TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xamination not provided information/documents/papers given by/collected from Pingle Family during investigation proceedings and assessment proceeding. 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Cit(A) erred in considering the cheque payment only to the extent of ₹ 13,85,000/- as against the actual cheque payment of ₹ 20,35,000/- while confirming an addition of ₹ 41,15,000/- . 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee has purchased agricultural land at Primpalwad for a consideration of ₹ 13,85,000/- from Pingle family viz., Mr. Bapurao V. Pingle and Mr. Deepak V. Pingle by way of Sale deed dated 25- 09-2006. Enquiries were conducted by the ITO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rated the arguments made by him in the assessment order by stating that the total consideration received by the sellers from the assessee against the agricultural land sold to the assessee was ₹ 55,00,000/- out of which ₹ 13,85,000/- was received by cheque and the rest of ₹ 41,15,000/- was received in cash. It was also explained that the entire amount of cheque as well as cash was received on the date on which the Sale Deed was registered, i.e., on 26-09-2006. The AOs findings as given in the report dated 14-10-2010 and reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order reads as under : The assessee s main contention is that he was neither allowed to cross examine the Pingle family from whom he purchased land for consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence with regard to the receipt of cash of ₹ 41,15,000/- received by the seller cannot be used against the assessee. For this proposition the assessee relied on the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kishori Lal Constructions reported in 191 Taxmann 194 to support his contention that some statement by a third party cannot be the basis of an addition. It was accordingly pleaded that the addition be deleted. 7. Rejecting the various arguments advanced by the assessee and on the basis of the remand report given by the AO the learned CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
