TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Page 10 of the assessee paper book ) was only ₹ 1,54,000/-. Further the total income of another proposed buyer Sh. Gaurav Gupta (page 11 of the assessee paper book) was merely ₹ 69,616/-. No evidence in support of income of Sh. Dinesh Gupta is filed in the paper book submitted by the assessee. No other documents evidencing the financial capacity of the proposed buyer to advance the money were submitted. Looking to the amounts of total income of the proposed buyers, the creditworthiness of the creditors is also not getting established. Thus the assessee has failed to discharge its onus in respect of the genuineness of the transaction as well as creditworthiness of the creditors and, therefore, in our opinion the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act for the peak amounts of deposits in bank accounts, accordingly we set aside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) and restore the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 3330/Del/2009 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2016 - Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Sh. O. P. Kant, Acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee owned a property No. F. 2/25, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi alongwith his wife Smt Jyoti Sethi. It was stated further, that the assessee and his wife, Smt. Jyoti Sethi entered into agreements for sale of the property with Sh. Anuj Garg and Sh. RK Garg, Sh. Gaurav Gupta and Sh. Dinesh Garg for a total consideration of ₹ 45,00,000/- and the assessee and his wife received a sum of ₹ 33,00,000/- as advance from them. It was explained that the assessee had deposited this advance amount in the bank accounts of his sons Master Sahil Sethi and Master Sarik Sethi on various dates. The assessee withdrew the cash from the bank on various dates and again re-deposited the same into bank accounts. It was further submitted that the buyers parties could not arrange the balance amount with the result that deal for the sale of property did not mature and the assessee had to pay back the amount received as advance from the said buyers. It was further explained that the balance amount of ₹ 3,80,000/- was deposited out of past savings of the assessee. The assessee also filed copy of bank statements of Master Sahil and Master Sarik Sethi, purchase deed of property No. F. 2/25, K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w the amount of ₹ 30,00,000/- received from buyers was deposited on different dates. If the transaction was genuine, the deposit should have been a one-time affair. It is unbelievable that a party, who can pay 75 per cent of the amount as advance would not be able to arrange 25 per cent of the amount. Moreover, the property was let out to AXIS Bank [UTI Bank]. Definitely the property is a commercial property and nobody would like to part with the property and a purchaser having made arrangement of ₹ 33,00,000/- and paid as advance would not be in a position to arrange further sum of ₹ 12,00,000/- for execution of the sale deed. In our considered opinion, the said agreement is an after-thought in order to explain the source of deposit in the bank account in the name of his two minor sons. The assessee had deposited ₹ 92,80,000/- on various dates peak thereof worked out to ₹ 36,80,000/-. Another amount of ₹ 3,80,000/- has been explained from the past savings for which no evidence has been filed. The Id. CIT (A) has deleted the addition merely on the basis of explanation offered by the assessee. No nexus has been established either before the Id. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence had been brought on record by the assessee to suggest that amounts deposited on various dates had come out from the sale consideration received in advance form the prospective buyers. His submission is that there was sufficient evidence, which was produced before the CIT(Appeal) and since the Revenue was the appellant before the Tribunal, it was for the Revenue to file the entire paper book. Even if the Revenue had not filed the paper book, it is submitted that in those circumstances chance should have been given to the assessee to place the papers on record. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find substance in the aforesaid submissions: In these circumstances, without commenting upon the merit of the order passed by the Tribunal, we set aside the said order on the aforesaid ground giving liberty to the assessee to file the paper book containing the documents on which the appellant wants to rely in support of his submissions. The Tribunal shall hear the parties afresh and take into consideration the said material to decide the issue again. 8. In compliance to the above directions of the Hon ble High Court, in hearing before us, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05. Documents filed vide letter dated 15.11.2012: i. Copy of confirmation of Anju Garg for Sale/Purchase in respect of a portion in property No. F-2/25, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51, With Sh. Krishan Kumar Sethi, S/o- Sh. Ajit Lal Sethi, R/o A-171, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi-92 on 07.04.2005. ii. Copy of confirmation of Sh. R.K. Garg, Sh. Gaurav Gupta and Sh. Dinesh Garg for Sale/Purchase in respect of a portion in property No. F-2/25, Krishan Nagar, Delhi-51, with Smt. Jyoti Sethi, W/o Sh. Krishan Kumar Sethi, R/o- A-171, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi-92, on 08.04.2005. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the paper book and the documents submitted by the ld. AR before the bench. We find that the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), had forwarded the additional evidences to the Assessing Officer for his comments. 11. The Assessing Officer in his remand report dated 12/12/2008 objected to the admission of the additional evidences and sought for further clarification from the assessee. The relevant part of the remand report, which is available in the documents supplied by the ld. AR before the bench is as under: Kin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dates have come out from the sale consideration received in advance from the prospective buyers. 13. The Tribunal observed that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) did not record any findings as why the amount of ₹ 33 lakh received from the buyers was deposited on different dates in the bank accounts because in the normal circumstances, if the transaction was genuine, the deposit should have been a one-time affair only. Further observed that the property was a commercial property, it was unbelievable that a party, who can pay 75% of the amount as advance could not be able to arrange balance 25% of the amount. Moreover, the property was let out to the Axis Bank and the assessee could not file any evidence to suggest that the Bank was informed about the sale of property. No evidence in respect of amount of ₹ 3,80,000/- stated as saving, were filed. In view of above findings, the Tribunal held that a sale deed in respect of property, which was let out to Axis Bank, was an afterthought for the purpose of explaining the source of deposit in the bank account during the year under consideration and accordingly set aside the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
