Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1138 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69 - amount received as advance / earnest money for sale of land which was deposited in the bank - additional evidence in the shape of bank statement of HDFC bank and copy of Cancellation agreement dated 21.02.2011 were furnished under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules - HELD THAT:- As per the copy of the agreement placed on record at page 53, the sellers i.e. assessee and other co-sharers of land and the purchasers namely Zora Singh, Darvesh, Lakshan Mirdha and Barinder belong to the same city i.e. Narwana. As per the said agreement the amount of ₹ 50 lacs was received by the assessee and other co-sharers on 18.12.2010 and an amount of ₹ 50 lacs was agreed to be received on 15.1.2011 and further an amount of ₹ 50 lacs on 15.2.2011. The sale deed was to be executed on 20.2.2012 on which date the remaining sale consideration was to be paid. A perusal of the cancellation deed dated 21.2.2011 reveals that the said agreement was cancelled and that the purchasers had received back the entire amount which was paid by them as earnest money to the assessee and others. However, surprisingly, the said cancellation deed does not bear signatures of the alleged purchasers. A bare perusal of the same shows that the same is a fictitious document, whereupon, the signatures have been put on of certain persons which do not match at all with the signatures on the agreement to sell. Even in the alleged ‘Pancayati Rajinama’ there is no signature of the alleged / concerned purchasers. These documents appeared to have been prepared by the assessee for self-serving purposes. Since the aforesaid cancellation deed does not bear signatures of the any of the purchasers, hence, no reliance can be placed on it. Further, despite the fact that the alleged purchasers belonged to the same city i.e Narwana, the assessee failed to furnish any confirmation from the buyers about the alleged transactions of sale of land and cancellation deed etc. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the facts of this case are different from the case laws relied upon by the assessee in following ways (i) No confirmations from the buyers were submitted; ii) Identity proofs of buyers were not provided; iii) Nobody attended in response to the summons issued by the Assessing Officer; iv) The documents of ikrarnama and cancellation deed do not bear the same signatures of buyers; and vi) Bank statements of buyers have not been produced to justify the source of deposits. Under the circumstances, the assessee has miserably failed to prove his case. - Decided against assessee.
|