9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount of ₹ 4,09,000/- (Rs. 12,28,700 less ₹ 81,19,700) only, which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue. Addition on account of Earned Money received in respect of sale of agriculture land - Held that:- when the existence of the parties concerned is not in doubt and the majority of the earnest money was received by cheque – details were made available to the AO, and the AO has not proved nor challenged their capacity to give such an earnest money, assessee was not called upon to produce those parties or to file confirmation letters, it was illegal on his part to tax the amount under section 68 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Assessee : Sh. S.K. Jain, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM : This appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the Assessee both are directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohtak dated 14.02.2014 pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10. Since the issues involved in this appeal and cross objection are inter-connected, hence, the same are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by first dealing with Revenue s Appeal. 2. The grounds raised in the Revenue s Appeal read as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in restricting the addition amounting to ₹ 8,19,700/- out of ₹ 12,28,700/- made by AO on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. That the respondent craves leave to add or amend any ground of cross objections before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a salaried employee and filed the return of income declaring at ₹ 1,95,450/- on 21.7.2009 which was later revised on 31.3.2011 at ₹ 3,45,850/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act). Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 20.8.2011 which was served upon the assessee on 24.8.2011 fixing the case for 5.9.2011. Again, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 9.9.2011 was issued to the assessee. In response to the same, the AR of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12,28,700/- made by AO on account of the opening cash in hand is concerned, we find that it is a fact that a statement was filed before the AO which contained certain mistakes. The AO has not commented on this fact in his remand report dated 03.12.2012. All the evidences in the paper book submitted by the assessee alongwith application for additional evidence were not considered by him. However, the correct statement of cash reveals that at no point of time did the assessee have cash in hand which was less than ₹ 8,19,700/-. However, there was an amount of ₹ 8,19,700/- at its maximum, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the credit upto that amount only and sustained the amount of ₹ 4,09,000/- (Rs. 12,28,700 less ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r agreement to sell the agricultural land. In view of the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the entire addition of ₹ 55,21,687/- which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue. 7.2 As regards ground no. 3 relating to deleting the addition amounting to ₹ 29,55,000/- made by the AO on account of Earned Money received in respect of sale of flat is concerned, we find that there was an agreement to sell a flat booked with a builder but possession was still expected. The AO has not questioned the genuineness of the agreement. The initial payment of ₹ 5 lacs is mentioned in the main body of the agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
