TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been elaborately discussed by the CIT(A), even assuming the draft MOU to be correct, there is neither mention of the consideration paid nor mode of such payment. Moreover, when as per the draft MOU, the consideration has to be paid both to the assessee and M/s.Radha Realty Corporation Ltd., the entire payment being the differential amount could not have been assessed in the hands of the assessee alone. It is also a fact to take note of that the final sale deed dated 22.08.2007 in favour of DLF with regard to sale of land in dispute, does not mention about any payment being made to the assessee or his nominees. That being the case, it cannot be said that the assessee has received the amount of ₹ 13.81 crores in cash towards the sale o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd suppression of receipts on sale of land by the assessee and made an addition of unaccounted income based on seized document i.e. Memorandum of Understanding in respect of the land transaction. When the assessee challenged the assessment order dated 31.12.2009, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), while partly allowing the appeal, directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 1.85 crores as the seized and unsigned Memorandum of Understanding has no evidentiary value. However, on further appeal by the Department, the Tribunal, vide order dated 22.11.2013, dismissed the appeal upholding the findings of the appellate authority on the aspect of deletion of addition of unaccounted income. Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the final sale deed dated 22.08.2007 in favour of DLF with regard to sale of land in dispute, does not mention about any payment being made to the assessee or his nominees. That being the case, it cannot be said that the assessee has received the amount of ₹ 13.81 crores in cash towards the sale of land merely on the basis of the draft MOU. In this view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the reasons discussed by the CIT (A) in the impugned order while deleting the impugned addition made by the Assessing officer. We accordingly uphold the same, rejecting the grounds of the Revenue in this appeal. In the result, appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2008-09, being I.T.A.No. 468/Hyd/2012, is dismissed. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
