TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o noted that there is nothing to indicate; except the statement that the assessee had entered into a deal in respect of the land and for cancellation of such deal, an amount of ₹ 15.50 lakhs having been paid and there was absolutely no justification for such additions. By extensively examining the statement of Vikas Shah, it was noted that the amount received by the assessee represents payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Revenue. As all of them involve identical question of law and arise out of similar facts, they are being decided by this common order. For the purpose of understanding controversy, the facts arising in Tax Appeal No. 233 of 2013 are taken into account. Search operation was carried out under Section 132 of the Incometax Act, 1961 [ Act for short] in case of one Shri Vikas Arvindbhai Sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] was approached. CIT [A] was of the opinion that there was no corroborative evidence to justify such addition and in the statement of Vikas Shah, it was not emerging that the assessee was paid such amount by way of brokerage. This deletion on the part of CIT [A] aggrieved the Revenue and therefore, the said order was carried to Tribunal. The Tribunal concurred with the findings of the CIT [A], an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the decision of the Tribunal, it has extensively quoted the findings of the CIT [A] and concluded that the sole reliance for such addition on the statement of Vikas Shah was not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that there is nothing to indicate; except the statement that the assessee had entered into a deal in respect of the land and for cancellation of such deal, an amount of ₹ 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
