TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l exists and the manner of discharge of above liability has also been agreed by the parties. There is no cessation of liability in the hands of the assessee as the liability is live and existing. Therefore, the ld CIT (A) has deleted the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer under section 41(1) - Further in absence of any contrary evidence, the Assessing Officer is not correct in stating that assessee might have paid the above sum out of its unaccounted income. To reach at such conclusion, no evidences are shown before us. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A). in deleting the above addition. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 3975/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2022 - SRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Appellant by : Shri V. Tripathi, DR Respondent by : Shri Dr. P Daniel, AR ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI , AM 01. This appeal is filed by the learned Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai [ The ld AO ] against the order passed by The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [ The Ld CIT (A)] dated 07.03.2019 for Assessment Year 2015-16 raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,51,24,000/- on account of cessation of liability under section 41(1) of the Act and total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 2,52,71,640/-. 04. The assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT(A), who deleted the addition , therefore, the learned Assessing Officer is in appeal before us. 05. The brief facts of the case shows that during the year under consideration as per agreement dated 02.05.2014, assessee has purchased non-agricultural land at Karjat, Raigad for ₹ 2,61,24,000/- from M/s Tanya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. This agreement was registered with the Sub- registrar Karjat. The learned Assessing Officer examined the agreement. The Assessing Officer stated that assessee has purchased the property for ₹ 2,61,24,000/-, wherein 2,60,00,000/-have been paid by cheque No. 0016 to 0041 of HDFC Bank Ltd., Fort Branch, Mumbai of ₹ 10 lkh each and ₹ 1,24,000/- was paid by cheque No. 15 of the same bank. Thus, the Assessing Officer concluded that assessee has paid the above sum to the seller. This was also documented by a receipt being part of the agreement. However, on perusal of the balance sheet the Assessing Officer noted that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- is receivable from the assessee and has not been received and therefore, the addition on account of the undisclosed income cannot be made. He also considered the affidavit of Shri Pratap Dattatraya Gambhir, Director of Tania Infrastructure Private Limited, wherein it was stated that the balance consideration of ₹ 2,51,24,000/- is to be received from assessee in the form of land situated at Varasoli, Alibaug. The affidavit of the director was also forwarded to the Assessing Officer for his comment as well as necessary enquiries. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer submitted that on verification of the bank account of the assessee, the post dated cheques were issued of ₹ 2,51,24,000/- to M/s Tania Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and are not encashed till date. Therefore, the only payment made by the assessee to M/s Tania Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is ₹ 10 lacs by cheque. The balance consideration as stated was to be received for the form of land from the assessee to M/s Tania Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., however, no documents were submitted. The learned CIT(A) based on the above remand report held that there is no cessation of liability under section 41(1) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over to the buyer and the cheque of only ₹ 10 lacs were encashed and the balance cheques were never encahsed which is also confirmed by the bank statement as well as the seller of the property. Therefore, there is no question of any payment made to the buyer as unaccounted income of the assessee or the cessation of liability under section 41(1) of the Act. He further referred to the remand report dated 21.02.2019 submitted by the Assessing Officer wherein the above sum is verified as still payable. He therefore, supported the order of the learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals). 09. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. 010. The facts lies in the narrow compass that assessee has purchased a property for ₹ 2,61,24,000/-. The assessee handed over the cheques of the above sum of ₹ 10 lacs each at the time of executing the sale deed. The seller also issued the receipt of the above cheque stating that it has received the consideration. Later on, both the parties agreed that the cheque of only ₹ 10 lacs was encashed leaving the balance sum payable by the assessee to the seller of the property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
