TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jessa Ram in his bank account cannot be taken as proof of the receipt from the assessee on that particular date - the procedure and system of accounting of a third party was not a matter within the control of the assessee and merely with reference to the entries made by a third party, conclusion could not have been drawn against the assessee-respondent - the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have set aside the additions made by the AO after being satisfied that all the payments and receipts were fully explained - the matter only relates to the findings of facts and rests on appreciation of evidence -The appellate authorities have recorded the findings of facts concurrently after due and proper appreciation of evidence – Decided against Revenue. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssa Ram and also failed to furnish the documentary evidence to show the receipt of payment from one Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal. The AO referred to the incongruity and inconsistency in the statement furnished by the said Shri Jessa Ram alleging receipt of payment from the assessee on different dates and of different amounts. However, the CIT(A), after analyzing the material on record and also taking an overall view of the matter, found unacceptable the version of Shri Jessa Ram; and also noticed that no opportunity to cross-examine Shri Jessa Ram was allowed to the assessee-respondent. The CIT(A), after referring to the various facets of the case also found the approach of the AO unjustified and proceeded to delete the additions of Rs.10,00,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of Shri Jessa Ram which only sought to justify the deposit of this cash in his bank account cited above. The payment and the source thereof has been explained satisfactorily coming out receipts from Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal and his own agricultural income. This addition, therefore, deserves to be deleted. In the revenue s appeal, the ITAT has found the approach of the CIT(A) justified and no case for interference being made out while observing as under: 2.6 Before us same and similar arguments are reiterated. We have found that the notings made on the backside of ikrarnama are in the handwriting of Shri Jessa Ram. Once caught he has tried to explain them away in whatever manner he liked. But, Shri Jessa Ram was neithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2005 for the purchase of agricultural land in the name of his son Shri Sunil Kumar are found explained. In that case the assessee paid Rs. 6.40 lakhs on the date of registration 4 lakhs before the Sub Registrar and 2.40 lakhs outside. Accordingly, we confirm the entire deletion and cannot allow the appeal of the revenue. 3. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. It is sought to be contended that the AO made the additions after considering all the relevant facts and evidence adduced before him; and the additions being just and proper, called for no interference, particularly when proper explanation regarding source for purchase of agricultural land was not furnished. It is also submitted that the statement of Shri J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
