M/s. S.K. Bhansali & Associates,, Pune v. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 2(4),, Pune

MA 06/PUN/2020 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2021 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 0624524 RSA 2020
Assessee PAN AAHFS8598L
Bench Pune
Appeal Number MA 06/PUN/2020
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant M/s. S.K. Bhansali & Associates,, Pune
Respondent Income-tax Officer, Ward - 2(4),, Pune
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 05-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 05-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 15-01-2021
First Hearing Date 15-01-2021
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 30-09-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B PUNE VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NOS. 05 & 06/PUN/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 2280/PUN/2016 & 2609/PUN/2017) / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2010-11 M/S. S.K. BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES 11945/17 SUJAY HOUSING SOCIETY SHIVAJI NAGAR PUNE - 411 045 PAN : AAHFS8598L VS. ITO WARD-3(2) PUNE (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL VP : THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN IT A NOS.2280/PUN/2016 & 2609/PUN/2017 ON 10-07-2019 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2010-11. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE PURCHASED CERTAIN LAND AT BANER WHICH WAS JOINTLY OWNED BY TAPADIA FAMILY AND BANSAL FAMILY. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S.132 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF TAPADIA FAMILY CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND INDICATING THAT THE ASSESSEE BY SHRI V.L. JAIN REVENUE BY SHRI VITTHAL BHOSALE DATE OF HEARING 05-03-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05-03-2021 M.A NOS.05 & 06/PUN/2020 M/S. S.K. BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES 2 ASSESSEE PAID ON-MONEY IN THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION. STATEMEN T OF TAPADIA FAMILY WAS RECORDED IN WHICH THE RECEIPT OF ON - MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED AND THE AMOUNTS W ERE ALSO OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE TWO YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) MADE ADDITIONS FOR THE ON-MON EY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2 010- 11 BEING THE SAME PERIOD FOR WHICH TAPADIA FAMILY ACCEPTE D TO HAVE RECEIVED ON-MONEY. WHEN THE MATTER FINALLY CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ADDITIONS GOT CONFIRMED. THE ASSE SSEE HAS MOVED THE INSTANT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ON CERTAIN ISSUES WHICH WE WILL BE TAKING UP ONE BY ONE. 3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 2 OF ITS ORDER RECORDED THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE BY TAPADIA FAMILY. AS AGAINST THAT THE LAND WAS STATED TO BE IN FACT SOLD BY TAPADIA AND BANSAL FAMILIES. 4. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THERE IS NO IMPACT OF TH IS SUBMISSION BECAUSE THE LAND IN QUESTION AT BANER WAS SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE JOINTLY BY TAPADIA AND BANSAL FAMILIES. MERE OMISSION OF THE NAME OF BANSAL FAMILY HAS NO BEARING. 5. THE SECOND CONTENTION RAISED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS IS THAT THE ALLEGED INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND M.A NOS.05 & 06/PUN/2020 M/S. S.K. BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES 3 FROM THE PREMISES OF TAPADIA FAMILY DID NOT INDICATE ANY DATE OF CASH PAYMENT AND HENCE THE TRIBUNAL OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS FOR THE YEARS IN QUESTION. 6. AGAIN WE ARE AT LOSS TO APPRECIATE AS TO WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS SUBMISSION. THE TAPADIA FAMILY ADMITTED TO HAVE RECEIVED ON-MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THE FINANCIAL YEARS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. ONCE THE FACTUM OF RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY IS ESTABLISHED THERE CANNOT B E ANY SEPARATE YEARS OF THE SELLER RECEIVING ON-MONEY AND THE BUYER GIVING IT. THIS CONTENTION IS ALSO REPELLED. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSES SEE RELIED ON THREE DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF DELETION OF THE ADDITION S WHICH WERE NOT DEALT WITH IN THE ORDER. WE FIND THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DECISIONS IS THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER. ONCE AN ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED ON THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THERE IS NO SEPARATE NEED TO DIS CUSS EACH AND EVERY DECISION RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL SUCH DECISIONS IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. 8. THE NEXT POINT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRIBUN AL IN PARA 4.1 OF ITS ORDER REFERRED TO CERTAIN DECISIONS BUT OMITTED M.A NOS.05 & 06/PUN/2020 M/S. S.K. BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES 4 TO CONSIDER FOUR OTHER DECISIONS AS MENTIONED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS. 9. HERE AGAIN WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDE R BECAUSE THE OTHER DECISIONS WERE EXPRESSLY NOTED IN THE O RDER AND THEIR RATIO WAS DULY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. SIMPLY BECAUSE SOME OTHER REPETITIVE DECISIONS HAVE NOT BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ORDER THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE ORDER AMENA BLE TO RECTIFICATION. 10. THE NEXT OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED LAND FROM TAPADIA F AMILY ONLY WHEREAS THE LAND WAS IN FACT PURCHASED FROM BANS AL FAMILY ALSO. 11. WE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE EARLIER WHILE DISPOSING OF THE FIRST GROUND OF THE INSTANT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS BY HOLDING THAT SINCE IT WAS A CASE OF SALE OF LAND JOINTLY BY TWO FAMILIES NON-MENTION OF ONE SELLER DOES NOT MAKE ANY SIGNIFICANCE. 12. THE LAST POINT URGED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT NO CROSS EXAMINATION OF SHRI AJAY TAPADIA FROM THE TAPADIA FAMILY WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHOSE STATEMENT CONSTITUTED THE BASIS OF ADDITIONS. M.A NOS.05 & 06/PUN/2020 M/S. S.K. BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES 5 13. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD NOTICED THAT TH E AO ISSUED SUMMONS TO SHRI AJAY TAPADIA ON TWO OCCASIONS BUT HE DID NOT APPEAR. BE THAT AS IT MAY THE STATEMENT OF SHRI AJAY TAPADIA WAS NOT THE SOLE BASIS OF ADDITIONS. APART FROM THE STATEMENT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IN THE FORM OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO THIS EFFECT WAS ALSO FOUND DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH INDICATING THE ASSESSEE PAYING ON-MONEY. NOT ONLY THAT THE TAPADIA FAMILY ADMITTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENT AND OFFERED THE AMOUNTS AS ITS INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEA RS. WHEN ALL THESE FACTORS ARE CONSIDERED IN JUXTA POSITION TO EACH OTHER WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON FOR GROUSE AT THE END O F THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 TH MARCH 2021. SD/- SD/- (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESI DENT PUNE; DATED : 05 TH MARCH 2021. M.A NOS.05 & 06/PUN/2020 M/S. S.K. BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES 6 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (APPEALS)-2 PUNE 4. THE PR. CIT-2 PUNE 5. B / DR B ITAT PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY / ITAT PUNE DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 05-03-2021 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 05-03-2021 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *