Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Suresh Babu Soni Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 2 (3) , Gwalior

Addition on account of deposit in Saving Bank account - Held that:- CIT(A) without giving any cogent reasons rejected the explanation of the assessee without any justification. 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

no addition is called for in the matter. We accordingly set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 312/Agra/2013 - Dated:- 10-2-2016 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Advocate & Sh. Ashok Vijaywargiya, C.A. For The Respondent : Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR ORDER Per Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member: This appeal by the assessee has be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inst 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3. The assessee challenged the addition before the ld. CIT(A) and his written submissions are reproduced in the appellate order in which the assessee briefly explained that he had entered into the agreement for sale of family property with four persons, namely Shri Ajmer Singh, Sh. Narayan Singh, Sh. Matadeen and Shri Shivrajan Sharma. The assessee had received the amount of ₹ 17,50,000/- from these four persons towards advance against sale of property on 09.06.2008 which was deposited in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

income from dairy 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 ₹ 4,25,000/- each against the property at Bhind. However, Shri Matadeen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

udgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160, in which it was held that once it is established that the amount has been invested by particular person, be he a partner or an individual, then the responsibility of assessee is over. Whether that person is income tax payer or not and where he had brought this money from, it is not the responsibility of the firm. The moment the firm gives satisfactory explanation and produces the person who has d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the assessee and noted that the facts narrated in the affidavits and statements of these four persons seems to be unrealistic. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. We have heard the ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In this case, the assessee made two deposits of ₹ 8,50,000/- and ₹ 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rming giving of advances against the properties to the assessee. The assessee also produced all the four purchasers above before the AO and statement on oath were recorded in which they have affirmed the contents of the affidavits filed by them as well as the transaction with the assessee and agreement entered into between them. It is also explained that since the deal did not materialize, therefore, on the same day, the deal was cancelled and the amounts were refunded to them on the same day. T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version