BHALCHANDRA A RAKVI HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(1)(2), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:

Bhalchandra A. Rakvi HUF 1) On the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals)- 39, Mumbai [herein after referred to as the Ld. CIT (A)] has erred in not adjudicating a few grounds of appeal raised before him.

2) On the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,51,000/ on account of l/5 share of cash portion alleged to have been received from the seven housing societies.

3) On the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of the alleged cash receipt from the seven societies, based on the latter dated 3.11.2009 from shri Cheoulkar, without appreciating that the specific denial of the same by Shri Cheoulkar by way of his affidavit dated 25.10.2010

4) On the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made on account of the alleged cash receipt of Rs. 1,51,000/- which lacked any supporting evidence.

5) On the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the grounds regarding

Bhalchandra A. Rakvi HUF (a) failure of the Ld Income Tax Officer - 20(l)(2), Mumbai to adhere to the principles of natural justice.

(b) relying on the alleged statements of the 3 Tenants, by the Ld Income Tax Officer - 20(l)(2), Mumbai, without even affording an opportunity for cross examining the witnesses, thereby failing to adhere to the principles of natural justice and rules of evidence.

(c) failure of the Ld Income Tax Officer - 20(l)(2), Mumbai in completing the assessment without furnishing questionnaire stated to have been issued vide notice (u/s 142 (1)) dated 02/08/2011, despite specific reminder dated 11/08/2011.

6) On the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld Income Tax Officer - 20(l)(2), Mumbai in relying on the statement of the three tenets, without affording due opportunity to cross examine them.

7) On the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld CIT (A) erred confirming the order of the Ld Income Tax Officer - 20(1)(2), Mumbai, in taxing the alleged cash receipt, from the seven societies, on the basis of surmises and premises.

Bhalchandra A. Rakvi HUF 8) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.

Bhalchandra A. Rakvi HUF to pass afresh order of assessment and therefore, AO passed afresh order of assessment on 20.09.11 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of I.T. Act.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now before us, the assessee has preferred the appeal by raising the above grounds.

Ground No. 1 to 7. 4. Since all the grounds raised by the assesseeare inter connected and inter related and relates tochallenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) inconfirming the addition made by AO under different heads, therefore we thought it fit to dispose of the same by this common order.

Bhalchandra A. Rakvi HUF Before we decide the merits of the case, it is necessary to evaluate the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the above grounds raised by the assessee inits order. The operative portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is contained in para no. 6 & 6.1 of its order and the same is reproduced below:-

Bhalchandra A. Rakvi HUF has established that the appellant society was paid cash compensation along with the tenants existing on the said plot of land from these cooperative housing societies against use of land as a thoroughfare. Therefore, on account of these evidences brought on record, it is apparent that the appellant has received cash compensation which is not disclosed in itsreturn of income filed. The relevant facts and evidences brought on record by the A.O. were not rebutted by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. On account of the same and in view of the undisputed fact that the said access road is passing through the plot of the appellant and other co-owners, which was closed or blocked by the said co-owners and access was granted only after the intervention of the local Municipal Councilor and the local Dy. Collector; does prove that the thoroughfare was granted after due deliberations, therefore, I find that the A.O. is fully justified in assessing the share of the appellant in the cash compensation received from the seven cooperative

Bhalchandra A. Rakvi HUF housing societies as unaccounted income of the appellant under the head 'income from other sources'. The same is accordingly confirmed. It cannot be held that the right to use its land as access road was granted free of cost. All the circumstantial evidences are against the appellant. 6.1 In view of the above, Grounds Nos. 1 to 9 are dismissed accordingly.

After having gone through the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A), we find that before making additions, the AO had established that the assessee was paid cash compensation alongwith the tenants existing on the said plot of land by the seven cooperative housing societies against use of their land as thorough fare. The Ld. CIT(A) had rightly appreciated the facts of the present case by upholding the decision of AO in respect of additions made under different heads. Even the relevant facts and evidences brought on record by the AO were not rebutted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings.

Bhalchandra A. Rakvi HUF Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT (A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order under challenge. The same is hereby upheld. Resultantly, these grounds raised by the assessee stands dismissed.

Ground No. 8 6. This ground raised by the assessee is general in nature, thus requires no specific adjudication.