9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 2) The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by making additions of Rs. 60,00,000/- under the head business income. 3) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) failed to appreciate that the Cheque of Rs. 60,00,000/- as referred in the conveyance deed was not deposited in your Appellant's Bank Account. 4) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming in law and on facts by treating additions of Rs. 60,00,000/- as unexplained money. The aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. Your Appellant craves leave to add / alter / amend any one or more of the aforesaid grounds and / or to make new submissions at the hearing of the appeal as well as to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er '000132'. However, the purchaser requested all the three co-owners that the cheques issued should not be deposited till they were further intimated in this regard. Later, only Mr. Dilipsinh Shoorji Vallabhdas was instructed to deposit the cheque but the assessee and Mr. Pratapsinh Shoorji Vallabhdas were never instructed to deposit the cheques. Accordingly, the assessee did not deposit the cheque received from the purchaser. Later, in the A.Y. 2013-14 the purchaser paid the Rs. 60.00,000/- to the assessee in cash in tranches and the same were deposited by the assessee in her bank account no. '910010004391093' with Axis Bank between 17th July, 2012 and 4th September, 2012, the details of which are as follows: Sr. No. Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -12. The said amount remained to be recovered from the Purchaser since the A.Y. 2011-12 till the time the same was received in A.Y. 2013-14. Our attention was also invited to the audited Balance Sheet on the Asset side under the head 'Loans and Advances' for the A.Ys.2011-12 and 2012-13 indicating the amount receivable from M/s. Kanchi Koncept Builders Pvt. Ltd, thereby establishing this fact that the said amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- was not recovered by the assessee from the Purchaser in the A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13. 5.1. It was further argued that even though the assessee had not received the consideration from the Purchaser in the A.Y. 2011-12, the capital gains earned on the said transaction of Rs. 52,09,409/- (1/3rd share of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... website showing registered office of the Purchaser, list of directors and the details of PAN of the company and also that of the Directors. The A.O. issued the notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the Purchaser which could not be served. Thereafter the assessee provided new address of the Purchaser to the A.O. and the new notice was issued by the A.O. and the same remained unserved. However, it is submitted that after providing the new address to the A.O., only single attempt was made to serve the said notice on the Purchaser and no further efforts were carried out to serve the said notice once again whereby the A.O. could have confirmed the facts from the Purchaser. It is, therefore, submitted that the solitary attempt made by the A.O. to gat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d amount was deposited by the assessee in her bank account. It is also a matter of record that profit earned on the sale proceeds of Rs. 60,00,000/- out of the sale of land was already offered as capital given in the A.Y.2011-12 which was under scrutiny by the Assessing Officer and assessment order was passed on 30/03/2014 for the A.Y.2011-12. The AO had dealt with the issue of capital gains on sale of this land at para 13 and after giving deduction on account of indexed cost of acquisition brought capital gain of Rs. 52,09,409/- to tax net. It is also a matter of record that tax liability on the said capital gains was also paid by the assessee in the A.Y.2011-12, no further liability remain to be paid on the said transactions. It is also n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of Rs. 60,00,000/- was never received by the assessee in the A.Y. 2011-12. Therefore, the amount received by the assessee during the A.Y. 2013-14 is nothing but the consideration received as part of the said transaction of sale of land and the stand taken by the A.O. and upheld by the CIT(A) is erroneous on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 8. Further, the CIT(A) has also erred in observing that the assessee did not advance any reason as to why the cheque of Rs. 60,00,000/-received from the Purchaser was not deposited in the bank. In fact the assessee has offered the explanation that the assessee along with other co-owner, Mr. Pratapsinh Shoorji Vallabhdas, were restrained by the Purchaser from depositing the cheques and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
