TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gain. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,09,000/- made by the AO on account of unaccounted money paid for the purchase of immovable property. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 2. Apropos, deletion of addition of Rs. 5,18,220/- made by the AO on account of bogus capital gain. 3. The appellants had purchased 10,000/- shares each of a company, namely, M/s Betsy Growth Finance Ltd. on 3/4/2000 and the said fact was disclosed by the appellant in their return of income for AY 2001- 02. The said return was filed by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm capital gain shown by her on account of sale of shares of M/s. B.T. Technet Ltd. was questioned. The statements of various persons were recorded including the directors of M/s. Diwakar Securities Ltd., who have denied the transaction having been entered with the assessee for sale of shares. The AO has recorded a finding to the effect that the assessee did not own these shares on 31.3.2001 as per details of investment in shares and debentures as on 31.3.2001 as per Page 11 of Annexure A-S of Panchnama drawn at the residence of the assessee at the time of search on 4.11.2004. By considering the statement of director or M/s. Diwakar Securities Ltd. the AO reached to the conclusion that since the shares were not held by the assessee as on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irness the CIT(A) should have allowed the cross examination before deleting the addition made by the AO, and should have controverted the findings recorded by AO by mentioning his observation and comments thereon. The CIT(A) has also not given positive finding with regard to holding of shares by assessee on the date of sale. In all fairness and in the interest of justice, we restore the entire matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow cross examination of the witnesses by the assessee and to decide the issue afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee. We direct accordingly. 6. Since, on identical issue ITAT has set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer, respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded by the tribunal in the case as above. 11. We find that tribunal in the case of co-owner of the property in ITA No. 113/Del/2010 in DCIT Vs. Smt. Pratibha Aggarwal vide order dated 16 December, 2011 has considered the issue of deletion of addition Rs. 6,09,000/- made by the AO on account of unaccounted money paid for the purchase of immovable property. The tribunal had adjudicated the issue as under :- 9. The second issue for consideration relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 6,09,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted money, paid for purchase of immovable properties. The facts of the case relating to this ground of appeal are that the assessee had purchased share in residential property at F-170B, We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of K.P. Varghese vs. Ito, 131 I.T.R. 597 and CIT vs. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd., 159 I.T.R. 71 has held that addition merely on account of valuation report could not be made. 11. We have heard both the parties. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record brought by the assessing officer to suggest that any money over and above what is recorded in sale deed has been paid by the assessee. There is no other evidence or surrounding circumstances to indicate that there was under hand payment of money for purchase of the properties. The addition cannot be made merely on the basis of valuation report. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition. 12. We find that in identical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
