Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 104 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69B for unexplained investment - immovable property at Mehrauli - search u/s 132 - agreement to sell mentioned consideration of ₹ 5.95 crores where as in sale deed consideration mentioned is ₹ 60 lakhs - as per assessee agreement to sell have not been acted upon between the parties - During the course of search, no evidence was found to show assessee made payment of money to the extent of ₹ 5.95 crores - addition made alleging cash payment - CIT-A deleted part addition - HELD THAT:- Assessee has been able to prove that agreement to sell have not been acted upon between the parties. As per the agreement to sell, the balance amount shall have to be paid within 45 days, but, there is no evidence on record to prove that assessee has actually paid the balance amount to the sellers. No evidence of any payment later on was also found or brought on record. Since it was conditional agreement and as such it was to be proved by the Revenue, whether the terms of the agreement have been complied with, which the A.O. in this case has failed to do so. The valuation of the property as per circle rate have not been disputed by the authorities below. No enquiry have also been made to the witness to the agreement to sell. Thus, on 18th November, 2008 the deal through agreement to sell deemed to have been cancelled as the time was the essence to the agreement. The Inspector is not a technical person to give report of valuation of the property. Therefore, no reliance could be placed upon his report. No infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,85,74,816/-. It may also be noted here that the Ld. CIT(A) maintained addition of ₹ 50 lakhs on account of cash of ₹ 25 lakhs mentioned in each agreement to sell. Since the explanation of assessee was not called for at the time of search proceedings or thereafter and that the sellers have denied to have executed any agreement to sell or have received any sale consideration as per the agreement to sell, there was no justification for the Ld. CIT(A) to have maintained the addition of ₹ 50 lakhs. It may also be noted here that the assessee explained before Ld. CIT(A) that whatever amount was paid initially to the seller was duly explained through the cash book maintained by the assessee and accepted in the impugned assessment. Therefore, these facts would show that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A) with regard to addition of ₹ 50 lakhs. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any justification to interfere with the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Addition of investment made in plots at Aya Nagar - consideration in sale deed vs consideration in agreement to sale - D.R. merely relied upon Order of the A.O. without pointing-out any infirmity in the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. The assessee explained before the authorities below that investment made in purchase of plots, assessee filed copies of the purchase deed with bank statements, details of the mode of payment supported by documents of bank statements and entire consideration have been paid by Account Payee Cheques out of the Bank account. All the documentary evidences were placed on record. CIT(A) considering the details on record noted that assessee has been carrying on proprietorship business and maintained books of account which are duly audited and such business have been disclosed to the Revenue Department in income tax returns. CIT(A) found that payments for purchase of plots have been made out of the said disclosed source of the assessee which have not been controverted by the A.O. The finding of fact recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) have not been rebutted through any evidence or material on record. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|