9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r could not have disbelieved the version of the Society or the broker on the ground that the Society did not know the whereabouts of Shri Chokhani after he left the flat that he was occupying for a period of ten years. The Tribunal held on an appreciation of the material on record that the addition made on the basis of the indication of purchase of flat and payment based on a piece of paper, cannot be upheld. In the instant case, since the broker had denied the receipt of payment and the Society had also denied the same, the Assessing Officer could not have held that the assessee had paid a sum of ₹ 66,50,000/to Shri Chokhani for securing the possession of the flat though no paper evidencing the payment except a letter of the broker w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer, the letters written by Shri P.R. Agrawal related to a flat in Matunga, Mumbai that was given on rent by the Society to the assessee on the application made by him in the year 1995. According to the Assessing Officer, before the flat was given on rent to the assessee Shri Sanjay Chokhani was occupying the flat and that he had surrendered his tenancy rights and vacant possession of the flat was handed over to the assessee through Shri P.R. Agrawal. On the basis of those chits, the Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the assessee had finalized the deal with Shri Chokhani by which he had surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of the assessee on receiving a sum of ₹ 66,50,000/. On the basis of the material on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adi, it cannot be said that the assessee had paid an amount of ₹ 66,50,000/to Shri Chokhani for handing over the possession of the flat, when there was no material to prove the said fact. It was observed that the broker Shri Agrawal was examined but he denied that the deal was made through him. The SocietyTrust, that had rented the flat to the assessee, was also questioned and the Society denied the receipt of payment of any amount by way of Pagadi or deposit from the assessee. Apart from the aforesaid, the Tribunal observed that in the loose papers at Annexure A2 bearing paper nos.44 and 47 the description of the flat was different. The description of the flat in the loose papers did not tally with the description of the flat at Matu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
