9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enged the addition of Rs. 17,50,000/- before the ld. CIT(A) for unexplained cash credit u/s. 69 of the IT Act. In this case the assessee has deposited Rs. 17,50,000/- in his SB A/c on 09.06.2008 which was explained as advance received against the sale of property. The AO, however, did not accept the explanation of the assessee. The crux of the findings of the AO had been that the assessee explained before him that the assessee has received as advance against sale of property from the parties and affidavits have been filed and they were also produced before the AO for examination and they have confirmed giving advance to the assessee which was deposited in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee produced the title deed of the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry business. It was also explained that since the deal was not finalized / matured and cancelled, therefore, the assessee withdrew the amount from bank to refund the same to the parties on the same day and this fact is confirmed by them in their statement. It was, therefore, submitted that no addition is called for in the matter. It was explained that Ajmer Singh and Shri Shiv Rajan Sharma have advanced Rs. 4,25,000/- each against the property at Bhind. However, Shri Matadeen and Shri Narayan Singh, gave advance of Rs. 4,50,000/- each against Gwalior property. The statements of all the purchasers recorded by the AO have been reproduced in the appellate order. The statement of assessee was also recorded in which also, he has confirmed the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available on record. In this case, the assessee made two deposits of Rs. 8,50,000/- and Rs. 9,00,000/- in his bank account on 09.06.2008. The assessee also filed copy of bank statement to show that on the same day on 09.06.2008, aforesaid sum was withdrawn in two installments of Rs. 9,00,000/- and Rs. 8,50,000/-. The assessee explained that he has entered into an agreement to sale in respect of two of his family properties with the consent of his family members and advances have been received against the sale of property from four persons namely, Shri Ajmer Singh, Sh. Narayan Singh, Sh. Matadeen and Shri Shivrajan Sharma. The assessee filed their confirmation before the AO as well as their affidavits affirming giving of advances against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has explained all the objections of the AO in his explanation. The ld. CIT(A) without giving any cogent reasons rejected the explanation of the assessee without any justification. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee because the statement of all the above four persons were unrealistic. This itself is no ground to disbelieve the statement of the purchasers because the AO has not brought any evidence on record against the statement of four purchasers to prove the case of the revenue. It is well settled law that the Income tax authorities shall have to consider the evidence and material on record by applying the test of human probabilities and after considering the surrounding circumstances. We rely upon the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
