TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ete address and PAN number was mentioned and lender had confirmed to have made payments on behalf of assessee - originally the amount was paid by the lender to Fertilizer & Chemicals Travancore Ltd., and against which the assessee had repaid in the same year whereas the balance amount was repaid on 30.4.2005 – the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition after verifying complete facts and details – thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A. No.667/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 14-2-2014 - Shri I. C. Sudhir And Shri T. S. Kapoor,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri M. B. Reddy, CIT-DR. For the Respondent : Shri Santosh Pathak, C.A. ORDER Per TS Kapoor, AM: This is an appeal filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her made an addition of Rs...1 lakh which was outstanding as part of loan from M/s Vibgyor Mercantile (P) Ltd.. The Assessing Officer held that since no confirmation was furnished and assessee was unable to justify the creditworthiness of lender therefore the same was treated as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld CIT(A) and furnished certain additional evidences which the Ld CIT(A) admitted after obtaining remand report from the Assessing Officer and then deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer by holding as under:- a) Regarding addition of Rs..9,51,000/-.: 3.3.1 On merits, it is seen that the appellant had submitted all the relevant details re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same for RS.9.11 Lakh, a copy of the sale deed duly registered was submitted in her case before the same AO which may be considered as a comparable case for the purposes of verification of the sale consideration. This submission of the appellant has remained un-controverted by the AO. Even during the remand proceedings, the AO has not been able to use the details filed by the appellant to verify these facts and has stated that the addition made u/s 68 was justified. This position cannot be approved in view of the fact that appellant had already offered verifiable details of the transaction during the assessment proceedings and the AO has not brought about any positive material on record to dislodge the evidence as submitted by appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.1,00,000/- made u/s 68 is therefore deleted. (Deleted addition of RS.1 ,00,000/.) 4. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before us. 5. At the outset, the Ld DR with respect to ground No.1 heavily relied upon the assessment order and with respect to ground No. 2, the Ld DR invited our attention to paper book page 3 and submitted that the amount in fact received was Rs..3.50,000/- and addition should have been made for Rs..3,50,000/- instead of Rs..1 lakh and therefore he argued that this ground be set aside to Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. 6. The Ld AR, on the other hand, invited our attention to paper book page 4 where a copy of account showing receipt against sale of flat was placed. Our attention was also invited to paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground No.1, we find that assessee had submitted sufficient evidences of having received the amount on account of sale of flat at Calcutta. The Assessing Officer made the addition only because no formal sale agreement was entered into. However, the identity of buyer alongwith his PAN number, confirmation, affidavit and possession letter was filed before Assessing Officer and these are sufficient evidences to prove the contentions of assessee. Ld CIT(A) has very elaborately dealt with the issue and we do not find any infirmity in the same. 9. Regarding second issue of addition of Rs..1 lakh we find that Ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition after verifying complete facts and details and we do not find any infirmity in the same. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
