TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars to be that the assessee at that particular time paid only and the balance was paid by the co-owner Shri Pradeep Parmar. The co-owner i.e. Shri Pradeep Parmar also established the source of the said amount of Rs. 1 crore thereby stating that the same was borrowed from Shri Kanjibhai Fulabhai Koli and to that extent has given the details that GIDC has compensated to Shri Kanjibhai Filabhai Koli and from that fund the co-owner received a loan from the said party. This crucial aspect were not taken into account by the AO as well as by the CIT(A) and ignored the evidences produced by the assessee. Thus, the addition made by the Assessing Officer does not sustain. Hence, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so that the balance Rs. 42,84,150/- remaining after considering actual payment of Rs. 21.68 lacs by the appellant was unexplained investment u/s.69C. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred law and or in facts in confirming the addition of Rs.42,84,150/- made u/s. 69C by AO. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the unless there is an evidence to prove that the appellant had actually paid Rs.42,84,150/-, the addition made u/s.69C is wholly illegal and unlawful. The appellant had produced sufficient evidence to prove that the said payment was made by the co-owner. It is therefore prayed that the addition of Rs. 42,84,150/- made by the AO should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 131 on 26.11.2014, the assessee had 50% share of the land for the statement recorded under Section 131 of the Act on 11.12.2014 that of co-owner Shri Pradipkumar Gandabhai Parmar he stated that he purchased land and the assessee as well as assessee s co-owner has equal share of land i.e. 50% of each. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 42,84,150/- towards unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act and Rs. 2,00,000/- in respect of cash deposit in joint bank accounts. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee purchased jointly with his cousin land for price of Rs. 1,21,68,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no such payment alleging unexplained investment was made by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court CIT vs. Raman Kumar Suri (2013) (29 taxmann.com 231)(Bom). The Ld. A.R. further submitted that no contradiction is explained by the CIT(A) was there in assessee s case. The assessee had repaid the amount of Shri Pradeep Parmar what he had paid on his behalf. Without prejudice to this submission the Ld. A.R. submitted that the expenses of stamp duty, registration paid out of withdrawal from Bank account as stated in reply given to the Assessing Officer so addition to that extent called for. 6. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee at no point of time as stated that why the payment was made in cash when th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the said party. This crucial aspect were not taken into account by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A) and ignored the evidences produced by the assessee. Thus, the addition made by the Assessing Officer does not sustain. Hence, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 177/Ahd/2019(A.Y. 2012-13):- 8. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1.1 The order passed u/s. 250 on 14.11.2018 for A.Y. 2012-13 by CIT(A)-(7), A bad, confirming penalty of Rs.10,95,120/- imposed towards addition of Rs.42,84,150/- u/s. 69C as unexplained investment is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
