9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... REME Court] - the AO has to bring the summons proceedings to a logical conclusion - Merely because summoned person did not respond, cannot be held against assessee - thus, the matter is required to be remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support of cash deposit in the bank, the assessee has submitted copy of ledger account of cash book in which opening balance of Rs. 4,72,645/- and the cash of small denomination have been withdrawn and deposited throughout the year till January 2008 in which assessee has deposited cash loan amounting to Rs. 88,000/- from five different people for which affidavit of the persons have been submitted and in February 2008 assessee has deposited sale consideration of the plot and later on the amount was used for the payment of plot purchased and even as pe the cash book submitted by the assessee reveals that the assessee is having negative cash in hand of Rs. 60,955/- on 25-03-2008, and the opening cash in hand of Rs. 4,72,645/- is not believable. It is apparent from the above that the assessee has purchased the plot and deposited his unaccounted money in the bank and made the payment for purchase of plot and when he was asked to explain the source of cash deposited in the bank, he has created an unbelievable story which is defective and not acceptable at all and even no detail of sale and purchase of plot has been declared in the return filed by the assessee. No detail or affidavit in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rson to attend before him was one Mr. Vishal Sharma, whose statement was recorded by the AO and who stated that he was a salesman in a garment shop in Pahari Dheeraj and that he had purchased a 48 sq. yd. plot of land from Sh. Arun Kumar Bansal for approx. Rs.1.55 lacs in the month of Apr1l2J)07, which he had already disposed off in the year 2010. This is at variance with the claim of the appellant who has stated that he had received a sum of Rs.2 lacs in cash from Sh. Vishal Sharma on 18.02.2008. The AO further reported that the veracity of the claim made by the appellant of having sold the plot of land in cash and having deposited the same in his bank account appears doubtful. 4.6 I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant, the evidences placed on record by him and the arguments made by him in his favor. I have also carefully perused the assessment order as well as the Remand Reports submitted by the AO. I have taken careful note of the facts that there was a negative balance in the cash book of the appellant as on a given date. I have also noted that despite having issued summons u/s. 131 of the Act to 7 persons as requested by the appellant, nobody atten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The major reason of assessing officer for not accepting the assessee's contention about sales of the plots is to the effect that the evidence suggested that the plots were purchased on 27-2-2008 and 28- 2-2008 whereas the sales of these plots are claimed on on 15-2-2008 to 18-2-2008. Ld. CIT(A) has not adverted to this aspect and mere non attendance of the persons in response to summons u/s 131 has been held against the assessee. The fact that Shri Vishal Sharma appeared who though accepted having purchased the plot even the amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- paid by him has not been give credit and the entire amount has been added. Besides, reliance is placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs.Orissa Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. 159 ITR 78, for the proposition that it was for the assessing officer to bring 131 proceedings to logical conclusion. The summons never came back as unserved or person not found. 4.3. Copy of the AIR information was never provided to assessee to reconcile the facts and figures mentioned therein and to give explanation accordingly. The said Shri Anil Kumar Mittal was in a position to dispose of the land in question by way of GPA from one Dr. Kumud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed between Anil Kumar Mittal and the vendees to save the stamp duty. To this extent there does not seem to be any objection to the revenue. The main adverse inference has been drawn by lower authorities mainly on the ground that the date of purchase of land from Anil Kumar Mittal and dates of sale do not match; documents in respect of purchase of 140 sq. land are not available and documents of sale in respect of other sales to Mohd. Mohanuddin, Panditji and Dharam Pal are not available. The objection of the assessee that AIR information was not made available to him is not disputed. There is no finding that assessee was owner of above land by GPA, which raises a probability that the land in question could be disposed of by the assessee. The main question remains dates of deposit in the banks and date of receipt from the parties. In the entirety of facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the facts involved in the subject matter have not been streamlined in a proper manner and the adverse inferences have been summarily drawn. If the assessee is owner of above pieces of land holding GPA, it gives a fair assumption that the land could be sold. Similarly, if there is no subsequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
