9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the facts of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting the additional evidence and allowing relief on that basis particularly when the assessee did not fulfill the conditions prescribed under Rule 46A and the assessee was provided sufficient opportunities as is apparent from order sheet enteries of assessment proceedings running into 17 pages showing that assessee or his representative attended proceedings on more than 24 occasions, besides the opportunities provided but not availed by the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 38,00,000/- made by the A.O on account of bogus liability particularly when the assessee could not bring on record any evidence to establish creditworthiness of the alleged creditor Sh Yashpal Aggarwal and/or to establish any business relations with the assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a written submission, relevant portion of which is reproduced below: "In this regard it is submitted that there was no outstanding amount of Rs. 78 Lacs as alleged by the Assessing Officer. Shri Darshan Singh had never stated before the A.O. that any advance has been given by him or his company, M/s Gulmohar Landcons Put Ltd. In fact, the Assessee had given advance to M/s Gulmohar Landcons Pvt Ltd. The Assessing Officer had taken the figure of Rs. 78 Lacs from one statement furnished in March 2011. A perusal of the said statement shows that the same was not a balance sheet of the Assessee. In fact the statement of assets and liabilities of the Assessee was furnished before the A.O. 16-12-2011 & there was no liability of Rs. 78 Lacs in the name of Darshan Singh. Since no liability of Rs. 78 Lacs existed in the balance sheet or the books of accounts of the Assessee, the disallowance was uncalled for and deserves to be deleted." 9. Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had himself furnished a balance sheet as on 31.03.2009 before the Assessing Officer in March, 2011 and in this balance sheet, he had shown liability of Rs. 78,00,000/- in Land Gulmohar A/c. This liability was not con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Rule, 1962, since the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence, which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Counsel has also submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the entire transaction was through cheque and interest was not charged, as the said amount was received in normal course of business. Ld. CIT(A) held that since the assessee could not contact Sh. Yash Pal Aggarwal at the time when the assessment proceedings were on, he could not obtain confirmation from him and so he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence, which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the evidence in the form of confirmation from Sh. Yash Pal Aggarwal, filed by the assessee, was admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) and forwarded to the Assessing Officer for comments. 17. The Assessing Officer objected to the admission of additional evidence on the ground that the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity by the then Assessing Officer, but this objection is not tenable, since the assessee could not contact Sh. Yash Pal Aggarwal for getting the confirmation, which was asked for by the Assessing Officer and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deal, which did not materialise and Sh. Joginder Singh had refunded Rs. 40,00,000/-. The assessee had furnished photocopy as well as original copy of agreement to sell executed on 16.07.2008 with Sh. Joginder Singh. 25. As per this agreement to sell, the amount of Rs. 31,00,000/- was paid as advance in cash by the assessee to Sh. Joginder Singh and balance amount was to be paid by 30.09.2008. The Assessing Officer found that the said agreement was not executed on judicial stamp paper and so its authenticity was not established. In response to notice u/s 133(6), Sh. Joginder Singh had submitted before the Assessing Officer that this money was paid by the assessee for procuring a piece of land for the passage to the project of TATA Housing, which was later on shelved. It was also submitted that subsequently the agreement was cancelled and an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- was refunded in cash. 26. The Assessing Officer has observed that the agreement was cancelled by the assessee and so as per terms of agreement, Rs. 31,00,000/- was to be forfeited by Sh. Joginder Singh, but contrary to that Sh. Joginder Singh refunded Rs. 40,00,000/-; Rs. 9,00,000/- more than amount paid, which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts we decline to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 31. Ground No. 5 relates to the transaction between the M/s. Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee. 32. Brief facts of the issue are that HASH was appointed as agent of TATA Housing Development Company Ltd (hereinafter referred to as TATA1) and HASH, in turn, authorized the assessee to procure land for the project of TATA in village Kansal, to which the assessee was well known and conversant, since he was native of this village. The Assessing Officer noticed a large number of transactions in the bank account of the assessee and called for the ledger account of the assessee from HASH. HASH had informed the Assessing Officer that this amount was paid to the assessee as advance against land to be purchased by him for TATA. HASH had further confirmed that no sale deeds were executed in respect of the amounts advanced to the assessee. The assessee had also confirmed the nature of this transaction as advance against land. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why no income had been declared under the had business income on account of sale/ purchase of land for which advance of Rs. 4,46,75,000/- was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der consideration for proposed deals of land transactions to be executed with TATA through HASH, but the same was done because of the pending litigation before HonTDle Delhi High Court. In any case, advance received by the assessee from HASH cannot be taxed as income of the assessee because of not advancing money further to the potential sellers of land. Ld. CIT(A) held that the advance received of Rs. 4,46,75,000/-, cannot be treated as income. Moreover, there is no evidence in possession of the Department that the assessee had earned any income out of the advance received from HASH, which could be taxed. In view of this discussion, it is held that the Assessing Officer was not right in taxing the amount of advance received from HASH of Rs. 4,46,75,000/- and so the addition made on this account is deleted. 35. Before us the Ld. DR argued that when so much of work has been done by the assessee for the TATA Group the assessee must have got some commission or income out of the transactions and relied on the assessment order. While the Ld. AR argued that the amounts have been received as advances only and since the deeds were not materialized no amount has been earned by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
