9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eddy was not brought on record and we are not sure whether any statement has been recorded from Shri Krishna Since the account copies and statements have not been confronted to assessee, considering the request made by the Ld. Counsel in the course of arguments, we are of the opinion that the matter is to be set aside to the file of the AO to give proper opportunity to assessee to explain his stand and also to offer cross-examination of the parties, if required. The role of Shri Krishna Reddy also requires examination. - I.T.A. No. 1379/HYD/2013 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2017 - SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri S. Rama Rao, AR For The Revenue : Smt U. Minich ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shita Homes agreed for the payment of total amount of ₹ 1,40,00,000/-, the entire consideration was brought to tax in the hands of assessee after allowing the cost of acquisition. Thus net amount brought to tax as capital gains was of ₹ 1,16,19,800/-. Assessee is aggrieved on the above addition. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was contended that assessee has not received the amount of ₹ 1 crore. It was submitted that he was not familiar with the agreement which was in English and further the amount cannot be brought to tax in his hands as it was utilised for surrendering the right to specific performance. Ld. CIT(A) found that there were certain inconsistencies in the figures of the amounts stated to have been received by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has accepted the receipt of ₹ 40,00,000/- equally paid in cash and through Demand Drafts, has denied to have received the amount of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- from M/s. Surakshita Homes. The reasons given by the appellant are that, he was an illiterate and was not aware of the contents of MoU, as it was written in English though he has subscribed his signature to it and he did not believe the version of the representatives of M/s. Sidhartha Estates and M/s. Surakshita homes, since, they might have written the details, to suppress their incomes. The submissions of the appellant clearly indicate that he is not ready to accept the facts, which were available in black and white. The MoU was not only signed by one of the parties but by all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant received the amounts of ₹ 1,40,00,000/- as indicated in the MoU dated 18.12.2006 and the impounded material, in pursuance of the terms and conditions as laid down in MoU, which has been signed by all the three parties, in presence of witnesses. There is no requirement of further evidences, to confirm the receipt of the amount of ₹ 1,40,00,000/- by the appellant for forfeiting his claim over the land. Accordingly, it is held that the A.O is justified in adopting the amounts received by the appellant at ₹ 1,40,00,000/- and computing the profits at ₹ 1,16,19,800/-. This ground of appeal on this count, accordingly stands dismissed. 5.4 The contention of the A.O for enhancement of assessment by ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide MoU dt. December, 2002 i.e., Purchase agreement by assessee, the total amount payable was about ₹ 92 Lakhs and assessee paid ₹ 20 Lakhs and balance was to be paid. Even though assessee has not received the amounts stated to have been mentioned in the MoU, since the so called statements and accounts have not been confronted, it is requested for setting aside the matter to give proper opportunity to assessee to explain. 5. Ld.DR, however, objected to that. However, it has agreed that statements recorded on Section 131 from those parties are after completion of the assessment, in the remand proceedings. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities. Even though there is evidence tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
