TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her been doubted by the Ld. AO. The plea of the Ld. AO of not being able to verify the genuineness of the transaction with TIPL in their absence cannot be said to be justified when all other evidences speak otherwise. The appellant company and the confirming parties as well regularly assessed to tax and the amount received is duly reflected in their books of accounts. Neither it is the case of the revenue that the declaration made by the confirming party through its director is false and, therefore, considering entire aspect of the matter the addition on account of unexplained investment is not sustainable in the eye of law fact of which has rightly been taken care of by the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting addition - Decided against revenue.. - I.T.A. No. 3339/Ahd/2015 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2021 - SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Mehul K. Patel, AR ORDER PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 24.09.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 27.03.2014 pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration was ₹ 4,38,06,069/- and ₹ 49,49,397/- as per the sale deed dated 01.11.2010 and dated 25.10.2010 respectively for both the plots aggregating to ₹ 4,87,55,466/- out of which 3,50,00,000/- was paid to TIPL with the consent of the sellers for waiving their rights acquired by virtue of Banakhat dated 31.12.2009 as return on their investment and profit on the same. 5. During the assessment proceeding since the confirming party namely Tripada Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (TIPL) did not remain present in terms of the summons issued by the Ld. AO, the amount paid to the said company has been added to the total income of the assessee under Section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. It is relevant to mention that the summons could not be served upon the said parties as their office was found closed. In appeal the addition was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us by Revenue. 6. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the impugned addition was made entirely on surmise and conjecture and without proper consideration and appreciation of the facts of the case d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. The Ld. First Appellate Authority while deleting the addition observed as follows:- In as much as genuineness of the payment of ₹ 3.50 crores to Tripada Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the confirming party is concerned, I agree with the argument of the Ld. A.R. that keeping in view the evidences available on record, there is little scope for doubting the genuineness of the payment made especially in absence of any contrary evidence brought on record by the AO. It is seen that the evidences in form of ledger account of Tripada Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and ledger account of lands purchased from the books of account of the firm along with copy of bank accounts of the appellant firm which duly reflects the payments made to the sellers and the confirming party viz. Tripada Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which fact has not been disproved by the AO coupled with the declaration given by Tripada Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. confirming the amount of ₹ 3.50 crores received by them from the appellant firm alongwith their return of income and audited Balance Sheet for the year in question are in my view sufficient and adequa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther, the appellant has offered the explanation regarding the source of investment, which in fact has not been doubted by the AO. On perusal of the assessment order, I find that there is no observation of the AO that the explanation offered by the assessee was not satisfactory. Thus, the argument of the Id. A.R. that the AO has merely doubted part of the consideration paid for purchase of lands i.e. payment of ₹ 3.50 crores made to the confirming party out of total payment of ₹ 4,87,55,466/- as per sale deeds and has accepted the other part of the sale deed by accepting the payment made to the seller is wholly illogical and contrary to each other, has sufficient force since the sale deed is duly registered and the veracity of the same has not been questioned as a whole by the AO at any stage. Further, on perusal of the assessment order, I find that the AO has not suspected or questioned the transaction with the confirming party on the ground of adequacy/inadequacy of consideration but has merely doubted the genuineness of the payment made solely on the ground of non-attendance of the said party in response to summons issued. It is by now settled law that mere suspicion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
