TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 943X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding advances received would be liable to be distributed amongst all the said parties. We find no merit in the assessee s foregoing argument. It is made clear that apart from the learned lower authorities having doubted genuineness in assessee s impugned payment claim, there is no material or stipulation in the sale deed that he had acted or sold anything over and above his own share in the land sold. Learned counsel could not refer to any clause therein that this assessee s share concerned contained any charge or encumbrance or share of his mother so as to be satisfied on a future date. Fact with this situation, we find merit in Revenue s vehement argument supporting this impugned disallowance/addition of Rs.32 lakhs. The assessee fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the mother (and the father) was essential to make the Agreement. The Appellant has also contended that, the amount paid to the mother was not income in the hands of the Appellant by following the 'Real income' theory. The Appellant has also raised the issue of double taxation as the mother of the Appellant had shown this amount in her Return of Income. The Appellant has relied on the case of his brother wherein, the ITO has accepted the amount shown by the brother and the father has shown the amount received in his Return of Income. He has contended that, opposite views on the same facts by two different Assessing Officer's are not justifiable. 4.5 I do not agree with the contention of the Appellant regarding the ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant of the parents not signing without the money paid to them, is devoid of merit. The contention of the Appellant that, the parents refused to sign the Agreement without the payment of Rs.32,00,000/- for 'Bread butter in old age', from the Appellant, which he gave to the mother and the brother gave to the father, lacks strength. It is clear from the Agreement itself, that the father has received Rs. 1,89,13,857/- in a span of nearly a year (16.05.2011 to 18.02.2012) whereas, the mother has received Rs.50,00,000/- on 18.02.2012. 4.6 Regarding the other contention of the Appellant of the brothers payment being treated as 'Not income' in his hands, by the Assessing Officer, suffice it to say that, an error made in readin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this assessee s share concerned contained any charge or encumbrance or share of his mother so as to be satisfied on a future date. Fact with this situation, I find merit in Revenue s vehement argument supporting this impugned disallowance/addition of Rs.32 lakhs. The assessee fails in his sole substantive grievance. 5. The assessee s last contention before parting is that the Assessing Officer has accepted identical claim of payment made by his brother and therefore, both the lower authorities ought to have been consisted in their respective stands. Mr. Joshi has also filed a catena of case law as well. I find no substance in assessee s instant latter argument once he has failed to prove the payment in issue in light of the relevant st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
