TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed any interference on our part, hence, uphold the same. Addition of ₹ 10,09,837 is concerned AO has admitted to the fact of the affidavit, dated 8.9.2015, affecting the repayment. The AO has however merely stated that no evidence was produced regarding the repayment, but no efforts were made by him. Filing of the affidavit and the fact the AO has made no effort to prove that it is false, makes the addition contentious. The addition of ₹ 10,09,837/- received through cheques. During the year under appeal the assesse had sold part of his ancestral agricultural land along with his other family members for ₹ 32,55,000/- and the assessee had received two cheques of ₹ 945000/- (708750.00+236250.00) as his share. The other credit entry of ₹ 64837/- on 18.05.2005 is on Alc transfer from BC 334. The AO had not bothered to verify from bank. The credit entry in the bank were from the sale proceeds of agriculture land and transfer entries. The entries relate to cheque deposits made on account of receipt of sale of land. The AO has made no effort to disprove the assessee’s claim. There is no concrete evidence to disprove the assessee, hence, Ld. CIT(A) has right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as income from undisclosed sources. AO further observed that as per the bank statement of the assessee the assessee has received an interest of ₹ 8631/- from Haryana Gramin Bank, Nuna Majra. Besides this credit entries amounting to ₹ 10,09,837/- are also there in the bank account during the year under consideration and assessee has not filed his return of income and nor shown these amounts at his income nor any explanation has been furnished, hence, the amount of ₹ 10,18,468/- was also added to the income of the assessee and assessment at ₹ 39,93,470/- was assessed under section 144/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide Order dated 30.01.2014. 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned Order dated 02.3.2016 has deleted some additions and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now the Revenue is aggrieved against the impugned order and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised by the Revenue in the grounds and requested that Appeal of the Revenue may be allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that repayment were made in March, 2006 and June, 2006 of ₹ 18.00 lacs and ₹ 12 lacs repaid. Hence, he requested to delete the addition of ₹ 29,75,000/- in dispute. 6.3 With regard to addition of ₹ 10,09,837 is concerned, Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that Cash deposits of ₹ 10,09,837/- in bank account no. 5401 with Haryana Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Nuna Majra were deposited and explanation thereof is the same represents the consideration of sale of agriculture land and on account of transfer entry. He further stated that evidence were on record i.e. sale deed dated 7.2.2006 in respect of land sold by assessee (page no. 16-22 of the Paper Book) and Nakal Jamabandhi (Page No. 15 of the PB). Hence, he submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the entries relate to cheque deposits made on account of receipt of sale of land. The AO has made no effort to disprove the assessee claim. In view of the fact that there is no concrete evidence to disprove the assessee, I delete the addition. In view of the above, Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that the addition of ₹ 10,09,837/- may also be deleted. 7. I have heard both the parties and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indly be deleted. The entries relate to cheque deposits made on account of receipt of sale of land. The AO has made no effort to disprove the assessee s claim. In view of the fact that there is no concrete evidence to disprove the assessee, I delete the said addition. This ground of appeal is allowed. 8. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the records available on record, with regard to ground no. 1 admission of additional evidences is concerned, I find that in the Remand Report dated 23.12.2015 no objection was raised by the AO to opportunity to furnish additional evidence and, therefore, plea is an afterthought. Even otherwise, if order framed u/s. 144 of the Act, once a remand report is passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and, the AO on the basis thereof grants opportunity and, consider such additional evidence and also filed a report on the same (without any objection) the ground relating to admission of additional evidence at this juncture is not justified, hence, the ground no. 1 is hereby rejected. My aforesaid view is fortified by the following decisions:- - 231 ITR 1 (Bom) Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT wherein the Hon ble High Court has held as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to shut out an assessee in the process of administration of justice from loading evidence to prove its case. 8.1 With regard to addition of ₹ 29,75,000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposit in bank account with Haryana Gramin Bank, Nuna Majra is concerned, I find that the assessee had entered into in an agreement with one Sh. Rajesh S/o Sh. Rajender Singh for sale of his ancestral agricultural land for ₹ 60 lacs and advance of ₹ 30 lacs was received on different dates as mentioned in agreement to sell and copy of the same was filed before the AO in remand proceedings. The AO in his remand report Dt. 23.12.2015 has admitted this fact and affidavit of the purchaser was also obtained by the AO. An affidavit is a valid piece of evidence as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parikh and Co vs CIT reported at 30 ITR 181. The above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was followed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sohan Lal Gupta vs CIT reported at 33 ITR 786. The AO has admitted to the fact of the affidavit, dated 8.9.2015, affecting the repayment. The AO has however merely stated that no e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
