^91 such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings^91 under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (c) where an assessment has been made, but- (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] ^98[(d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India.] ^99[Explanation 3.-For the purpose of assessment or reassessment^1 under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.] ^2[Explanation 4.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... area, Jaipur to Medical Design India Pvt. limited was cancelled on 10.03.2006. M/s Medical Design India Pvt. limited went before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court against the cancellation of plot. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court directed M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited to appeal before the RIICO. M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited accordingly filed appeal before RIICO which was pending when assessee started negotiations. 3. It so happened that Dr Anil Tambi approached the assessee for getting the above plot at F 28, Malviya RIICO Industrial area, Jaipur from M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited as he was confident of getting the hurdles removed regarding allotment/cancellation of plot to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited, and subsequently getting the same to himself from RIICO. 4. In such a situation the assessee approached M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited through Director Smt. Saroj Dhawan and executed an agreement on 10.12.2014. The assessee paid Rs. 75,00,000/- as under to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited for agreeing to purchase the plot for a total sum of Rs. 3,94,38,675/-. A copy of agreement dated 10.12.2014 executed between assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Tambi was returned on 16.02.2015 through banking channel as under - S No Date Ch No. Beneficiary Name Amount 1 16.02.2015 63026 Dr. Anil TAmbi 23,00,000/- 2 24.12.2014 63030 Tanu Shri Tambi 22,00,222/- Total 45,00,000/- Further Dr. Anil Tambi/ Jagdish Health care Pvt. Limited paid Rs. 75,00,000/- on 24.02.2015 vide cheque No. 447451 for purchase of this plot situated at F-28, Malviya Nagar RIICO industrial Area, Jaipur for his company Jagdish Health care Pvt. Limited. Thus the facts indicate that inthe account of this property the assessee did not earn anything at all. This amount was paid as reimbursement of amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- paid by the assessee to medical design India P limited as detailed in the forgoing para No. 4 8. From the aforesaid afore said scenario of the case it is crystal clear that entire matter of money paid to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited and in the last money received from M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited has taken place within a short period of time from 10.12.2014 to 24.02.2015 i. e. three months . 9. It is submitted that at no stage....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....occasion for putting the same to sale or getting advance for the sale of the same. b. The assessee was acting as a middle man and plot No. F-28, Malviya Nagar RIICO industrial Area, Jaipur was being bargained with M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited only and only for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited. These facts have been very clearly stated in his statement recorded before the investigation wing on 16.05.2017. The relevant part of the statement Question No. 9 &10 and answer thereof A copy of complete statement is also available on paper book page No cited supra. In the above statements the husband of the assessee Shri Mahendra Kumar Haldiya has very specifically deposed that the plot No. F-28, Malviya Nagar RIICO industrial Area, Jaipur was being bargained for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited and in this regard Rs. 75,00,000/- were paid to Smt. Saroj Dawan/M/s Medical design India Pvt. limited. The same amount was later on received from M/s Jagdish Health care Pvt Limited. The learned JCIT also did not appreciate the fact that although an agreement was executed with Smt. Saroj Dhawan/ M/s medical Design In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iciary in any manner. vi. That beneficiary in this case was M/s medical Design India Pvt. Limited who confiscated the amount of Rs. 75,00,000/-. All these objection have not been settled by the learned AO in the spirit of Hon'ble Supreme court decision in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). Vide his order dated 17.12.2020 the learned AO has summarily dismissed and rejected the objections raised by the assessee against issuance of notice under section 148. The learned AO has been blind to the major facts of the case which were stated by the husband of the assessee Shri Mahendra Kumar Haldiya during his statement under section 131 before the investigation wing on 16.05.2017. In his statement Shri Haldiya, divulged the basic facts that the plot in question was being bargained for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited. The assessee paid Rs. 75,00,000/- to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited for purchase of the plot for Dr Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited, who later on reimbursed the amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- . The assessed never owned any plot so the question of receiving any advance from Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Ja....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt and also including the challenge to the order of reassessment as consequential to the main challenge to reopening of the assessment. Dismissing the petition the Court held that reasons for reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer was supplied to the assessee on 14.9.2018. Without filing the objection the assessee approached the Court by filing the Writ Petition in November, 2018 After withdrawing the petition on 13 -11-2018 the objection was filed on 14-12-2018 .Dismissing the petition, considering the facts of the case the Court held that ; if the assessee delays filing objections to the reasons and leaves the AO with little time to dispose of the objections and pass the assessment order before it gets time barred, it destroys the formula provided in Asian Paints Ltd v. Dy. CIT ( 2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) that the AO should not pass the assessment order for 4 weeks. Accordingly the writ petition was not entertained. (WP No. 284 of 2019, dt. 01.02.2019)(AY.2011-12) In view of the aforesaid facts having not settled the objection in the right spirit the assessment proceedings stand vitiated. (d) Principles of Natural justice violated It is submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e made liable for additional tax and must be given an opportunity of meeting those grounds. This is the minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice. 4. C.B. Gautam v. Union of India and others (1993) 1 SCC78 (SC) 5. Shri ram Durga Prasad Vs settlement commission (1989) 176 ITR 169 (SC) 6. S L Kapoor Vs Jagmohan AIR 1981 SC 136, 145 7. Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 8. A K Kraipak Vs. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150 9. C Vasanntlal& Co. Vs CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 10. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) 11. Swedeshi cotton Mills Limited Vs. Union of India 51 Comp Das 210 (SC) 12. Sutherland Global Services (P) Ltd Vs union of India (Mad) (2016) 143 DTR 0179 13. Vodafone India Limited Vs Union of India & Other (Bom) (2014) 97 DTR 0441 14. An opportunity of being heard is the most important component of the principle of Natural Justice. It implies a proper opportunity of hearing. The Courts have consistently held that where a Show Cause Notice has been issued requiring the assessee to reply within a short period (say 1-3 days), such a noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It was just denial of natural justice, the assessment deserves to be quashed. It is prayed that assessment order be quashed In view of the afore said decisions of the various courts including the hon'ble Apex court it is established beyond doubt that an order passed against the principles of natural justice deserves to be quashed. Therefore on this count alone the order passed by the learned Assessing officer deserves to be quashed. It is reiterated that in the case of the assessee the cardinal principle of the natural justice that no man should be condemned without being heard has been violated. The doctrine of natural justice consists of reasonableness and fair play which are absent in the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing officer. Therefore, it is prayed that the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer may be held a nullity. Ground No 2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the learned AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is against the principles of natural justice and ab initio void It is submitted that the learned AO issued show cause notice on 03.09.02021 seeking compliance by 08.09.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds. This is the minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice. 4. C.B. Gautam v. Union of India and others (1993) 1 SCC78 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case also invoked the same principle and held that even though it was not statutorily required, yet the authority was liable to give notice to the affected parties while purchasing their properties under Section 269-UD of the Income Tax Act, namely, the compulsory purchase of the property. It was observed that though the time frame within which an order for compulsory purchase has to be made is fairly tightone but urgency is not such that it would preclude a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A presumption of an attempt to evade tax may be raised in case of significant under- valuation of the property but it would be rebuttable presumption, which necessarily implies that a party must have an opportunity to show cause and rebut the presumption. 5. Shri ram Durga Prasad Vs settlement commission (1989) 176 ITR 169 (SC) House of Lords : The order made in violation of principle of natural justice is void and a nullity 6. S L Kapoor Vs Jagmohan AIR 1981 SC 136, 145 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the opportunity provided by the show cause notice become meaningless opportunities 13. Vodafone India Limited Vs Union of India & Other (Bom) (2014) 97 DTR 0441 No order can be sustained passed in breach of principle of natural justice 14. An opportunity of being heard is the most important component of the principle of Natural Justice. It implies a proper opportunity of hearing. The Courts have consistently held that where a Show Cause Notice has been issued requiring the assessee to reply within a short period (say 1-3 days), such a notice is against the principles of natural justice, equity & good conscience. Undue haste is against the principle of fairness and such a conduct of the assessing officer deserves to be deprecated. Adequate & proper opportunity of hearing should be provided to ensure fair hearing and fair deal to the assessee. Ramrshwaram Paper Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. & others. (2009) 11VLJ 33 (All); Padam Traders & others v. State of U.P. & others. (2009) 47 STJ 392 (All). 15. Kellog India P Limited Vs Union of India (2006) 193 ELT 385 The right to fair hearing required that an Individual shall not be penalized b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduction of Books etc. - Under section 23(2) of 1922 Act assessing officer is bound to give reasonable time and opportunity to produce evidence- Failure on the part of the officer to do so would vitiate entire proceedings of assessment Conclusion In view of the afore said decisions of the various courts including the hon'ble Apex court it is established beyond doubt that an order passed against the principles of natural justice deserves to be quashed. Therefore on this count alone the order passed by the learned Assessing officer deserves to be quashed. It is reiterated that in the case of the assessee the cardinal principle of the natural justice that no man should be condemned without being heard has been violated. The doctrine of natural justice consists of reasonableness and fair play which are absent in the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing officer. Therefore, it is prayed that the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer may be held a nullity. The ratio of the aforesaid cases is fully applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee. In the case of the assessee a lengthy show cause notice was issued by the learned AO and time ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Smt. Saroj Dhawan and executed an agreement on 10.12.2014. The assessee paid Rs. 75,00,000/- as under to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited for agreeing to purchase the plot for a total sum of Rs. 3,94,38,675/-. A copy of agreement dated 10.12.2014 executed between assessee Smt. Saroj Haldiya and Smt. Saroj Dhawan of M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited is available on paper book page No cited supra. S No Date Cheque No. Drawn on Amount 1 18.10.2014 047309 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- 2 25.10.2014 047310 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- 3 30.10.2014 047311 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- Total 75,00,000/- A copy of relevant bank account of the assessee reflecting the above payment is available on paper book page No. cited supra. It is relevant to add that as on this date of agreement on 10.12.2014 M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited was also not owning the aforesaid plot No. F 28, Malviya RIICO Industrial area, Jaipur, as the same stood cancelled/de-alloted on 10.03.2006 by RIICO and the issue of appeal was pending before the RIICO. 5. Keeping in tandem the aforesaid affairs. a Power of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at entire matter of money paid to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited and in the last money received from M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited has taken place within a short period of time from 10.12.2014 to 24.02.2015 i. e. three months . 9. It is submitted that at no stage of time the assessee was owning plot No. F 28, Malviya RIICo Industrial area, Jaipur and secondly she was acting on behalf of Dr Anil Tambi. These facts are evidenced and corroborated by (i) in the statements of the assessee recorded by investigation wind on 16.05.2017. (ii) by the agreement executed by the assessee on 10.12.2014 with Medical design India p limited through Smt. Saroj Dhawan (iii) by power of Attorney executed by Medical Design India Pvt. limited in favour of Dr. Anil Tambi. (copies of all these documents are available on paper book page No. cited supra 10. The facts indicate that in the case assessee was not a beneficiary even for a single rupee. The beneficiary in this case is M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited who did not return the amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- to the assessee and assessee had to forfeit the same. If any action at all is required w r to section 56(2)(ix) t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (b) the negotiations do not result in transfer of such capital asset.] The perusal of the aforesaid section reveals that these provisions of section 56(2)(ix) are applicable when the following facts exits in a case i.e. i. Any any sum of money received as an advance or otherwise ii. Such money is received in the course negotiations for transfer of a capital asset and iii. such sum is forfeited In the case of the assessee none of the afore said facts existed. The assessee did not receive amount as advance from M/s Jagdish Health care P limited/Anil tambi. The amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- was received on 24.02.2015 by the assessee from Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited in lieu of such payment made earlier by the assessee for bargain of plot for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited from 18.10.2014 to 30.10.2014. Thus it cannot be termed as advance. In fact it is recovery of the amount earlier paid on and for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited, Thus no advance was received. The first sti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lete the addition. Ground No.7 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the learned AO in disallowing the right full claim of the assessee of Rs. 34,647/- under section 57 of the income Tax out of income disclosed under the head income from other sources. The assessee has disclosed interest income of Rs. 2,71,511/- as per computation of Total income. a copy of the computation of total income is available on paper book page No. 37 to 53. The computation of income discloses receipt of bank interest on SB account of Rs. 50,215/- from FDR Rs. 83,582/- and from Recurring deposit Rs. 5,508/-. Thus the assessee was enjoying income from bank through interest on SB account FDR and RD. Therefore the assessee was fully justified to claim transaction charges levied by bank for Rs. 10,945/-, etc. The assessee had submitted a detailed reply under letter dated 06.09.2021 stipulating the complete details of expenses. A copy of letter dated 06.09.2021 furnished before the learned AO during assessment proceeding is available on paper book page No...54 to 67 The same have not been property ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er are excluded. It is submitted that as per the learned AO cost of acquisition has been taken as under- Purchase price +stamp duty + registration charges + transfer fee, which are in the case of assessee as under - Purchase price 20,00,000.00 Stamp duty paid 75,000.00 Registration fee 33,300.00 Name transfer charges 15,000.00 Total comes to 21,23,300.00 Whereas the learned AO has taken the cost of acquisition at Rs. 21,13,000/- only which is wrong and there appears to be a totaling mistake. The amount has been taken less by Rs. 10,000/- Further the learned AO, in the entire assessment order, did not specify the reasons for not including the remaining amount in the cost of acquisition. It is submitted that amount paid to (i) Rajasthan Housing Board of Rs. 4,680/- on account of One time House tax, (ii) amount paid towards demand by Rajasthan housing board of Rs. 22,473/- and (iii) brokerage paid on purchases of immovable property of Rs. 46,000/- all are of capital expenditure and are part of cost of acquisition of capital asset. Surprisingly the learned AO without mentioning the details and reasons for not accepting the right ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....various documents before this Hon'ble Bench in the form of a Paper Book. In the certificate attached with the Paper Book, it has been stated that all the pages contained therein were already filed before the Learned Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. The revenue respectfully submits rejoinder as under- 2. Incorrect Claim of regarding Filing of Return under Section 139 The assessee has claimed in its submissions that the return of income was duly filed under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue respectfully submits that this claim is factually incorrect. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, the statutory due date for filing of return of income under Section 139(1) was 31st July 2015. Subsequently, by CBDT Notification, the due date was extended only up to 31st August 2015. The return filed by assessee falls beyond the above statutory extended due date and therefore cannot be said to be a valid return filed within the meaning of Section 139(1).In view of this, the Revenue respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Bench may kindly take this factual position on record, and consider that the assessee's assessee contention of filing ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roperty was in fact being purchased on behalf of Shri Tambi. Shri Haldia further clarified that: A payment of Rs. 75 lakhs was made by Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. to Smt. Saroj Haldia. This was against the proposed purchase transaction with M/s. Medical Design India Pvt.Ltd. According to him, the amount received by his wife, the assessee, was nothing but advance money routed through Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. in connection with the said property transaction. In continuation of his statement recorded under Section 131, the Investigation Officer further asked Shri Mahindra Kumar Haldia at Question No. 10 (page no. 6 of the paper book) whether there exists any Ikraar Nama between Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee, or whether any other documentation was prepared in this regard. In reply, Shri Haldia stated that: * An Ikraar Nama dated 10th December 2014 was executed between his wife, Smt. Saroj Haldia, and M/s. Medical Design India Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, Smt. Saroj Dhawan. * Thereafter, in February 2015, his wife, Smt. Saroj Haldia, and M/s. Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. also entered into an agreement. * However, he admitted that he was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before any authority. 3.5 Accordingly, the Revenue submits that the assessee's explanation lacks credibility and remains unsupported by verifiable documentary evidence. The Hon'ble Bench is requested to draw an adverse inference from the failure of the assessee to substantiate the execution of the Ikraar Nama or to even identify its witnesses. As the Revenue was not satisfied with the earlier replies of Shri Mahindra Kumar Haldia, husband of the assessee (Smt. Saroj Haldia), further questions were put to him by the Investigation Wing. These questions and answers are recorded at pages 7 to 9 of the paper book filed by the assessee. In reply to a direct question by the department as to whether the property transaction had been completed or not, Shri Haldia clearly admitted that the property transaction was not completed, as there was a dispute in respect of the said property. The Revenue further asked him to explain why the advance of Rs. 75 lakhs had not been taken back, if the transaction was never completed. In response, Shri Haldia stated that the money was still lying with Smt. Saroj Dhawan of M/s. Medical Design India Pvt. Ltd., and that the same had not been returned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed, and improbable. The amount of Rs. 75 lakhs remains unexplained and is rightly taxable in the assessee's hands. 5 From pages 9 to 14 of the paper book, the assessee (Smt. Saroj Haldia) has filed a copy of the agreement dated 10th December 2014 described as an Ikraar Nama. This document was executed between the assessee and Smt. Saroj Dhawan, Director of M/s. Medical Designs India Pvt.Ltd. It is respectfully pointed out that this Ikraar Nama is only between the assessee and Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of property. It is not an agreement between the assessee and M/s. Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. The assessee's explanation that the transaction was undertaken on behalf of Shri Anil Tambi/Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. therefore has no documentary foundation. On page 11 of the paper book, the Ikraar Nama clearly records: * The total purchase consideration of Rs. 3,94,38,675. * The agreed rate of Rs. 22,500 per square meter. * Property details showing that the land in question was already disputed since 10th March 2006 and subject to defective title. 5.1 These facts demonstrate that: * The assessee entered i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 75 lakhs received was immediately transferred back to close relatives of the Dr Tambi. The assessee, however, has failed to provide any explanation regarding the nature, purpose, or business justification of these transfers. No supporting documentation, agreement, or clarification has been placed on record. It is relevant to note that both Tanushi Tambi and Anil Kumar Tambi are close family members of the Dr Tambi. This fact raises strong doubts about the genuineness of the claim that the Rs. 75 lakhs was received in connection with any independent property transaction. In absence of a credible explanation, the transaction reflects a clear case of circular movement of funds within family members. undermining the assessee's plea that the amount represented a genuine advance from Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of property. 7.3 Conclusion: The ICICI bank account entry itself disproves the assessee's version. The receipt of Rs. 75 lakhs from Shri Jagdish Tambi followed by immediate transfer of a major portion to her own family members remains unexplained and without justification, thereby attracting addition in the assessee's hands. 8 Rebuttal to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome-tax Act dated 13.12.2019 Assessing total Income at Rs. 90,97,047/-. It is note worthy to mention that the AO made additions whose narrations are as under:-. 1. Disallowance as per para 6.2.4 Rs. 83,453/- "6.2.4 The difference of the cost of purchase and sale consideration is Rs. 63,000/- only and hence in the light of the same the Short Term Los is restricted to Rs. 63,000/- and will be allowed to be set off as per law. The disallowance as per this order is Rs. 83,453/- and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated in view of the inaccurate particulars filed in respect of the same." 2. Disallowance as per para 6.14 Rs. 34,647/- "6.1.4 Consequently in lieu of no direct nexus and the no evidence whatsoever filed by the assessee in respect of these expenses. This amount of Rs. 34,647/- cannot be allowed as an expenses and it being an inaccurate submission of particulars of income and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1(c) is initiated in respect of the same." 3. Disallowance as per para 6.3.8 Rs. 75,00,000/- "6.3.8 Accordingly, this amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- is considered as the income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act. Si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder:- S No Date Cheque No. Drawn on Amount 1 18.10.2014 047309 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- 2 25.10.2014 047310 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- 3 30.10.2014 047311 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- Total 75,00,000/- A copy of relevant bank account of the assessee reflecting the above payment is available on paper book page No. 16 & 17. It is relevant to note that as on this date of agreement on 10.12.2014 M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited was also not owning the aforesaid plot No. F 28, Malviya RIICO Industrial area, Jaipur, as the same stood cancelled/de-alloted on 10.03.2006 by RIICO and the issue of appeal was pending before the RIICO. Keeping in tandem the aforesaid affairs. a Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of Dr. Anil Tambi by M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited through Shri Saroj Dhawan (PB Page 17 to 19) so that he (Dr. Anil Tambi) could pursue the matter with concerned authorities of RICCO for removing the hurdles and getting the plot allotted again to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited so that it could be purchased for Dr Anil Tambi. However the fortunes did not favour, as men....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edical design India (P)Limited through Smt,. Saroj Dhawan (PB Page 9 to 14) and (iii) by power of Attorney executed by Medical Design India P. Ltd., in favour of Dr. Anil Tambi. Hence, these facts indicate that in the case assessee was not a beneficiary even for a single rupee. The beneficiary in this case is M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited who did not return the amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- to the assessee and assessee had to forfeit the same. If any action at all is required with respect to section 56(2)(ix) the same is required to be considered in the case of M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited in accordance with law. Thus the AO is not justified in taking action against the assessee instead of at M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited and thus in the facts and circumstances of the case there was no case with the AO for proposing action under section 148 of the Act. The Bench noted that the assessee did not receive amount as advance from M/s. Jagdish Health Care (P) Ltd. / Dr Anil Tambi. The amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- was received on 24.02.2015 by the assessee from Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited in lieu of such payment made earlier by the assessee for bar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....using Board for Transfer of Name 15,000.00 5 DD issued in favour of Rajasthan Housing Board for one time house tax 4,680.00 6 DD issued in favour of Rajasthan housing board against demand raised 22,473.00 7 DD issued in favour of Rajasthan housing board for brokerage 46,000.00 Total 21,96,453.00 It is noted that the capital gain is shown by the assessee asunder:- Sales price Rs. 20,50,000.00 Cost price as calculated above Rs. 21,96,453.00 Capital loss Rs. 1,46,453.00 Since in the case of the assessee, cost of acquisition is more than the sale value, the assessee has shown a capital loss of Rs. 1,46,453/- in the computation of total income. How ever the AO without assigning any reasons in the entire assessment order restricted the cost of acquisition of property at Rs. 21,13,000/-. Even the AO did not mention in the assessment order which amount is included in the cost, and why the other are excluded. It is noted that as per AO, the cost of acquisition has been taken as under- Purchase price +stamp duty + registration charges + transfer fee, which are in the case of assessee as under - Purchase price ....