AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1276/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 April 2025AY 2014-15103 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had admitted in his statement recorded under section 132(4) that the amount of Rs. 16,50,00,000/- was received not as an unsecured loan but in lieu of resolution of disputes and dissolution of their joint venture, and that this was his income for the relevant assessment year which he had not shown in his return. This admission was corroborated by the statement of Shri R.K. Verma. The Tribunal found that the assessee's subsequent attempt to characterize the amount as unsecured loans and work receipts was an afterthought to escape tax liability. The AO's reliance on the assessee's admission and the decision in CIT vs. Shri Ravi Mathur was found to be justified. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 15,00,00,000/- (part of the Rs. 16,50,00,000/- admitted as income) as undisclosed income was upheld. Regarding the second issue concerning the cash payment for land purchase, the Tribunal found that the seized documents were found at the assessee's premises and related to an agreement with Newaji Estate P Ltd. The assessee's denial and claim that the documents belonged to another entity were not found satisfactory. The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in inferring that an amount of Rs. 2,65,99,000/- was paid in cash by the assessee. The assessee's submission that the documents were rough and dump was also not accepted. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the AO and CIT(A) on this issue.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ajay Bakliwal, is appealing against an order of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. This order arose from an assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the ACIT, Central Circle-Kota. The case originated from a search and seizure operation on the 'Resonance Group, Kota' on September 7, 2017, which covered the assessee. During the search, a document indicated that Shri Ram Kishan Verma had made payments totaling Rs. 25,75,00,000/- to the assessee. Shri Verma stated these sums were to dissolve a joint venture and settle disputes. The assessee, in his statement under section 132(4), admitted receiving this amount, with Rs. 7,75,00,000/- shown as work receipts and Rs. 16,50,00,000/- shown as unsecured loans in his JV concern's books. He admitted the latter was not a loan but income from dispute resolution, which he had not declared.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 15,00,00,000/- as undisclosed income, treated as unsecured loan from Shri R.K. Verma, is justified based on the assessee's statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent retraction by the assessee. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 2,65,99,000/- as cash payment for land purchase from M/s Nevaji Estates (P) Ltd. is justified, considering the assessee's denial of the seized documents belonging to him and his claim that they relate to M/s Milenium Buildhome Pvt Ltd. Assessee's Contentions: For Issue 1: The assessee argued that the amount of Rs. 15,00,00,000/- was shown as an unsecured loan in the books of Nav Bharat Nirman Co. JV for AY 2014-15 and Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for AY 2015-16. He also stated Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was in his personal books for AY 2015-16. He claimed the amount was accounted for and mentioned as unsecured loans. For Issue 2: The assessee submitted that the seized documents did not belong to him and related to M/s Milenium Buildhome Pvt Ltd. He also stated that an agreement was executed with Newaji Estate P Ltd. to purchase land at Rs. 400 per sq ft, with Rs. 51,11,111/- paid as the first installment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through the AO, relied on the assessee's statement recorded under section 132(4) where he admitted the receipt of Rs. 25,75,00,000/- and that Rs. 16,50,00,000/- was not an unsecured loan but income from dispute resolution and dissolution of a joint venture, which was not shown in his return. The AO also noted that Shri R.K. Verma confirmed this in his statement. The AO considered the assessee's subsequent submissions as an afterthought to escape tax liability and relied on the Rajasthan High Court decision in CIT vs. Shri Ravi Mathur regarding the evidentiary value of statements recorded under section 132(4).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132(1),Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 132(4),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(14)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI,

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Hearing: 05/02/2025Pronounced: 11/04/2025
1.

In the result ground no. 4, 5 & 6 raised by the assessee are allowed. provision of 132 of Act at the residence of the assessee document inventorised at page no. 6 to 9 of Exhibit 08 was found. The detailed facts, contention and reply on the issue has already been discussed in para 2.3 herein above we deal on the brief of it that the said documents payments notes the transaction made between M/s Nevaji Estates (P) Ltd., and Millenium Buildhome Private Limited. As per the document seized, part payment have to be made in white (ek number) and part payment has to be made in black. In white Rs. 2,13,90,000/- has to be paid while as per black Rs. 4,80,00,000/- has to be paid. In ek number cost has been taken at 400 whereas as per black cost has been taken at 885. An amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- has been paid in black and Rs. 65,99,000/- has to be paid in black.

Thus, it is inferred that an amount of Rs. 2,65,99,000/- have been paid in cash by the assessee and thereby the same was added in the hands of the assessee as per provision of section 69 of the Act.

As the addition was made u/s. 69 of the Act we would like to refer that section ; Unexplained investments.

69.

Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if & 1277/JP/2024 Ajay Bakliwal vs. ACIT any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year. Record reveal that the transaction recorded is the investment of M/s Millenium Buildhome Private Limited and as informed in the open court that the case of that company i.e. Millenium Buildhome Private Limited opened as per provision of section 153C of the Act. Thus, it is clear from the record that there is no investment made by the assessee in respect of the property as referred and revenue has already based on that seized paper taken an action to tax that amount as per provision of section 153C of the Act we see no reason to considered as unexplained investment of the assessee when the said investment undisputed is the investment of that Millenium Buildhome Private Limited. The contention raised by that company that this record is nothing but a deaf and dump would automatically does not mean unexplained investment of the assessee in that property when that Millenium Buildhome Private Limited is separately assessed to tax and the assessee merely is the director of that company cannot be considered to have made the unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee.

When the matter carried before the learned Commissioner of income tax he has confirmed the addition merely on the fact that considering have been paid by the assessee from unaccounted income on which no tax has been paid and could have never offered for taxation had the income tax search action not been carried out in his case. Thus he has not disputed the fact that the purchase of the property is in the name of Millenium Buildhome Private Limited. Considering that fact particularly not disputed by the revenue that the purchase and sale of property between the two separate legal entity where the role of the assessee is only director in the company named Millenium Buildhome Private Limited who is purchaser of that property cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee. If at all that is to be taxed same be taxed in the hands of that Millenium Buildhome Private Limited and not in the hands of the assessee when the revenue has already taken a step to tax that transaction by invoking the provision of section 153C of the Act. Based on these observation ground no. 7 raised by the assessee is allowed.

15.

Since we have considered the grounds of appeal of the assessee on its merit the ground challenging the technicality of approval not proper becomes academic and therefore, the same is not decided.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. the material available on record. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts, various grounds raised by the assessee and the arguments of both the parties in ITA no. 1277/JP/2024. Hence, the bench feels that the decision taken by us in for the Assessment Year 2014-15 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of the assessee Shri Ajay for the Assessment Year 2015-16. Based on this observation ground no. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee is dismissed.

Ground no. 3 becomes academic, and ground no. 3,4 & 5 are allowed. Ground no. 7 being general does not require any adjudication. In the result the appeal of the assessee in stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11/04/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 11/04/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Ajay Bakliwal, Kota & 1277/JP/2024 Ajay Bakliwal vs. ACIT 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Central Circle, Kota 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 1276 & 1277/JP/2024) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 132(1)

All 846 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →