THE ASST.CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI MAHESHBHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Asst. Year : 1993-94 - 2– 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.”

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual carrying on business of investment in real estate. He had filed his original return of income on 31.03.1995 declaring total income of Rs. 96,530/-. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the residential and office premises of the assessee. There was seizure of cash of Rs. 10,000/- and shares worth Rs. 2,93,040/-. Cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- belonging to the assessee was also seized from the premises of Shri Vikrambhai P. Pandya. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer completed assessment on 09.07.2018 assessing total income at Rs. 1,58,50,530/-, making addition of Rs.1,44,79,800/- being unaccounted income from undisclosed sources on the basis of credit entries in the cash book.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted addition of Rs.1,44,79,800/- against which the Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

Having gone through the entire record before us, we find that Assessing Officer made addition based on the seized papers reflecting actual receipts from various persons. The persons viz. Manoj Vadodaria, Natwarlal K. Patel AOP, Ved Prakash Chiripal have accepted having paid the amounts in purchase of land. From the details filed by the Revenue, we find that the assessee has paid taxes of Rs.16,44,539/- against the tax due of Rs.16,61,713/-, Shri Natwarlal Parekh paid Rs.23,94,477/- against the tax due of Rs. 44,77,920/- and Shri Natwarlal K. Patel AOP paid taxes of Rs.37,63,537/- against the tax due of Rs.38,08,339/-. However, the application filed before the Settlement Commission by these three Asst. Year : 1993-94 - 3– entities has been rejected and the matter has been referred to the Assessing Officer. It has not been brought on record whether these amounts been assessed to tax or not. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on the wrong premise that the amounts have been offered to tax and verified by the Department which is against the facts on record. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to give a finding as to how the persons concerned have accepted the amounts belonged to them and whether the same have been offered to tax and due taxes have been paid on such amounts.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.