TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhs) as unexplained investment under Section 69 - findings recorded by the learned authorities are the findings of fact based on the agreement of purchase of land dated 15.08.2005 and the same was admitted by Shri Santosh Kumar Lalwani in reply to Question No.14 of his statement and thus, we cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned authorities have committed an error in relying on the statement of Shri Santosh Kumar Lalwani. - Decided against assessee. - IT APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 22-3-2018 - MR P. K. JAISWAL AND MR VIRENDER SINGH, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr Mangesh Bhachawat, Ld. Counsel ORDER P.K. Jaiswal, J. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the Act ) has been filed by the appellant - assessee against order dated 17.10.2016 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore in Income Tax Appeal No.441/Indore/2016 (2011) for the assessment year 2006-07, whereby the learned Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal against order dated 07.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14,85,000/- (34,00,000 minus 19,15,000). He has not explained the source of cash deposit of ₹ 10,28,000/- (25,13,000/- minus 14,85,000) out of which cash deposits of ₹ 25,13,000/-. The source of cash of ₹ 10,28,000/- was explained out of own money / savings of ₹ 1,75,710/-, ₹ 3,00,000/- from 16 persons as loan and ₹ 5,52,290/- out of recovery from old debtors of which source has not been explained. Hence, same was added as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. The claim of loans from 16 persons being friends and relatives was not found acceptable as identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of transactions was not proved as the creditors as the assessee has failed to produce the creditors in spite of number of opportunities allowed to the assessee. The Assessing Officer also not accepted the explanation regarding own capital balance and savings of ₹ 1,75,710/- and opening balance of debtors at ₹ 5,52,290/-. In addition to above, the Assessing Officer has made an addition of ₹ 10,28,000/-. Beside this, the Assessing Officer also added a sum of ₹ 4,81,700/- deposited in cash in the bank account in absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see further stated that they have entered into an agreement for sale of 1/3rd land to Shri Santosh Kumar Lalwani on 15.08.2005 and received ₹ 8 lakh as advance out of which the assessee has deposited ₹ 19.05 lakh as advance in M/s. Kunjika Construction Private Limited. We find that Shri Santosh Kumar Lalwani has also accepted this fact and the AO has accepted this source of payments. However, we further find that Shri Santosh Kumar Lalwani has also stated in the same statement recorded on 01.12.2009 stating that Shri Vijay Jain and Shri Ajay Singh Kushwaha have paid a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs towards purchase agreement is not able to explain the source of payment of ₹ 20 lakhs. It is the contention of the assessee that no such payment has been made by them. However, we find that this contention is not supported by any documentary evidence. It is the claim of the assessee that there was oral agreement for purchase of land at Survey No.329 Nanakheda Ujjain and only ₹ 51,000/- were given as advance. This contention of the assessee is not found acceptable by the AO and ld. CIT (A). We find that the assessee has not been able to produce Shri Devidas for examinatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lalwani had agreed to purchase 1/3rd of land for ₹ 43,27,400/- and paid ₹ 8 lakhs as advance for the same which means that the total value of the said land must be three times of ₹ 43 lakh meaning there by around ₹ 120-130 lakhs. Therefore, in the same way, Shri Vijay Jain is very likely might have paid 1/5th of as advance as Bayana at ₹ 120/5 = 24 lakhs or ₹ 20 lakhs). Since the assessee has failed to produce the agreement for purchase of land with Shri Devidas and others, therefore, we are of the considered view that the lower authorities have justified in making addition of ₹ 20 lakhs on this account. We also find that the AO has not only made addition based on the statement but also having regards to entire circumstances of the case. The circumstantial evidence and surrounding circumstances make the view of the AO as correct. We also find mentioned that the purchaser (executors) of said agreement have a written agreement of purchase of said land or executor. We find that in the said agreement, it has been clearly mentioned that the assessee has an agreement by which they have authorized to sell the land and get registered the same in n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
