TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther, the Revenue has not produced any material before us other than the statement of the assessee to establish that the assessee had paid on-money. Accordingly the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer for U/s. 69 of the Act stands deleted - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A.No.751/Mds./2013 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2014 - SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Shri G.Baskar,Advocate Respondent by : Shri Anirudh Rai,CIT D.R. ORDER PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai dated 15.03.2013 in ITA No.363/10-11 pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 21,10,625/- as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act. 3.1. However, the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition for the following reasons:- (i) The appellant had categorically admitted in his statement recorded U/s. 132(4) of the Act on 17.02.2008 to pay tax on the unaccounted money of ₹ 29,10,625/- paid for purchase of land. (ii) The addition is made based on the admission of the assessee and not on the statements made by the seller. (iii) It is well known that on-money payment is extensively prevalent in the real estate transactions. (iv) The value of the property shown in the sale deed was lower than the guide line value maintained by the sub-registration authority for the purpose of stamp duty. (v) For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT Vs. PV Kalyanasudaram reported in 282 ITR 259 and the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in KP Vargese in131 ITR 597. Ld. D.R on the other hand, relied on the order of the Revenue authorities certain case laws and pleaded that decision of the Ld. CIT (A) may be upheld. 5. We have heard both the parties and carefully perused the materials available on record including the paper book containing 01 to 36 pages. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the additions of ₹ 29,10,625/- was made purely on the basis of the presumption that the assessee would have paid on-money for the difference of amount stated in the sale deed for the purchase of the property and the guide line value maintained by the Sub-Registrar Office for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the Tribunal were based on valid material. The deletion of addition was justified. While holding so the Hon. High Court also supported the view of the Tribunal that the statement is not relatable to any seized material and therefore the statement cannot be the basis for making any addition. Considering the above decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court, we do not have any hesitation to delete the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer, which was further sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) because the statement of the assessee was not based on any seized material, but a blend admission to the opinion imposed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Further, the Revenue has not produced any material before us other than the statement of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
