9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otors') as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee showed to have received an advance of Rs.15 lac from T.S. Motors. On being called upon to prove the genuineness of the credit, the assessee submitted that he received the above amount as an advance pursuant to entering into an Agreement with M/s T. S. Motors (I) Pvt. Ltd. on 29.9.2006 for agreeing to transfer the property located at Bhandaar Goan, Dehradun with all ownership rights on land and construction thereon. In support of this contention, the assessee filed a copy of agreement with T.S. Motors, a copy of ledger account of the assessee in the books of T.S. Motors, extract of copies of cash book of T.S. Motors and copy of Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nection with the execution of some property in Dehradun. Shri Rohit Arora informed the Board on 20th September 2006 about the finalization of the property deal with the assessee. A copy of resolution authorizing Shri Rohit Arora to enter into MOU with the assessee for the purchase of the property to be developed by the assessee along with his wife, is available on page 6 of the paper book. Thereafter, the assessee entered into an agreement with T.S. Motors on 29th September 2006. A copy of such agreement is available on page 7 onwards of the paper book. This agreement categorically provides for the purchase of property by T.S. Motors from the assessee and his wife for the stated consideration. Page 19 of the paper book is copy of assessee's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to find any flaw in the impugned order in deleting this addition on the basis of the overwhelming evidence filed by the assessee in support of the genuineness of the transaction. This ground is not allowed. 5. The only other issue raised through two grounds is about the deletion of addition of Rs.81,60,000/- which was made by the AO as unexplained investment. The facts apropos this ground are that assessee constructed house property at Bhandaar Goan, Dehradun and furnished year wise details of construction work / investment in said property as under: Year Amount 2005-06 Rs.7,50,000/- 2006-07 Rs.14,50,000/- 2007-08 Rs.70,00,000/- 2008-09 Rs.30,00,000/- 6. On the basis of the report of DDI (Inv.) Dehradun that construction work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2008-09 30,00,000/- 30,88,242/- Total 1,22,00,000/- 1,25,58,854/- 8. From this table extracted from the impugned order, it is patent that the difference in the cost of construction between the assessee and DVO for the current year stands only at Rs.2.05 lac. Such difference constitutes and minuscule 3%. As against the assessee's declared investment at Rs.1.22 crore over the period, the DVO has estimated cost of construction at Rs.1.25 crore. It is crystal clear that the year-wise figures as declared by the assessee and as estimated by the DVO are almost in the same vicinity. The difference between two values is minimal. After all, estimate is an estimate and cannot take the place of actual. Such a meager difference does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
