TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is nothing in the custody of the Assessing Officer to justify the same. As rightly observed by the Ld. CIT(A) the submission of the assessee that if, in a span of 7 months, the assessee earned a sum of ₹ 5.13 crores, it does not guarantee that he went on earning at similar proportions in the balance period also. The Assessing Officer is not sure where the assessee made payment of balance sale consideration or not. However, the submission of the Ld. AR is that subsequently on 17.01.2013, ultimately, the sale was cancelled by way of a cancellation deed and a copy of the cancellation date is placed on record. We find justification in the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) that there is no guarantee that the assessee paid the balance s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act was issued on 25.10.2012. Assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of ₹ 5,15,70,340/-. During the scrutiny Ld. Assessing Officer found that the assessee debited such an expense like vehicle depreciation, tour and travelling, telephone and vehicle expenses to the tune of ₹ 1,46,543/-. Ld. Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee failed to furnish the documentary evidence as such he added back a sum of ₹ 14,654/- represent 10% of the expenses on the ground possibility of personal use. 3. Further Ld. Assessing Officer on a perusal of the agreement of sale in favour of the assessee in respect of the property in Karol Bagh, New Delhi under which the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anks or from relatives to pay the amount of the sellers. Further u/s 69 and 69B of the Act the word investment does not a include the investment there is likely to be made in future and there shall be some evidence to show the availability of unexplained investment to make any addition, Ld. CIT (A) agreed with the contentions on behalf of the assessee and deleted the addition stating that no addition could be made basing on the surmises and conjectures, and further that there is no guarantee that the man who earned 5.13 crores in 7 months will continue to earn at the same rate for the remaining period also. Further the Ld. CIT(A) observed that without rejecting the books of accounts and without pointing any specific discrepancy in the expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned a sum of ₹ 5.13 crores, it does not guarantee that he went on earning at similar proportions in the balance period also. The Assessing Officer is not sure where the assessee made payment of balance sale consideration or not. However, the submission of the Ld. AR is that subsequently on 17.01.2013, ultimately, the sale was cancelled by way of a cancellation deed and a copy of the cancellation date is placed on record. 8. In these circumstances we find justification in the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) that there is no guarantee that the assessee paid the balance sale consideration out of the unexplained earnings during the remaining period of the year. No addition could be sustained on presumptions. We, therefore, find any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
