TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom whom advance has been shown - Held that:- The assessee filed copy of the sale agreement dated 20.04.2011 (PB-49) between assessee and Shri Devender Sharma through which ₹ 10 lakhs was received by assessee in cash as advance against sale of the property. PB-52 is the copy of the bank account of the purchaser Shri Devender Sharma which shows that on 13th April, 2011, he has withdrawn cash of ₹ 12 lakhs from his bank account. Thus, the assessee has been able to prove that he received advance against sale of property and thus, proved the identity of the purchaser and his creditworthiness because he has withdrawn the amount in cash from his bank prior to entering into an agreement to sale with the assessee. - Decided against reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue. The assessee filed copy of the bank statement to show the withdrawals from his bank account prior to the sale deed. Copy of the sale deed is also filed which support the fact that assessee made investment in property out of his own source. Thus, the assessee explained the source of investment in property.- Decided against revenue - ITA.No.4274/Del./2016 - - - Dated:- 13-9-2017 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. D.R. For The Assessee : Shri Mukesh Kumar Bansal, C.A. ORDER This departmental appeal has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad, dated 18th May, 2016, for the A.Y. 2012-2013. 2. I have heard the Learned Representatives of bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed in the grounds of appeal by Revenue, the contention of the Ld. D.R. is rejected. 4. On ground No.1, the Revenue challenged the deletion of addition of ₹ 2,24,675 on account of estimated business income. The A.O. noted that assessee filed return of income at ₹ 2,07,325 stating as per section 44AD of the I.T. Act, when assessee was required to prove the nature of services rendered and nature of goods treated, it has been stated that in reality, income was earned against services rendered to book sellers for boosting their sales and in nutshell, assessee admitted that no trading activities were carried on. Assessee had admitted that credits in the bank, on different dates aggregating to ₹ 2,33,550 relating to business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a. The A.O. however, noted that since assessee has not proved the capacity of the person for advancing such amount in cash, addition of ₹ 10 lakhs was made. Assessee reiterated the same submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that advance was received against residential house in Noornagar, Ghaziabad and to substantiate the capacity, copy of the bank account was filed. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that addition was made because creditworthiness of Shri Devender Sharma was not proved. Ld. CIT(A) noted that it is not a case of credit but of a receipt of advance against sale. The assessee has adduced sale agreement as evidence and identity of Shri Devender Sharma is not disputed and that assessee proved the creditworthiness of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of ₹ 18 lakhs was made. The assessee explained before the Ld. CIT(A) that assessee has taken loan of ₹ 18 lakhs from Shri Sanjay Tyagi for the purpose of purchase of property. The assessee filed certificate containing details and PAN. The assessee also filed confirmation and copy of the bank account along with ITR and evidence of availability of the funds with him. The Ld. CIT(A) found that A.O. rejected the claim of assessee because mere confirmation and PAN of the creditor was not sufficient. The Ld. CIT(A) found that there is nothing on record to support that A.O. has doubted the identity of the creditor or has asked the assessee to prove the creditworthiness. The action of the A.O. was unilateral without giving an opportu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.4, the Revenue challenged the deletion of addition of ₹ 3,27,000 on account of interest on loan. The A.O. noted that assessee had advanced ₹ 40,33,333 to Smt. Saroj Yadav on 21st December, 2011 and further ₹ 40,33,333 to Shri F.K. Yadav and no interest has been shown. The A.O. made the addition of ₹ 3,27,000. 11. The assessee reiterated the same facts before the Ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that these transactions are purchase consideration paid by the assessee and no advance paid. The assessee purchased agricultural land along with two other co-owners and purchase deed clearly support the explanation of assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly deleted the addition. 12. After considering the rival contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
