TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spects were neither considered by the AO nor considered by the CIT(A). The assessee had purchased the property for Rs 2,71,42,870/- and sold it at Rs. 90,00,000/- the balance amount has to be considered as a business loss. Issue remits the matter back to the file of the AO to examine the issue afresh in accordance with law. Issue remand back to AO - ITA Nos. 1969/Mds/2011 and C. O. No. 09/Mds/2012 - - - Dated:- 30-8-2012 - Dr. O. K. Narayanan and Shri V. Durga Rao, JJ. Department by : Dr. S. Moharana, CIT-DR Respondent by : Shri S. Paramasivam, ITP ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal by the Revenue and the cross objection by the assessee are directed against the order of the CIT(Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he books of accounts the assessee has received more than what was written in the books of accounts. Therefore, he issued a letter to Shri Kenny Jacob on 14-12-2010 asking him to confirm and state whether he had paid the above amounts to Mr. Selvaraj. In reply, Mr. Kenny Jacob on 28-12-2010 has submitted that the above property was purchased for a consideration of Rs. 90 lakhs only and the same was paid to Shri Selvaraj. When the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction it was submitted before the Assessing Officer as follows: I had obtained a Power of Attorney from Mr. Jayakumar Ramdoss for sale of Agricultural land at Kalapatty Village. The nature of transaction has already been explained by me. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e observed that, The Assessing Officer has not brought any facts on record to state that Shri Jayakumar has not received the amount of Rs. 2,71,42,870/- for giving power of attorney to the appellant. There is no material on record to doubt the genuineness of the transaction of the real estate business of the appellant in this case because the registered documents are available. The cash entries made in the books of accounts of the appellant on different dates amounting to Rs. 1,81,42,870/- which is treated as unexplained income cannot be treated as the sale receipts of the appellant since it was added u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has to take the consideration of Rs. 90 lakhs received by DDs as sale consideration and then comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and the remaining amount by way of cash. According to the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(Appeals), the only payment received was by way of DD as the sale consideration. According to the assessee, the entire payments received by way of DD and cash represented the sale consideration. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that when the assessee purchased the property the payment made to the seller was debited to the books of accounts and when he sold the same it was credited to the books of account. He paid the taxes also. These very important aspects were neither considered by the Assessing Officer nor considered by the learned CIT(Appeals). According to the learned counsel for the assessee, on the very same amount the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
