9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he hands of assessee. The said advances have been made to two co-owners of the property i.e. the assessee in the present case and Shri Sanjeev Gajanan Rasane. The assessee points out that the total consideration fixed was ₹ 90 lakhs and ₹ 45 lakhs was received by both the co-owners i.e. including the assessee. The assessment in the case of Shri Sanjeev Gajanan Rasane has been completed under section 143(3) vide order dated 07.03.2013 and no addition in this regard has been made in the hands of co-owner. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in any addition in the hands of assessee and the same is deleted. Accordingly, an addition of ₹ 44,69,950/- made in the hands of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee is against addition made on account of cash deposits in bank by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 22,34,975/- and enhanced by the CIT(A) by another ₹ 22,35,000/-. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had furnished return of income declaring total income of ₹ 22,76,600/- including agricultural income of ₹ 3,40,600/-. The assessee was working as civil contractor and was also partner in the firm and was having agricultural income. The assessee was asked to produce the bills of cash deposits in all the bank accounts with sources thereof. The summary of cash deposits in bank accounts is tabulated under para 3 at page 2 of the assessment order, which totals to ₹ 44,69,950/-. The Assessing Officer note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 22,34,975/- being 50% of cash received of ₹ 44,69,950/- and added back the same to the income of assessee. 6. The CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee had concocted the story of receiving cash advance against sale of land to Shri Vinod Joshi and Shri Sanjay Loharkar, in order to explain cash deposits made by him in his bank account with Punjab National Bank and NDCC Bank. The CIT(A) further observed the assessee to have concocted Sathekhat agreement, affidavits and the confirmations of the above referred two persons and the transaction was held to be fabricated. The CIT(A) further held that where the assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness of two persons and the genuineness of transaction, the cash deposits i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessee further pointed out that the landholding was about 22.50 acres and 27 acres of the two persons and even if landholding was not enough, family had sufficient landholding, which is not disputed. 8. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 9. On perusal of record and Paper Book filed by the assessee, the issue arising in the present appeal is in relation to the addition made on account of cash deposits in the bank accounts of assessee. The claim of assessee is that the said amount was received from two persons Mr. Vinod Joshi and Mr. Sanjay Loharkar, who in turn, had confirmed the advancement of the said amount to the assessee and had also appeared before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .04.2009 to 27.03.2010 in cash in Punjab National Bank. Further, sum of ₹ 2 lakhs has been deposited on 30.03.2010 in NDCC bank, thus totaling ₹ 44,69,950/-. The source of said cash deposits is an advance received against land from Mr. Vinod Joshi and Mr.Sanjay Loharkar. The summary of cash deposits in bank accounts are placed at page 15 of the Paper Book. The assessee had furnished copies of affidavit and Sathekhat agreements furnished by the two persons, as per which, sum of ₹ 22 lakhs was given in cash against property at Gat No.278/1A and Mr. Sanjay Loharkar had given cash of ₹ 22,50,000/- as an advance for the property at Gat No.191, 200/3, 194/2. The said transactions were required to be completed by 31.03.2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the relevant documents and also the persons who have given the amount have accepted to have given, there is no merit in making any addition in the hands of assessee. 10. Another point to be noted in the case is that the said advances have been made to two co-owners of the property i.e. the assessee in the present case and Shri Sanjeev Gajanan Rasane. The assessee points out that the total consideration fixed was ₹ 90 lakhs and ₹ 45 lakhs was received by both the co-owners i.e. including the assessee. The assessment in the case of Shri Sanjeev Gajanan Rasane has been completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 07.03.2013 and no addition in this regard has been made in the hands of co-owner. In the totality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
