TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land ? B Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and facts in confirming the deletion of the addition of ₹ 36,52,656/- made by Assessing Officer being unaccounted profit on sale of the land, without considering the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act ? 2. Learned counsel Ms. Paurami Sheth has argued on the line of Appeal Memo and with her assistance, we have examined the material on record. 3. The first question concerns deletion of addition of ₹ 1,42,00,000/-. As can be noted from the record that a search was carried out in the premises of Shyam Group and the documents were ceased by the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the instalments of ₹ 98 Lakh was due on 20-05-1997, facts have revealed; that the assessee has entered into a sale agreement with M/s. Trimurti Associates dated 04-026-1996 and accordingly an amount of ₹ 1,42,27,709/- was received in the following manner: On 13.04.1996 ₹ 5 Lakhy (Banachitti) On 20.4.1996 ₹ 98 Lakh (Banakhat) On 13.9.1996 ₹ 46,27,700 We have noted that Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the said factual aspect that on receiving the aforesaid two major amounts from M/s. Trimurti Associates, the assessee has made the payment towards purchases to M/s. Ambika Corporation. Since the assessee has successfully established the nexus which was found correct by Ld. CIT (A) being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before the Tribunal, it had concluded the existence of nexus of sale and purchase made. The payment was made to M/s. Ambika Corporation after having received the amount from M/s. Trimurti Associates by the assessee-respondent. The initial amount of ₹ 5 Lakh was paid by the assessee-respondent and the Tribunal found convincing evidence to accept the version of the assessee-respondent. Thus, from the totality of the facts and circumstances, when it deleted the said amount, no fault much less any illegality can be noticed, giving rise to any question of law. 4. As far as the second question is concerned, it concerns deletion of ₹ 36,52,656/- made by Assessing Officer being unaccounted profit on sale of the land. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ession of the land had not been handed over during the block period in question and that the possession was handed over after the dispute was settled through a compromise suit in the civil court and that thereafter the profit in question was declared in A.Y. 2003-2004; we hereby confirm all those finding of Ld. CIT(A) and find no force in the grounds of the Revenue. Accordingly, these grounds of the Revenue are hereby dismissed. It was noted by the Tribunal that the disputes were pending before the Civil Court where a compromise by and between the parties had been effected. There was no question of any transfer till the said compromise was effected in the Civil Suit No.4801-98. Therefore, it allowed the order of the CIT(A) holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
