Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6164 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
24-05-2018
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
30-01-2017
Judgement Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,O JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 98/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI DHARAM PAL SINGH 75, JAI SHANKAR COLONY NEW SANGANER ROAD, JAIPUR 302 019 CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 2(5) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AMIPS 2100 F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI MANISH AGARWAL CA AND SHRI O.P. AGARWAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY:SHRI VARINDER MEHTA, CIT - DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 16/05/2018 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 /05/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, JAIPUR DATED 30-11-2016 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09. 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31-03-2010 DECLARING INCOME AT RS. 3,69,14,652/-.THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) O F THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3 ) OF THE ACT AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,69,62,152/-. THEREAFTER THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ITA NO.98/JP/2017 SHRI DHARAM PAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD- 2 (5) ,JAIPUR 2 ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF SOME TAX EVASION PETITION. T HUS THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED BY AO AT RS. 7,69,14,650/- BY MAKING ADDI TION OF RS. 4.00 CRORES U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FI RST APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 2.2 NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT EX-PARTE TO THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961. 1.1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE REOPENING OF THE CO MPLETED ASSESSMENT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY COGENT REASONS HAVING BEEN GIVEN. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 C RORES WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND FURTHER WITHOUT BY INCORRECTLY INTERPRETI NG THE VARIOUS STATEMENTS REFERRED TO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THU S THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED IN TOTO. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN OBSERVING THE CHARACTER OF THE INC OME OF THE REVENUE NATURE INSTEAD OF APPRECIATING THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AGAINST PROPOSED BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS, THUS THE AD DITION MADE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3.1 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THE GROUND NO. 1 AND 1.1. HENCE, THE SAME A RE DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. ITA NO.98/JP/2017 SHRI DHARAM PAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD- 2 (5) ,JAIPUR 3 4.1 THE GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REGA RDING SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 4.00 CRORES AND THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) REGARDING THE CHARACTER OF INCOME OF THE REVENUE NA TURE IS ALSO CHALLENGED 4.2 THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE MADE ORAL ARGUMENTS BESIDES FILED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSION. UNDER THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS C HALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4.00 CRORES U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THE ADVANCE RECEIVED BY ASSES SEE AS HIS UNEXPLAINED BROKERAGE INCOME. BRIEF FACTS PERTAINING TO THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROCURING LA ND / PROPERTY WHO OPERATES FROM GURGAON. IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVA NT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE WAS APPROACHED BY O NE SHRI RATTAN SINGH FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCUREMENT / ACQUISITIONS OF SOME LAND IN GURGAON. IT WAS INFORMED BY SHRI RATTAN SINGH TO TH E ASSESSEE THAT HE IS WORKING FOR A COMPANY NAMED M/S VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. (VEEPL), WHO HAD ENGAGED SHRI RATTAN SINGH FOR FACILITATING THE ACQUISITION OF VARIOUS PIECES OF LANDS AND HIS SERV ICES WERE SOUGHT BY THE COMPANY IN TAKING POSSESSION OF THE LAND, DEMAR CATION, LEVELLING ETC. IT WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING PIECES OF LANDS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS APPROACHED BY SHRI RATTAN SINGH WHO SOUGHT HELP OF ASSESSEE IN SUCH ACQUISITION / PROCUREMENT, IN FURTHERANCE OF W HICH SHRI RATTAN SINGH TRANSFERRED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4 CRORES TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS PAID VIDE TWO CHEQUES OF RS. 2 CRORES EACH DATED 26 .11.2007. THIS AMOUNT WAS AN ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE SO THAT THE A SSESSEE BECOMES IN A POSITION TO GIVE ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LANDS IN GURGAON. HOWEVER, NO FURTHER AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE FOR PURCHAS ING THE LANDS AND THEREFORE, THE DEAL COULD NOT BE COMPLETED AS THE C OMPLETE AMOUNT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE IN THE SCHEDULED TIME AND CONSEQUENTLY ASSESSEE COULD NOT PAY FURTHER TO PROSPECTIVE SELLE RS. ACCORDINGLY, THE DEAL GOT CANCELLED AND THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 4 CRORES REMAINED PAYABLE AS ON THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVAN T TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN PURSUANCE OF AN INVESTIGATI ON CONDUCTED BY THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI), THE S TATEMENTS OF ASSESSEE WERE RECORDED ON 22.04.2014 AND 25.04.2014 , WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSED AND VERIFIED ALL THE ABOVE MEN TIONED FACTS, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT NO COMMISSION WHATSOEVER WA S RECEIVED BY THE ITA NO.98/JP/2017 SHRI DHARAM PAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD- 2 (5) ,JAIPUR 4 ASSESSEE FROM SHRI RATTAN SINGH AND THE AMOUNT WHIC H WAS RECEIVED WAS MERELY AN ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THE STA TEMENT SO RECORDED BY THE CBI FORM PART OF THE RECORD OF THE INCOME TA X DEPARTMENT, SINCE PART OF THE SAME HAS BEEN RE-PRODUCED BY THE LD. AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. HOWEVER, THE LD. AO COMPLETELY IGNORED THE ABOVE ME NTIONED FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND INCORRE CTLY HELD THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 4.00 CRORES WAS COMMISSION INCOME OF ASSESSEE, WHICH ACTION OF LD.AO WAS LATER CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A). IN THIS REGARD, AT THE OUTSET, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE MERELY ON THE BASIS O F STATEMENTS OF SHRI RATTAN SINGH RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT WHO HAS ST ATED TO HAVE PAID THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 4.00 CRORES AS COMMISSI ON TO ASSESSEE, WHICH IS A CLEARLY FALSE STATEMENT AND HAS BEEN MAD E JUST TO SAFEGUARD HIMSELF AND SHIFT THE TAX LIABILITY ON ASSESSEE. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT APART FROM SUCH STATEMENTS OF SH. RA TAN SINGH, NO OTHER CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY LD. AO FOR MAKING ADDITION. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS POOJA AGRAWAL ITA NO. 385/2011 HAS HELD THAT ADDITIONS MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING IS TO BE SUPPORTED WITH FINDINGS FROM INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUPPL IED WITH COPIES OF STATEMENTS OF SH. RATAN SINGH RECORDED BY CBI AS WELL AS DURING HIS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHEREIN HE HAS C ONTENTEDLY STATED THAT SUCH SUM PAID BY HIM TO ASSESSEE WAS IN THE NA TURE OF COMMISSION. IN FACT, NO OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION WAS PR OVIDED TO ASSESSEE WHEN HEAVY RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON STATEMENTS OF SH RATAN SINGH FOR MAKING ADDITION, WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CCE VS. ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES , (324) ELT 641 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 6. ACCORDING TO US, NOT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE WITNESSES BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THOUGH THE STATEMENTS OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE MADE THE BASIS O F THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A SERIOUS FLAW WHICH MAKES THE ORDER NULLI TY INASMUCH AS IT AMOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE BECAUSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVERSELY AFFECTED. IT IS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS BASED UPON T HE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE AFORESAID TWO WITNESSES. EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STATEMENTS AND WANT ED TO CROSS- EXAMINE, THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY DID NOT GRANT T HIS OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE . IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE IMPUGNE D ORDER ITA NO.98/JP/2017 SHRI DHARAM PAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD- 2 (5) ,JAIPUR 5 PASSED BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY HE HAS SPECIFI CALLY MENTIONED THAT SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY WAS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER, NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED AND THE AFORESAID PLEA IS N OT EVEN DEALT WITH BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY. AS FAR AS THE TRIBUN AL IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT REJECTION OF THIS PLEA IS TOTALLY UNTENAB LE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS SIMPLY STATED THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SAID DE ALERS COULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT OUT ANY MATERIAL WHICH WOULD NOT BE IN POSS ESSION OF THE APPELLANT THEMSELVES TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THEIR EX- FACTORY PRICES REMAIN STATIC. IT WAS NOT FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO HAVE GUESS WORK AS TO FOR WHAT PURPOSES THE APPELLANT WANTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THOSE DEALERS AND WHAT EXTRACTION THE APPELLANT WANTED FROM THEM. 7. AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAD CONTESTED THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE STATEMENTS OF THESE TWO WITNESS ES AND WANTED TO DISCREDIT THEIR TESTIMONY FOR WHICH PURPOSE IT WANT ED TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. THAT APART, THE A DJUDICATING AUTHORITY SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE PRICE LIST AS MAIN TAINED AT THE DEPOT TO DETERMINE THE PRICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF EXCI SE DUTY. WHETHER THE GOODS WERE, IN FACT, SOLD TO THE SAID DEALERS/WITNE SSES AT THE PRICE WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE PRICE LIST ITSELF COULD B E THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT FOR THE AD JUDICATING AUTHORITY TO PRESUPPOSE AS TO WHAT COULD BE THE SUBJECT MATTE R OF THE CROSS- EXAMINATION AND MAKE THE REMARKS AS MENTIONED ABOVE . VERY RECENTLY, HONBLE JAIPUR BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SH. PRAMOD JAIN VS. DCIT HAS RELIED UPON THE VIEW TAKEN BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN ANDAMAN TIMBERS AND HELD THAT THE STATEMENTS OF WITNESS CANNOT BE MADE SOLE BASIS OF MAKING ASSE SSMENT WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION AND CONS EQUENTLY IT IS A SERIOUS FLAW WHICH RENDERS THE ORDER A NULLITY. HONBLE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF ITAT ALSO IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUNITA JAIN VS ITO QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY PLACING RELIANCE ON APEX COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF ANDAMAN TIMBER (CITED SUPRA) AS ENTIRE ASSESSMENT WAS BASED UPON THE STAT EMENTS OF SH. MUKESH CHOKSI, WHICH WERE NEITHER SUPPLIED TO ASSES SEE NOR WAS OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION PROVIDED. IT IS THUS SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION MADE BY LD.AO ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF SH. RATAN SINGH WITHOUT PROVIDING OPP ORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUS TICE AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION SO MADE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT OF ASSES SEE WERE ALSO RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 13. 08.2014, WHEREIN HE HAD STATED ON OATH THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS OF RS. 4.00 CRORES WAS RECEIVED BY HIM AS ADVANCE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF LAND FROM FARMERS ITA NO.98/JP/2017 SHRI DHARAM PAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD- 2 (5) ,JAIPUR 6 AND FURTHER STATED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT RECEIVED AS COMMISSION. HOWEVER, LD. AO RESORTED TO RELY UPON SH. RATAN SI NGH INSTEAD OF ASSESSEE THOUGH SUCH STATEMENTS WERE NOT RECORDED D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSEE NOR WERE SUCH ST ATEMENTS RECORDED BY LD. AO. MOREOVER, COPY OF CBI REPORT RELIED UPON WAS NEVER PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS ALSO AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. SO FAR AS MERITS OF THE CASE ARE CONCERNED, IT IS S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SHRI RATTAN SING H HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-II, BIKANER U/S 144 / 263 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.03.2015. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY TH E LD. DCIT ON PAGE 8 TO 10 OF THE SAID ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AT PAGE 5 IN PARA (D) OF THE PRESENT ORDER WHERE IT HAS BEEN CATEGORI CALLY OBSERVED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 4.00 CRORES WAS PA ID BY SHRI RATTAN SINGH TO ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND O NLY AND NOT AS BROKERAGE OR COMMISSION. THE LD. DCIT HAS BASED THI S OBSERVATION ON THE FINDINGS OF THE CBI, AS THE CBI ALSO HAS FOUND THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS PAID MERELY AS AN ADVANCE AND NOT AS BROKERAGE COMMISSION. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. AO OF SH RI RATAN SINGH HAS DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4.00 CRORES IN THE HANDS OF SHRI RATAN SINGH WHICH WAS SHOWN BY HIM AS COMMISSI ON PAID TO SH. DHARAM PAL SINGH. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF ASSES SMENT ORDER DATED 25.03.2015 OF SHRI RATAN SINGH AS HAS BEEN RE PRODUCED BY THE LD. AO HIMSELF IN THE IMPUGNED RE-ASSESSMENT OR DER AT PAGE 5 TO 7 IN POINT NO. D, IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SA KE OF CONVENIENCE: IN ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE FILED BY T HE SHRI RATTAN SINGH THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY SHRI DHARAMPAL SINGH FROM HIM AMOUNTING TO RS. 4.00 CRORES AS COMMISSION IT IS IN THE FITNESS OF THE THINGS THAT REFERENCE TO THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE CBI AUTHORITIES, WHO WERE PROBING AND INVESTIGATING INT O THIS MATTER, HAVE GIVEN THE FINDING THAT ON ENQUIRY FROM SHRI DH ARAMPAL SINGH IT WAS STATED BY HIM THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMISSION FROM SHRI RATTAN SINGH IN F.Y. 2007-08 . HE FURTHER STATED THAT SHRI RATTAN SINGH GIVE HIM RS. 4,00,00,000/- ON 26. 11.2007 IN TWO CHEQUES OF ABN AMRO BANK TO PURCHASE THE LAND AT G URGAON BUT AS SHRI RATTAN SINGH DID NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER PAYME NT IN SCHEDULED TIME HENCE HE COULD NOT PURCHASE THE LAND AND RS. 4,00,00,000/- WAS STILL OUTSTANDING WHICH SHRI DHAR AMPAL SINGH WILL PAY TO SHRI RATTAN SINGH. THIS FINDING OF THE CBI AUTHORITY CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE CLAIM OF SHRI RATTAN SINGH IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF HAVING PAID COMMISSION WAS ABSOLUTELY BOGUS AND EYEWASH WH ICH IS NOT ITA NO.98/JP/2017 SHRI DHARAM PAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD- 2 (5) ,JAIPUR 7 ACCEPTABLE AT THIS END AND MORE SO WHEN HE HAS NOTHING TO SAY IN THIS REGARD DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE AO. THE CBI AUTHORITIES HAVE ALSO FOUND FROM THEIR INVE STIGATION FROM M/S VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD., COMPANY WH ICH HAS SAID TO HAVE PURCHASE VARIOUS LANDS AT GURGAON THROUGH T HE ASSISTANCE OF SHRI RATTAN SINGH, WHO HAD BEEN INSTRUMENTAL TO THE COMPANY IN PROCUREMENT, DEMARCATION AND TAKING POSSESSION OF T HE LANDS AT VILLAGES KHERKI DAULA, SIKOHPUR, HASSANPUR AND SAKA TPUR. FOR THESE SERVICES THIS COMPANY PAID SHRI RATTAN SINGH COMMISSION OF RS. 6.30 CRORES IN F.Y. 2007-08 AND ON 22.11.2007 O UT OF THE SAID COMMISSION THE COMPANY PAID HIM RS. 5,58,62,100/- A FTER DEDUCTING TDS RS. 71,37,900/- ON THE GROSS AMOUNT O F RS. 6.30 CRORES. THIS FINDING OF THE CBI AUTHORITY IS CORRECT AS THE SAME TDS AMOUNT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY SHRI RATTAN SINGH IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY A.Y. 2007-08 WHEREIN HE HAS SHOWN GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 6,46,31,152/- WHICH INCLUDED THE P AYMENT MADE BY THE ABOVE COMPANY OF RS. 6.30 CRORES. THEY HAVE AL SO ENQUIRED FROM THEM STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT NO. 1380300 OF SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAT THE SAID ACCOUNT WAS CREDITED WITH RS. 5 ,58,62,100/- ON 22.11.2007IN FORM OF TWO DEPOSITS RECEIVED ON TRANS FER FROM ACCOUNT NO. 1095104 AMOUNTING TO RS. 26,60,100/- AN D RS. 5,32,02,000/-. IN THIS REGARD IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT FRO M THE VARIOUS DEALS OF LAND PURCHASES MADE BY THE COM PANY THROUGH SHRI RATTAN SINGH REVEAL ALL TOGETHER DIFFE RENT LAND DETAILS THAN SUBMITTED BY THE COMPANY BEFORE THE CB I AUTHORITIES WHICH AGAIN SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER CAME OUT WITH HIS TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS AT ANY STAGE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS AS WELL AS PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION 263 BEFORE THE WORTHY CIT, B IKANER. THE CA OF ASSESSEE ALSO MISLED THE DEPARTMENT BY WAY OF CLAIM OF BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS. 5,02,00,800/- TO SHRI DHA RAMPAL SINGH WHO IN HIS STATEMENT STATED ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT FA CTS THAT THAT PAYMENT OF RS. 4,00,00,000/- THROUGH THE CHEQUES O F ABN AMRO BANK DATED 26.11.200 WERE ACTUALLY GIVEN FOR PURCHA SE OF LAND AND NOT AS BROKERAGE COMMISSION. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FACTS OF THE CASE THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENSES CLAIMED INCLUDING COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.5,02,00, 800/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI RATTAN SINGH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 008-09. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE CBI AS WELL AS THE LD. DCIT, CIRCLE-II, BIKANER, IT GETS FORTIFIED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 4.00 CRORES WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE MERELY AS AN ADVANCE AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS COMMISSI ON. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THIS AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN C ONSIDERED AND ADDED IN THE INCOME OF SHRI RATTAN SINGH, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS THE SAME WOULD ITA NO.98/JP/2017 SHRI DHARAM PAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD- 2 (5) ,JAIPUR 8 AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION, WHICH FACT HAS COMPLETEL Y BEEN IGNORED BY THE LD. AO AND ALSO BY LD. CIT(A). IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION HERE VERSION OF SH. RAT AN SINGH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR ONE MORE REASON THAT HE PAID TH E A HUGE SUM OF RS.4 CRORES, WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, WHICH I TSELF INDICATES THAT CLAIM OF COMMISSION IS NOTHING ELSE BUT AN AFTERTHO UGHT TO SHIFT TAX LIABILITY UPON THE ASSESSEE. YOUR GOODSELF WOULD AP PRECIATE THAT NO PRUDENT PERSON WOULD MAKE SUCH A HUGE PAYMENT AS CO MMISSION WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX, MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN FA ILURE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ITSELF RESULTS INTO DISALLOWANCE OF ENTIR E EXPENDITURE. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A), WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT THE BANK STATEMENTS ETC. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTI ON THAT PAYMENTS MADE TO AGRICULTURIST WERE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CH EQUE. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK IN WHICH SUCH ADVANCE OF RS.4 CRORES WAS DEPOSITED HAD CLOSED AND SINCE THE MATTE R WAS QUITE OLD DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS, COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT S COULD NOT BE OBTAINED. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUCH SUM WAS ADVANCED BY ASSESSEE TO 6 AGRICULTURISTS, WHICH INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD EVEN AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT ITSELF AS SH. RATAN SINGH, IN Q 4 OF STATEMENTS RECORDED ON OATH U/S 131 HAD STATED ABOU T SUCH PAYMENT AND SUIT FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST SUCH PARTIES. RELEVA NT EXTRACTS OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE REPRODUCED HEREWITH FOR THE SA KE OF CONVENIENCE: IZ'U 4% BL E ESA VKI VU; DQN DGUK PKGRS GSA RKS CR YK LDRS GSA MKJ % BL LACA/K ESA TSLK FD JH /KEZIKY FLAG TH DK DGUK GS FD ;G 4-00 DJKSM+ DH JKFK MUGKSAUSA EQ>LS VFXZE ,MOKAL DS RKSJ IJ IZK IR DH GS VKSJ VKXS TEHU FOSRKVKSA DKS ESJS FCGKQ IJ NH GS] BL LACA/K ESA ESA MUDS }KJK IZ LRQR FD;S X;S FLFOY NKOK TKS FD MUDS }KJK EKUUH; FLFOY TT] LHFU;J FMFOTU] XQMXKAO OKN LA[;K LH,L 809@2015 DH NK;K IZFR IZLRQR DJ JGK GWWA BL OKN I= ESA I`'B LA[;K 2 ,OA 3 IJ LI'V:I LS NKKZ;K X;K GS FD MUDS }KJK 6 IKFVZ;KSA D KS :- 4-00 DJKSM+ DH JKFK TEHU [KJHN @ CSPKU DS :I ES VFXZE DS CRKSJ NH XBZ FKH TC FD BL IZDKJ GEKJS CHP ESA FDLH HKH IZDKJ DK BDJKJUKEK UGHA GS RFKK UK GH DHKH ESJS }KJK 4-00 DJKSM+ :- DK FJDOJH DK NKOK MKYK X;K GSA TKS :- 4-00 DJKSM+ TEHA NKJKSA DKS VFXZE DS :I ESA FN[KYK;S X;S GSA MLESA LS JH YN~NKJKE DS UKE IJ 30- 00 YK[K DK FMEKAM MKV JH /KEZIKY DS [KKRS LS FNUKAD 04-01-2008 DKS CUOK;K X; K GS FTLS FNUKAD & DKS FUJLR DJOKDJ VIUS [KKRS ESA TEK DJK;K X;K GSA FTL DK MHMH LA[;K 48120 CSAD LVSVES.V ESA VAFDR GSA BL IZDKJ ;G LI'V GS FD JH /KEZIKY FLA G DS }KJK JH YN~NKJKE DKS FDLH HKH IZDKJ DK HKQXRKU UGHA FD;K X;K GSA BLH IZDKJ VU ; IKFVZ;KSA LS GEKJK DKSBZ LACA/K UGHA GS UK GH GEKJS }KJK FDLH IZDKJ DK YSUNSU FD;K X;K GSA YOUR HONOUR WOULD APPRECIATE THAT ON ONE HAND, LOWE R AUTHORITIES HAVE PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE STATE MENTS OF SH. RATAN SINGH AND ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE NOT CONSIDERED TH E MOST IMPORTANT FACTS EVIDENT FROM HIS STATEMENTS, WHEREIN HE HAS S TATED THAT ASSESSEE ITA NO.98/JP/2017 SHRI DHARAM PAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD- 2 (5) ,JAIPUR 9 HAS ADVANCED SUM OF RS.4 CRORES TO 6 PERSONS, FOR R ECOVERY OF WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FILED RECOVERY SUIT AGAINST SUCH PARTI ES. IN FACT, SH. RATAN SINGH HAS REFERRED CASE NO. OF SUCH SUIT. YOUR HONO UR WOULD APPRECIATE THAT EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO F URNISH BANK STATEMENTS ETC. FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE, IT IS ALSO AN ACCEPTED FACT THAT NO SUIT CAN BE FILED IN THE ABSENCE OF DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCES. IT IS THUS SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS MIS-APPREC IATED THE FACT THAT NO DETAILS ABOUT ADVANCE PAYMENTS TO AGRICULTURIST WER E PROVIDED BY ASSESSEE, WHEN SUCH DETAILS WERE EMANATING FROM ASS ESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. LD. CIT(A) HAS DRAWN ADVERSE INFERENCE BY FURTHER O BSERVING THAT WHEN VEEPL HAD NOT PURCHASED ANY LAND DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR, I.E. DURING F Y 2007-08 AND 2008-09 THROUGH RATAN SINGH, WHY SHOULD SH RATAN SI NGH ADVANCE A SUM OF RS.4 CRORES TO APPELLANT FOR PURCHASE OF LAN DS AT GURGAON. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ADVANCES RECEI VED BY ASSESSEE FROM SH RATAN SINGH HAD NO CONNECTION WITH SUMS REC EIVED BY SH RATAN SINGH FROM VEEPL. BOTH THE TRANSACTIONS WERE IN RELATION TO DIFFERENT LANDS. FURTHER, AS STATED ABOVE THE ADVAN CE MADE BY RATAN SINGH TO ASSESSEE WAS FOR FURTHER PURCHASE OF LAND (WHICH RATAN SINGH WOULD HAVE THEN TRANSFERORS TO VEEPL) BUT AS IS EVI DENT THAT THE DEAL FOR PURCHASE OF LAND COULD NOT MATERIALISE AS ONLY PART PAYMENT WAS MADE BY SH. RATAN SINGH TO ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE S HRI RATAN SINGH ALSO COULD NOT TRANSFER ANY LAND TO THE COMPANY VEE PL. IT WAS FOR THIS REASON THAT BALANCE SHEET OF VEEPL DOES NOT REFLECT ANY PURCHASE DURING F Y 2007-08 AND 2008-09. THUS, ADVERSE INFER ENCE SO DRAWN BY LD. CIT(A) ON THIS BASIS IS TOTALLY INCORRECT AND W ITHOUT FULLY AND PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS. GOING FURTHER, LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH SUM OF RS.4 CRORES HAS ALREADY BEEN HELD AS ADVANCE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SH. RATAN SINGH ON THE PREMISE THAT INCOME HAS TO BE TAXED IN CORRECT HANDS. IN THIS REGARD, I T IS STATED THAT ENQUIRIES TILL DATE SUGGEST THAT SUCH SUM WAS TAXAB LE IN THE HANDS OF SH RATAN SINGH AS PER THE CBI ENQUIRIES AS WELL AS FIN DING / OBSERVATIONS OF LD. AO WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT OF SH. RATAN SINGH. IN FACT, LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ANY M ATERIAL ON RECORD SO AS TO PROVE THAT SUCH SUM HAS BEEN WRONGLY TAXED IN THE HANDS OF SH RATAN SINGH. LD. AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO REFERRED A CONFIRMATION GIVEN AND SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR W HICH IT WAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NEVER SIGNED ANY SUCH CONFIRMATION TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE AS HE NEV ER RECEIVED ANY COMMISSION FROM RATAN SINGH AND THE CONFIRMATION RE FERRED BY THE LD.AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MIGHT HAVE BEEN GOT S IGNED BY RATAN SINGH ALONG WITH OTHER PAPERS WHEN HE WAS UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT OF ITA NO.98/JP/2017 SHRI DHARAM PAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD- 2 (5) ,JAIPUR 10 THE ASSESSEE AS AN ACCOUNTANT AND THUS THE SAME BEI NG OBTAINED THROUGH ILLEGAL MEANS DESERVES TO BE IGNORED AND EXCLUDED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 4.00 CRORES MADE BY LD.AO IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORD ERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4.4 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO CONSIDERE D VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4.00 CRORES U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION AND IT WAS TREATED BY THE AO FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE BY THE AO WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATIO N ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT SATISFACTORY IN THE OPINION OF THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THIS A MOUNT FROM SHRI RATTAN SINGH BY TWO CHEQUES. THE AO ON ONE HAND TRE ATED THIS AMOUNT AS BROKERAGE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE OTHER H AND MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT WHICH ITSELF IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO BY OBSERV ING AS UNDER:- ITA NO.98/JP/2017 SHRI DHARAM PAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD- 2 (5) ,JAIPUR 11 (XIV) THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND LOOKING TO THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , IT IS HELD THAT THE AFORESAID SUM OF RS. 4 CRORES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM SHRI RATAN SINGH WAS NOTHING BUT COMMISSION INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THUS IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS J USTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 4 CRORE TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND H ENCE THE SAME IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS COMMIS SION INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITIO N OF RS. 4.00 CRORES TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, THE SOURC E FROM WHERE THE MONEY HAS COME TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN D OUBT AS THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY TWO CHEQUES (EACH OF RS. 2.00 CROR ES) BOTH DATED 26-11- 2007 FROM SHRI RATTAN SINGH. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TH AT THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY HIM FOR PURCHASING THE LAND AND IT WAS NOT COMMISSION INCOME. THE CBI HAS ALSO CONDUCTED ENQUIRY IN THIS CASE AND BEFORE CBI THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DEPOSED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS AN ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF THE LAND GIVEN BY SHRI RATTAN SINGH. TH IS ADDITION WAS MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RATTAN S INGH RECORDED U/S 131 (1) OF THE ACT. SHRI RATTAN SINGH WAS AN INTERESTED PARTY WHO HAD CLAIMED THIS AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE AS COMMISSION FROM HIS I NCOME. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI RATTAN SINGH FOR MAKING SUCH STATEMENT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CCE VS ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) HELD THAT NOT ALLOWING THE ITA NO.98/JP/2017 SHRI DHARAM PAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD- 2 (5) ,JAIPUR 12 ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESSES BY THE ADJU DICATING AUTHORITY THOUGH THE STATEMENTS OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE MADE THE BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A SERIOUS FLAW WHICH MAKES THE OR DER NULLITY INASMUCH AS IT AMOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURA L JUSTICE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVERSELY AFFECTED. THUS NOT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI RATTAN SINGH WHOSE STATEMENT HAS BEEN MADE THE BASIS FOR MAKING THIS ADDITION IS A SERIOUS FLAW O N THE PART OF THE REVENUE. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT CBI HAS ALSO GIVEN THE FINDING THAT SAID AMOUNT WAS PAID MERELY AS AN ADVANCE AND NOT AS BROKERAGE COMMISSION. THE AO OF SHRI RATTAN SINGH HAD DISALLO WED THIS AMOUNT WHEREIN IT HAS CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AS COMMISSION. THE RELEVANT PARA 5 TO 7 OF SHRI RATTA N SINGH ORDER ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- IN ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE FILED BY T HE SHRI RATTAN SINGH THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY SHRI DHARAMPAL SINGH FROM HIM AMOUNTING TO RS. 4.00 CRORES AS COMMISSION IT IS IN THE FITNESS OF THE THINGS THAT REFERENCE TO THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE CBI AUTHORITIES, WHO WERE PROBING AND INVESTIGATING INT O THIS MATTER, HAVE GIVEN THE FINDING THAT ON ENQUIRY FROM SHRI DH ARAMPAL SINGH IT WAS STATED BY HIM THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMISSION FROM SHRI RATTAN SINGH IN F.Y. 2007-08 . HE FURTHER STATED THAT SHRI RATTAN SINGH GIVE HIM RS. 4,00,00,000/- ON 26. 11.2007 IN TWO CHEQUES OF ABN AMRO BANK TO PURCHASE THE LAND AT G URGAON BUT AS SHRI RATTAN SINGH DID NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER PAYME NT IN SCHEDULED TIME HENCE HE COULD NOT PURCHASE THE LAND AND RS. 4,00,00,000/- WAS STILL OUTSTANDING WHICH SHRI DHAR AMPAL SINGH WILL PAY TO SHRI RATTAN SINGH. THIS FINDING OF THE CBI AUTHORITY CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE CLAIM OF SHRI RATTAN SINGH IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF HAVING ITA NO.98/JP/2017 SHRI DHARAM PAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD- 2 (5) ,JAIPUR 13 PAID COMMISSION WAS ABSOLUTELY BOGUS AND EYEWASH WH ICH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AT THIS END AND MORE SO WHEN HE HAS NOTHING TO SAY IN THIS REGARD DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE AO. THE CBI AUTHORITIES HAVE ALSO FOUND FROM THEIR INVE STIGATION FROM M/S VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD., COMPANY WH ICH HAS SAID TO HAVE PURCHASE VARIOUS LANDS AT GURGAON THROUGH T HE ASSISTANCE OF SHRI RATTAN SINGH, WHO HAD BEEN INSTRUMENTAL TO THE COMPANY IN PROCUREMENT, DEMARCATION AND TAKING POSSESSION OF T HE LANDS AT VILLAGES KHERKI DAULA, SIKOHPUR, HASSANPUR AND SAKA TPUR. FOR THESE SERVICES THIS COMPANY PAID SHRI RATTAN SINGH COMMISSION OF RS. 6.30 CRORES IN F.Y. 2007-08 AND ON 22.11.2007 O UT OF THE SAID COMMISSION THE COMPANY PAID HIM RS. 5,58,62,100/- A FTER DEDUCTING TDS RS. 71,37,900/- ON THE GROSS AMOUNT O F RS. 6.30 CRORES. THIS FINDING OF THE CBI AUTHORITY IS CORRECT AS THE SAME TDS AMOUNT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY SHRI RATTAN SINGH IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY A.Y. 2007-08 WHEREIN HE HAS SHOWN GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 6,46,31,152/- WHICH INCLUDED THE P AYMENT MADE BY THE ABOVE COMPANY OF RS. 6.30 CRORES. THEY HAVE AL SO ENQUIRED FROM THEM STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT NO. 1380300 OF SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAT THE SAID ACCOUNT WAS CREDITED WITH RS. 5 ,58,62,100/- ON 22.11.2007IN FORM OF TWO DEPOSITS RECEIVED ON TRANS FER FROM ACCOUNT NO. 1095104 AMOUNTING TO RS. 26,60,100/- AN D RS. 5,32,02,000/-. IN THIS REGARD IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT FRO M THE VARIOUS DEALS OF LAND PURCHASES MADE BY THE COM PANY THROUGH SHRI RATTAN SINGH REVEAL ALL TOGETHER DIFFE RENT LAND DETAILS THAN SUBMITTED BY THE COMPANY BEFORE THE CB I AUTHORITIES WHICH AGAIN SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER CAME OUT WITH HIS TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS AT ANY STAGE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS AS WELL AS PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION 263 BEFORE THE WORTHY CIT, B IKANER. THE CA OF ASSESSEE ALSO MISLED THE DEPARTMENT BY WAY OF CLAIM OF BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS. 5,02,00,800/- TO SHRI DHA RAMPAL SINGH WHO IN HIS STATEMENT STATED ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT FA CTS THAT THAT PAYMENT OF RS. 4,00,00,000/- THROUGH THE CHEQUES O F ABN AMRO BANK DATED 26.11.200 WERE ACTUALLY GIVEN FOR PURCHA SE OF LAND AND NOT AS BROKERAGE COMMISSION. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FACTS OF THE CASE THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENSES CLAIMED INCLUDING COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.5,02,00, 800/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI RATTAN SINGH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 008-09. THUS ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT COMMISSION BUT ADVANCE. ITA NO.98/JP/2017 SHRI DHARAM PAL SINGH VS ITO, WARD- 2 (5) ,JAIPUR 14 KEEPING THESE FACTS IN VIEW, WE DIRECT TO DELETE TH E ADDITION OF RS. 4.00 CRORES BY ALLOWING GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESS EE. 5.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 -05-2018 . SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO HKKXPUN (VIJAY PAL RAO) ( BHAGCHAND) U;KF;D LNL; / JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 24 /05/ 2018 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI DHARAM PAL SINGH, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 2 (5), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.98/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
Master The Pitch-Deck Game
₹0
Memorandum Amendment Resolution
₹0
Stress Management policy Letter
₹0
Finance Bill, 2026: Key GST Reforms that will Reshape Compliance and Cash Flows
Team Counselvise - February 03, 2026
Budget 2026: 5 Major Personal Tax Changes Every Taxpayer Must Know
Team Counselvise - February 05, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026