9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GEORGE GEORGE K : This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-I, Bangalore, dated 28/2/2011. The relevant assessment year is 2006-07. 2. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 28,24,000/- made under the provisions of section 69C of the Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts are as follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 28.24 lakhs has not been accounted in the books of accounts and brought the same to tax by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee contested the addition ofRs.28.24 lakhs before the CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) vide his order dated 28.2.2011 confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) at para 7 reads as follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... simply on the basis of an averment in the sale deed. But I also find that the assessee is equally in fault by inviting such addition because, he has failed to provide a confirmation letter from the vendor that the entire expenditure of ₹ 28,24,000/- has been borne by her even on the face of Assessing Officer's proposal to add the same during the course of assessment proceedings. This is a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. As rightly pointed out by the CIT(A), normally in the case of property transaction, it is the purchaser who bears the stamp duty. In this case, the property has been purchased by three sale deeds. All the three sale deeds are dated 3rd March, 2006. Clause 5 of sale deed (page 31), which is identical for all the three sale deeds reads ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer. Even at this stage, the assessee has not ventured to produce any material/evidence to suggest that the expenditure incurred on account of stamp duty and corporation tax was borne by the vendor and not by the assessee. Therefore, we feel on facts that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is justified and no interference is called for. 10. In the result, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
