9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loose sheet (A-3 Page-5) found from third party when there was no such transaction and his actions as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) without appreciating the correct facts is bad both on the facts and in law. 2. That in any view of the matter Since the alleged recipient of the amount denied receipt of payment of Rs. 10 Lakh from the appellant vide his confirmatory letter dated 12.02.2016 nor any evidence was brought on record by the department in support of such alleged payment by the appellant to the said company, hence the addition so made and confirmed by the two lower authorities is uncalled for in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That in any view of the matter the learned Commissioner of Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r marked as annexure A-3 page 5 was found and seized, which is a receipt in the name of the assessee, for a sum of Rs. 10 Lakh for booking a flat. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the source of such receipts, in response to which the assessee, vide his reply dated 15/2/2016 stated that the alleged amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was not paid by the assessee to the Company. The Director of the Company, Shri Hemant Kumar Sindhi, vide his letter dated 12/2/2016, confirmed the fact that the assessee had not paid such amount, as the receipt for Rs. 10 lakhs issued to the assessee was cancelled due to non-payment. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation so furnished by the assessee and made the addition of Rs. 10 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat therefore, the contention of the assessee that no such advance was given by the assessee, is not tenable in the eyes of law. He prayed that therefore, the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) requires no interference, as he has rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 6. Heard. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee booked a flat with the Company, M/s H.K. Infraventure Pvt. Ltd., who issued a receipt dated 2/5/2012 for Rs. 10 lakhs. However, since no payment had been made by the assessee, the receipt issued by the Company had been cancelled. The fact of not receiving the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs from the assessee has also been confirmed by the Director of the Company, Shri Hemant Kumar Sidhi, vide letter dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of Rs. 10 lakhs for booking of the flat. Merely relying on the receipt, which was seized 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 Rs. 10 lakhs for booking of the flat. Therefore, the addition so made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), purely on guesswork and conjectures and surmises, cannot be sustained. 9. In view of the above, we reverse the order under appeal and delete the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs made under section 69 of the Act. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
