9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esidential premises of the assessee. During the course of the survey it was found that there was a sale agreement dated 12-03-2007 between the assessee Mr. C. Selvaraj and Mr. R. Jayakumar, S/o Mr. Ramadas. In the said agreement the property in SF No. 282/2 at Kalapatti village of Coimbatore Taluk measuring 1 acre was to be purchased by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 2,71,42,870/-. The above agreed sum was paid by the assessee on various dates to Mr. R. Jayakumar. When the assessee was asked to explain, it was submitted that the assessee had purchased a property owned by one Mr. Mahendra Ramdas for Rs. 2,71,42,870/- and the same was in the possession of the assessee as a power of attorney. Subsequently, the same property was sold t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 2,71,42,870/- to Mr. Jayakumar Ramdoss and that he had received the same amount from the buyers, M/s. J and J Buying Services P. Ltd. represented by Mr. Kenny Jacob. The Assessing Officer after considering the submissions of the assessee came to the conclusion that the assessee had sold the property at Rs. 90,00,000/- and the remaining amounts were shown by the assessee on the following dates : 27-09-2007 Rs. 75,00,000 03-10-2007 Rs. 50,00,000 25-10-2007 Rs. 50,00,000 10-11-2007 Rs. 6,42,870 Rs. 1,81,42,870 3. On appeal it was submitted before the learned CIT(Appeals) that the property was purchased from Mr. Jayakumar Ramdoss for Rs. 2,71,42, 870/- in the capacity as a power of attorney holder and the same property was sol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd then executing the sale deed of Rs. 90,00,000/-. The other issue is regarding the addition u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is confirmed." 4. On being aggrieved, the Revenue has carried the matter before the Tribunal. The learned DR strongly supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had purchased the property for Rs. 2,71,42,870/- and the same was debited in the books of account of the assessee and when he sold the same, credit was made in the books of account and taxes were paid accordingly. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(Appeals) wrongly made the addition under section 68of the Act. 6. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperly particularly when he was of the opinion that when 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. This is neither the case of the assessee nor the case of the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, in the interest of justice set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. 7. The cross objection filed by the assessee is in respect of the confirmation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
