TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and the entire addition has been made on hypothetical basis. ITAT has also accepted the explanation of respondent that initially the said flat, of which the letter was found, was negotiated and sold for a sum of ₹ 59,34,000/- to one Mr. Milind Bhingare and the party had made a token payment of ₹ 1 lakh. The booking was cancelled on the ground that the agreed price was much higher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1963 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 29-11-2021 - K.R. SHRIRAM AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr. S.C. Tiwari a/w. Ms. Hetal Laghave for respondent. P.C. : 1. The following substantial questions of law are proposed in this appeal : (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon ble ITAT was right in deleting the addition made u/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the CD, a letter in respect of sale transaction with one Mr. Devendra Singh Tomar was found. According to the Assessing Officer, the letter dated 8th August 2008 addressed to the said Devendra Singh Tomar showed that the sale price payable by Devendra Singh Tomar is ₹ 57,73,000/- towards the purchase of flat, whereas the agreement value with reference to the same was ₹ 49,18,000/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT (A)], who dismissed the appeal but reduced the undisclosed income to ₹ 2,97,34,980/-. Aggrieved by this order, respondent preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), who set aside the order of the CIT (A) by an order dated 31st January 2017, which is impugned in this appeal. 4. We have considered the appeal memo and the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pproached respondent and negotiated to purchase the flat at ₹ 49,18,000/- which amount the said Devendra Singh Tomar paid in three installments. The said Devendra Singh Tomar has also filed an affidavit giving details as well as proofs of payment. In our view, the conclusions of the Assessing Officer and supported by CIT (A) are all conjectures. 6. In our view, the Tribunal has not commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
