9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleted. Unexplained credit - Addition of sum received on 04.01.2011 from sale of plot at Nangloi, New Delhi - Held that:- The aforesaid sum of consideration had been received against the transfer made by the assessee through account payee cheque and same was also acknowledged by the assessee. Hence, the entire receipt is well explained and has not been doubted as an unexplained credit. The AO has again made no attempt to dispute the receipt through bank account of the vendee to whom the land was transferred which fact has duly been admitted by the transferee. In view of the above, the addition in dispute is hereby deleted. Amount received from sale of old furniture etc. - Held that:- Neither the identity of the creditor nor the creditworthiness can be disputed. Further merely because, such a person on account of medical ground did not appear in response to summons, but file all necessary detail, no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee, as power to enforce the attendance of a witness is with the AO, as per settled law. In fact, it is settled law that if a creditor ignore the summons or don't appear before the AO could not be a ground to draw adverse inference ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en received, which in turn has been invested in the purchase of Unit No. 914, Spaze Towers for ₹ 28,89,000/-. ( f) The appellant has been unable to explain the source from which the appellant has allegedly received the amounts in its bank account. ( g) The explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source of the sums found credited in the books, was not satisfactory. ( h) The appellant failed to discharge its onus to produce legally acceptable evidence of genuineness of the transactions. ( i) The appellant has offered no creditable explanation about the amounts of ₹ 28,89,000/- credited in the books maintained by the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that :- ( a) The appellant had filed sufficient evidence in respect of purchase of rights of 618A, SPAZE-I, TECH PARK , Sector 49, Sohna-Gurgaon Road, which were for a consideration of ₹ 20,89,0001- in November 2009 and transfer thereof to the original allottee, namely, Sanjiv Bindra-HUF in terms of letter dated 01.03.2011. ( b) The appellant received investment return of ₹ 5,57,280/- from M/s. Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd., which was sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 36,04,367/- vide assessment order dated 31.3.2014 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by makings the additions of ₹ 28,89,000/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated 08.5.2015 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee thereby upholding the addition made by the AO. 3. Aggrieved with the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) while upholding the additions in dispute has failed to appreciate that the assessee had filed sufficient evidence in respect of purchase of rights of 618A, SPAZE-I, TECH PARK , Sector 49, Sohna-Gurgaon Road, which were for a consideration of ₹ 20,89,000/- in November 2009 and transfer thereof to the original allottee, namely, Sanjiv Bindra-HUF in terms of letter dated 01.03.2011; the assessee received investment return of ₹ 5,57,280/- from M/s. Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd., which was shown as interest income under the head, Income from other sources in her Income-tax Return. However, the assessee inadvertently declared interest of ₹ 5,01,552/- (Net amount after d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2010; copy of letter dated 1.3.2011 of Sh. Sanjiv Bindra Karta of Sanjiv Bindra (HUF) to M/s Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd; copy of the cheque given by the assessee to Sh. Sanjiv Bindra Karta of Sanjiv Bindra (HUF); copy of receipt of the cheque in respect of sale of old furniture; copy of the affidavit of Sh. Bal Kishan Vij alongwith Will for the sale of land; and copy of the written submissions filed before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, he requested that additions in dispute may be deleted and appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 5. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and strongly opposed the request of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the order of the Ld. CIT(A). I find that AO in his assessment dated 31.03.2013 passed uls 143(3) of the Act has computed the total income of the assessee at ₹ 36,04,367/-, as against the income returned of ₹ 6,59,639/-- inter-alia making additions of: (a) Addition uls 69C of the Act of ₹ 28,89,000/- (b) Income from other sources (to be added to the income as per assessee's contention) of ₹ 55, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of her existing account and that the aforesaid sum is paid out of her balance in the account. It was submitted that the first of the credit of ₹ 20,89,0001- (which is a sum added) represented an amount of receipt on 01.03.2011 on transfer of rights in a space which had been acquired by her from M/s Sanjiv Bindra HUF on 16.11.2009. It was explained that the assessee had acquired such right in the space from M/s Sanjiv Bindra HUF on 16.11.2009 (page 27-28 of PB) which rights had been acquired by M/s Sanjiv Bindra HUF under an MOU dated 12.09.2007 from M/s Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. Thus the credit of ₹ 20,89,000/- appearing in the bank account represents a sum of receipt which is fully and satisfactorily explainable and is supported by evidence and is in fact a refund of the amount earlier invested on 16.11.2009 (A Y 2010-11). In such circumstances, it is evident that the payment made by the assessee of ₹ 26,42,127/- cannot be regarded as an unexplained expenditure by any stretch of imagination. To support the receipt from M/s Sanjiv Bindra HUF on transfer of rights, the assessee had placed on record the following documentary evidences: S.No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gaon for ₹ 20,89,0001- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Eighty Jvine Thousand only) as total consideration including other charges paid to you also. I have made full payment to Mrs. Rama Saluja wlof Mr. Ram Avatar Saluja Rio H-63, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi -110015 in her SB Ale No. 151321 with PNB, Branch Kirti Nagar, and New Delhi through RTGS on OFt March' 2011. b. M/s Spaze Tower P. Ltd. as would be seen accordingly endorsed the booking right. Page 39 6.4 Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the AO has incorrectly made an addition of the aforesaid sum by invoking the provision of section 69C of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has not incurred expenditure in respect of which she has not been able to explain the source of such expenditure and hence the addition of ₹ 20,89,000/- is not tenable as the same amount of ₹ 20,89,000/- sum which is an amount received by the assessee and is thus fully explained and assessee has laid complete documentary evidences to establish the same as such, addition made and sustained is wholly unsustainable in law. Apart from above, the identity of the creditor and existence and identity can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition in dispute is hereby deleted. 6.7 With respect to addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- received from sale of old furniture etc. is concerned, I find that assessee has received a sum of ₹ 3,00,000/- on 08.01.2011 by account payee cheque from Mrs. Sashi Aggarwal in respect of the sale of the old furniture, and to support the aforesaid transaction, assessee has also filed the confirmation from Mrs. Sashi Aggarwal who has duly confirmed the purchase of the furniture from the appellant. Copy of the receipt of the cheque from Smt. Sashi Aggarwal has been placed at page 41 of the Paper Book. As per record the assessee was a co-owner of 1/4th share in house no. 62, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi which house property was sold for an aggregate consideration of ₹ 1 crores and assessee share being 1/4th received a sum of ₹ 25 lakhs being 1/4th of the total consideration which was credited in her account on 12.08.2011 when the sale deed was registered (copy of the sale deed and bank account is placed on record). Apart from the aforesaid, the assessee has also received ₹ 3 lakhs towards the sale of household goods such as Furniture, cabins, boards, drawing tables, sofas e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
