9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax appellate Tribunal erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.42.50 lacs under the head 'undisclosed investments' in the purchase of land? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.10.00 lacs made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained loan?" The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in development of land and construction. During the assessment year under consideration which is the second year of operation, the assessee filed the loss return for Rs.1,33,575/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itial investment. The assessee's money was used. Later, the company has received back the land as well as the unaccounted money. Lastly, he justified the addition made by the A.O. On the other hand, Sri Dhruv Mathur, learned counsel for the assessee submits that Mr. Nankau was a conduit to whom the money was provided by the assessee's company through banking channel. He has purchased the land and re-sold to the assessee's company. Mr. Nankau was examined on oath. No enquiry was made by the A.O. from the original seller of the land as to when and how and from whom they have received the money and sold the land, Mr. Nankau has withdrawn the money from the bank account to purchase the land. Mr. Nankau was also not examined. So, no addition is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Karnataka Bank Ltd. in which he has received Rs.40 lacs and on the same day, disbursed Rs.32 lacs to the assessee. The assessee then returned a sum of Rs.31 lacs on 11.08.2004 leaving Rs.1 lac as credit from M/s L.N.Seth, HUF. Subsequently, M/s. L.N.Seth, HUF further gave a sum of Rs.5 lacs and Rs.4 lacs, total Rs.9 lacs, on 08.09.2004 and 12.10.2004 to the assessee. Thus, a sum of Rs.10 lacs remained outstanding against M/s. L.N.Seth, HUF in the balance sheet of the assessee. The A.O. made an addition of this amount in the hands of the assessee which was upheld by the first appellate authority. However, the Tribunal has deleted the said addition. Sri D.D.Chopra, learned counsel for the department submits that the assessee company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
