9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed from a third party, and despite the unrebutted fact that the said receipt had been cancelled by the Company, as affirmed by the Director, in his letter dated 12/2/2016, it cannot be concluded that the assessee had made payment of ₹ 10 lakhs for booking of the flat. Therefore, the addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), purely on guesswork and conjectures and surmises, cannot be sustained. We reverse the order under appeal and delete the addition of ₹ 10 lakhs made u/s 69. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.45/ALLD/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) - - - Dated:- 22-11-2019 - SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by: Shri Prave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and confirmed arbitrarily is liable to be deleted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That in any view of the matter observations and findings of the two lower authorities in their orders for making and confirming addition are highly unjustified, incorrect and contrary to the actual facts of the case hence the same are liable to be sponged off and the addition so made and confirmed based on presumption surmises and conjectures is liable to be deleted in interest of justice. 5. That in any view of the matter the interest charged under different sections of the I.T Act is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The brief facts of the case are th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the receipt dated 2/5/2012 for ₹ 10 lakhs was issued by the Company, simply on the basis of verbal assurance given by the assessee/purchaser, but no payment could be made by the assessee to the Company due to non-availability of fund; that since the assessee failed to deposit the amount, the Company cancelled the receipt, which fact has been confirmed by the Director of the Company, Shri Hemant Kumar Sindhi, vide his letter dated 12/2/2016; that no such transaction was entered into between the assessee and the Company; and that the document seized from the premises of a third party, without any evidence to show that the alle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal held that the seized document on the basis of which the addition was made by the AO is a conversation between S and one of the clients of M. Except the document containing conversation between two third parties, there is no other evidence brought on record by the AO to indicate cash payment to the assessee. In fact, in the course of assessment proceedings when the assessee was confronted with the seized document, she flatly denied having received any cash from M. Further, an affidavit was also filed on behalf of M stating that no cash was either accepted on behalf of the assessee or paid to her. Thus, when no corroborative evidence has been brought on record indicating cash payment, merely relying upon some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
