TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal for A.Y. 2008-09:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned assessing officer erred in relying on statement furnished before the Settlement Commission by ignoring the fact that the said statement has been declared to be untrue and unreliable by the Settlement Commission and resorting to additions in returned income solely on the strength of such a statement that has been declared to be unreliable and untrue without adducing any other any other evidence in support of such an addition. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 24,00,000 as per column 1 of tabular chart being opening cash balance, ignoring the fact that it is not an income of the appellant for the assessment year 2008-09 and the learned Commissioner Appeal has erred confirming the said addition by conveniently for this aspect not rejecting the statement filed before the Settlement Commission. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 6,00,000 to the total income of the appellant ignorin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Hiranandani group of companies at different levels of development and constructions of Township. His main source of income is stated to be salary. 04. A search and seizure action under section 132 and a survey under section 133A of the income tax act, 1961 were initiated in the case of Hiranandani group of cases on 11/3/2014 by the deputy director of income tax (investigation) unit - IV (3), Mumbai. On the same day, the assessee's residential premises at 1503B Gundecha Heights, LBS, kanjurmarg, Mumbai was also covered. During the course of search, jewellery worth Rs. 2,574,800 and cash of Rs. 75,250,500/- was found. Cash of Rs. 7.5 crores was seized. During the course of search, various diaries and pen drive were also seized. The diaries were in the handwriting of the assessee detailing the work done during the day and pending work. These diaries indicated the various government offices assessee has visited on various dates, which clearly showed that he is taking direct instructions from Mr. Niranjan Hiranandani for the work. His statement was recorded under section 132 (4) on 11 and 12/3/2014. In response to question number 21 of the above statement assessee admitted that o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee regarding the source of acquisition of the unaccounted cash of Rs. 5.52 crores found during the course of search and seizure action at is residential premises. Assessee further failed to give evidence with respect to the cash deposit in his bank account and the bank account of his relatives. Accordingly, the learned assessing officer assessed the income of the assessee of the same sum, which was disclosed, by the assessee for respective assessment years with before the settlement commission. In the admission before the settlement commission assessee offered for assessment year 2008 - 09 is as under:- (i) Rs. 24 lakhs as profits and gains of business (ii) Rs. 153,750 is salary income (iii) Rs. 6 Lacs is further profits and gains from a proprietary concern (iv) Rs. 1192 is income from other sources being savings bank interest (v) Rs. 5437 is fixed deposit receipt interest (vi) Rs. 6785 is the bank credit in the name of wife of assessee 05. Thus, assessee offered Rs. 3,167,164 for assessment year 2008 - 09 before the settlement commission. As per the return filed by the assessee under section, 153A of the act salary income wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad with section 143 (3) of the act on 30/3/2016 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 22,550,789/-. 010. For assessment year 2014 - 15, assessee filed original return of income under section 139 (1) of the act on 30/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 28,549, 340/-. The assessee revised its return of income on 6/1/2016 declaring total income of Rs. 12,997,280/-. Subsequently the assessee against revised its return of income and 3/3/2016 declaring total income at Rs. 84,719,040/-. Assessment was framed under section 143 (3) of the act on 30/3/2016 by determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 85,447,038. 011. All these assessment order was challenged before the learned CIT - A - 47, Mumbai who passed a consolidated order for assessment year 2008 - 09 to assessment year 2014 - 15 for all seven years. However, before us the appeal is filed only for six years wherein as appeal for assessment year 2009 - 10 is not before us at present. 012. The learned CIT - A by passing the consolidated order dealt with issue of addition for each of the assessment year. Assessee contested that all the addition in the assessment years starting from assessment year 2008 - 9 to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a general manager. Therefore, he considered the whether the balance case of Rs. 2 crores is taxable in the hands of the assessee or not. He referred to the order of the settlement commission in case of Hiranandani group where though Hiranandani group had accepted the cash found at the residence of the assessee in assessment year 2014 - 15 however it offered income of only Rs. 1.40 crores and not of Rs. 2 crores which was found and seized from the premises of the assessee. He further noted that in statement recorded under section 132 (4) of the assessee, there was no mention of cash belonging to Hiranandani group. On perusal of the order of the settlement commission under section 245D (1) on 4 March 2014 there was an entry of Rs. 2 crores in the cash statement, however settlement commission did not accept that the same amount was lying with the assessee for seven days without being delivered or handed back. The claim of the assessee was that the person to move it was to be given namely Shri Dilip kapadia was not in town. The CIT also rejected the same because assessee did not name the party and not the identity of that person was established. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irmity in the addition made by the AO in respective years and also tax the same income in assessment year 2014 - 15 as it is offered by the assessee in the return of income. He further held that merely because the settlement commission has rejected the application of the assessee, it does not wipe out the spirit of the search, findings of the search and the meticulous and exhaustive manner with proper justification pertaining to the income, which was offered year wise as additional income in the statement of fact, furnished before settlement commission. He further noted that the learned AO for assessment year 2014 - 15 has made addition only on protective basis with the intention of safeguarding the interest of the revenue. Further, the AO was bound by the CBDT circular not to assess the income of the assessee below the returned income filed by the assessee for the respective year. Accordingly, with this reasons he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008 - 09. 016. For the appeal of the assessee for other years, he held that except the issue of the enhancement of Rs. 2 crores, all other issue remains the same and therefore his decision applies in other appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that the only difference between the assessed income as per the assessment order is for all these years and the revised income as per the order of the learned CIT - A is an addition of Rs. 2 crores enhanced by the learned CIT - A. He submitted that the above sum of Rs. 2 crores was not belonging to the assessee but belonging to Hiranandani group for which Mr. Niranjan Hiranandani has given a confirmation that out of the total cash seized of Rs. 75,250,500 from the assessee only a sum of Rs. 2 crores belong to the head Hiranandani group and balance belongs to him. He further submitted that the above sum of Rs. 7.5 crores found from the assessee, assessee has accepted that only Rs. 5.50 crores should be treated as an advance tax in the hence of the assessee for assessment year 2014 - 15 and balance sum of Rs. 2 crores shall be treated as an advance tax for assessment year 2014 - 15 in case of Roma builders private limited. He submitted that this company belongs to Hiranandani group. In view of this when the adjustment of the tax credit of Rs. 2 crores is already given to Roma builders private limited and when by a certificate that particular company has owned the sum, it cannot ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the residence of the assessee sum of Rs. 75,250,500 was found as per inventory of cash dated 11/3/2014 placed at paper book page number 83. Therefore, naturally it is the duty of the assessee to explain source of the above cash found. The first instance was the statement recorded under section 132 (4) of the assessee on 11/3/2014. In response to question number 20 of the statement, assessee confirms that the cash of Rs. 75,250,500 has been found from his residence. In response to question number 21 he explains the source of cash. He says that out of Rs. 75,250,500, a sum of Rs. 55,250,000 is unaccounted cash receipt not recorded in any of the books of accounts of the assessee. He further says that there is unaccounted cash has been generated over the period through brokerage received from land sale purchase dealings and unaccounted cash receipt of repairing fabrication work etc. He offers that amount for taxation as his undisclosed income over and above his regular income. However, with respect to the sum of Rs. 2 crores, he explains that it has been given to him by one person who is working with Hiranandani group i.e. Mr Dilip Kapadia. He explains who is that person in response t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a builders private limited. Therefore, it is apparent that on the sum of Rs. 2 crores a claim has been made by somebody else other than the assessee that it is owned by it and it belongs to that company. It is also the claim of the assessee that above group has owned the above sum in the settlement petition filed before the settlement commission. Therefore if the sum is taxed once in the hands of Hiranandani group, there is no question that the same amount can be added in the hands of the assessee once again. Further, if the advance tax credit has been given to the assessee M/s Roma builders private limited as advance tax for assessment year 2014 - 15 and not to the assessee, then it can be inferred that the sum belongs to Hiranandani group. There is no dispute that the total sum of Rs. 75,250,000 is required to be taxed. Out of that Rs. 55,250,000 has already been owned by the assessee and taxed in his hands. Therefore, the addition made by the learned CIT - A on enhancement requires inquiry by the assessing officer whether the assessee owns the above sum of Rs. 2 crores or by the Roma builders private limiting. If Roma builders private limited owns it, no addition can be made in ....