9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at assessee has received the amount of ₹ 31 lacs on account of advance received for sale of property. The objections of the Assessing Officer have, therefore, been met and as such, there was no justification for the authorities below to make and confirm the addition of ₹ 31 lacs. Therefore, set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the entire addition. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 901/CHD/2014 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2016 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Ajay Jain For The Respondent : Shri S.K.Mittal, DR ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) Chandigarh dated 09.10.2013 for assessment year 2009-10 on the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sale consideration, the deal did not mature and the assessee had claimed that she had repaid.50% of the amount i.e. ₹ 15,50,000/- to the buyer. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce the concerned person (buyer) and assessee had submitted that the transaction was through property dealer, who introduced the buyer to the assessee and she was not personally known to the buyer and it was also difficult for her to contact the buyer, since she did not have his contact number. The Assessing Officer made the addition of entire deposit of ₹ 31,00,000/- with the following observations: It was observed that; neither the concerned person i.e the so called purchaser or the witness to the agreement to sell has been produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assessing Officer was directed to conduct the enquiry and he had recorded statement of the property dealer, but the property dealer could not substantiate the same with any independent evidence. It has also been reported by the Assessing Officer that the letter to Sh. Rajesh Kumar was received back unserved due to incomplete address. 4. The ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition. His findings in para 5 to 6 are reproduced as under : 5. I have considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel. The impugned deposit of ₹ 31,00,000/- is stated to have been received from one Sh. Rajesh Kumar Raghav with whom the appellant had entered into an agreement to sell a house, but identity of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Raghav is not proved. The witnes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced nor any documentary evidence have been furnished. Further, no documentary evidence with regard to re-payment has been furnished. The Assessing Officer, therefore, confirmed the addition. The assessee, however, explained that since transaction was conducted through property dealer who introduced the buyer, therefore, she was not knowing purchaser personally and it is difficult for her to contact the buyer. 6. The ld. CIT(Appeals), at the appellate stage has directed Assessing Officer to conduct inquiry who had recorded the statement of the property dealer Shri Sandeep Uppal, copy of his statement recorded by the Assessing Officer on 02.11.2012 is filed in the Paper Book at pages 9-13. These facts, therefore, show that the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar Raghav. 6(i) As regards execution of the agreement, he has explained that at present, he does not remember. He has, however, confirmed in his statement that the purchaser has given advance money in front of him at his office. As regards the final deal, he has explained that deal could not be matured therefore, he did not receive the commission. As regards document of cancellation of deal, he did not explain at that time. But, he has confirmed that deal was cancelled and certain amount was refunded by the assessee to purchaser and part amount was forfeited by the assessee. In his further statement, he has stated that Agreement to Sell was executed in his presence and advance payment was also given. The assessee also filed allotment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
