TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught to have appreciated that the relief sought for by the appellant in the grounds of appeal before him was not revision or review of the assessment. What the appellant prayed for was only rectification of the mistake that has crept in while completing the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A), Rajahmundry erred in holding that there is no mistake in the assessment order which can be rectified u/s 154. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), Rajahmundry ought to have seen that no payments were made to Mr. Madana Subba Reddy and that therefore, the GPA issued in favour of the appellant was cancelled. He ought to have noticed the fact that the appellant accepted for the addition not because he paid the amount but to purchase peace with the Department. 4. The Ld. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tegorically stated in writing before the assessing officer that the disallowance proposed by the assessing officer was based on assumptions and presumptions and not based on any material on hand. 11. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 2. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal but they all relate to the scope of provisions of section 154 i.e. whether the rectification in the order of the A.O. is possible in the light of the given facts where some new evidence was brought into the notice of the assessing officer. 3. The facts relating to the impugned issue are that survey operation u/s 133A was conducted upon the assessee s business premises on 15.10.2003 in which it was revealed that assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce that differential consideration of Rs.35,96,210/- has been paid by the assessees from his unexplained source of income. When assessee was asked to explain the source of this differential consideration, it was explained interalia that having submitted the confirmation letters from the said 30 persons, the assessee has discharged its onus. Being not convinced with the explanations of the assessee, the assessing officer made an addition of the differential amount of Rs.35,96,210/- u/s 69 of the Act and completed the assessment. Thereafter, assessee moved a petition u/s 154 of the I.T. Act on 3rd April, 2006 with the submission interalia that vendor Shri M. Subba Reddy who were earlier executed 20 documents of GPA-cum-sale agreement in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received it was given to the vendor. Therefore, there cannot be any question of unexplained investment in the property. The vendor unilaterally cancelled the GPA-cum-sale agreement executed in his favour by executing the deed of cancellation on 12.1.2004 at the back of the assessees. In that cancellation deed, it was stated that sale consideration was not received by him and it was wrongly written in the GPA-cum-sale agreement executed on 8.7.2003. This documents came to the knowledge of the assessee after the assessment is completed and immediately thereafter assessee moved an application u/s 154 stating therein that these facts are very material facts which goes to the root of the case as the vendor himself has admitted that nothing has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue properly this cancellation deed is required to be examined and justice is to be done with the assessees. 7. With regard to the section 154 of the Act, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has taken a stand since beginning during the course of assessment proceedings that he has not paid any sale consideration to the vendor and this document is only in support of that contention and no new plea was raised u/s 154 of the Act. He has also placed the reliance upon the MoU. executed between the assessee and the vendor that on execution of this GPA-cum-sale deed, no consideration will be paid to the vendor. He has also placed a reliance upon the judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition of the same u/s 69 of the Act. The assessee made contradictory statement regarding payment of sale consideration to the vendor. The other fact that this GPA-cum-sale agreement was cancelled by the vendor even before the assessment proceedings but was not taken into account by the assessing officer because it was not brought to the notice of the assessees. If we accept the contention of department that the entire consideration was paid by the assessee to the vendor, we are at loss to understand as to why the vendor has executed the cancellation deed stating therein that he has not received any sale consideration. It is also not understandable that in such a huge transaction, no payments were effected through a banking channel. All ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
