TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances, we uphold the action of the ld. CIT(A) in treating the sale transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade. The impugned order is therefore, confirmed on this score. Unexplained cash deposits into bank account - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the facts of the case and considering the quantum of amount involved with reference to other attending circumstances, we are satisfied that the deposit of ₹ 3 lakhs cannot be considered as emanating from any undisclosed sources, for which the ld. CIT(A) has accepted the explanation only to the extent of ₹ 75,000. There is no reason as to how this magical figure of ₹ 75,000 came into being. As such, we order to delete the remaining addition . Penalty imposed u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Sudhir Angre: 2. The assessee in his quantum appeal is, firstly, aggrieved by the confirmation of addition of ₹ 21,25,000. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment proceedings of Shri Sunil Dattatray Angre, brother of the assessee and the appellant in other two appeals, transpired that an immovable property was sold jointly by them on 29.08.2011 for a sum of ₹ 50 lakhs. No capital gain was offered for taxation. The assessee was further found to have purchased a property worth ₹ 50 lakhs on 13.09.2011, which was not declared. As the assessee had not declared any capital gain on the transfer of the land or the source of the purchase of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the ld. DR through the Virtual Court and scanned through the relevant material on record. The appeal was originally fixed for hearing on 07.09.2021 and it was adjourned at the request of assessee for 21.10.2021. On such date, none appeared, the matter was again adjourned for 01.12.2021. Again on 01.12.2021, none appeared and the matter was adjourned for today. Today, again the assessee has chosen to remain un-represented. In such circumstances, we are proceeding to decide the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee on merits. 5. It is seen that the assessee sold a piece of land for ₹ 50 lakhs within period of four months from the date of its purchase at ₹ 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 3 lakhs cannot be considered as emanating from any undisclosed sources, for which the ld. CIT(A) has accepted the explanation only to the extent of ₹ 75,000. There is no reason as to how this magical figure of ₹ 75,000 came into being. As such, we order to delete the remaining addition of ₹ 2,25,000. 8. In the result, quantum appeal is partly allowed. 9. In so far as the penalty appeal is concerned, it is seen that the AO imposed penalty of ₹ 14,85,260 on the additions made by him totalling to ₹ 53 lakhs. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty on the amount of quantum additions upheld by him, against which the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Having heard the ld. DR and gone t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove. Two additions of ₹ 25 lakhs each were made by the AO in the hands of the assessee towards undisclosed income on purchase of property and short term capital gain. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 25 lakhs in the hands of the assessee as well as his brother and sustained the addition to the extent of ₹ 21,25,000 towards sale of property. 13. It is seen as also admitted by the ld. DR that the facts and circumstances of the addition are mutatis mutandis similar to those obtaining in the case of the assessee s brother, Sh. Sudhir Angre. While disposing of the said appeal, we have uphold the action of ld. CIT(A) in treating the amount of addition as `Business income , being, profit from an adventure in the nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the last 20 years. No cognizance of that fact has been taken. In view of the fact, the addition was made one-sided only without considering the assessee s contention and further that the ld. CIT(A) accepted the genuineness at ₹ 1.50 lakhs without any elaboration, we are of the considered opinion that it would be in fitness of things if the impugned order on this score is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO. We order accordingly and direct the AO to decide the issue afresh as per law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the source of deposits into the bank account and also consider the withdrawals made from the bank account, if any. 16. In the result, the appeal is partl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
